[adiaireton8]

So you are in the gray area. Ergo you leave the door open to accept "just so" stories (and the opinion of experts) on par with evidence and proofs --- whereas I value them only one step above "imaginings."

A "just so" story is an imaginary but entirely speculative explanation of some event or phenomenon. We should reject "just so" stories, ceteris paribus, because there is no evidence that they are true. But that does not mean that personal testimony is therefore unreliable or non-evidential. The notion that we must choose between accepting "just so" stories and personal testimony is a false dilemma. A personal testimony is evidence, and its strength depends on the character and credibility of the speaker.

-A8

[Alamo-Girl]

A "just so" story is an imaginary but entirely speculative explanation of some event or phenomenon. We should reject "just so" stories, ceteris paribus, because there is no evidence that they are true.

Evolutionary biologists who use that very phrase, "just so story" to describe their theory on the evolution of the eye and brain would probably take issue with the word "speculative."

But it's an ok word for me - as I do not value the opinions of experts very much at all.