[AndrewC]

If all the evidence points to something, that's pretty good reason for believing whatever it is.

The first piece of evidence is "all" at the beginning. Why go on? And if the necessary condition is "all", why stop?

All of the evidence pointed to Galveston getting clobbered. It didn't.

[Vive ut Vivas]

The first piece of evidence is "all" at the beginning. Why go on?

Because you might have difficulty explaining things. For example, if someone tells a blind person that an object is blue, and later the blind person hears another person refer to the object as red, then the initial assumption that the object is blue fails to explain why the second person said it was red.

And if the necessary condition is "all", why stop?

You'll notice that science hasn't stopped yet.

All of the evidence pointed to Galveston getting clobbered. It didn't.

Obviously you have evidence that it didn't.