Replies

Groundless disbelief of an assertion is not unreasonable as nobody is obliged to adhere to any arbitrary belief. However, depending on what is being disbelieved, disbelief may be fundamentally irrational, e.g. 20 story fall onto pavement is lethal. However, belief of an assertion MUST have grounds for such belief; the onus is not on the the disbliever to prove their disbelief, but on those making the assertion why belief is warranted. The logic (or lack therof) employed in one's inference of purported truth can then legitimately be attacked by an oppenent.

Concerning the role of reason in confirming truth Aristotle and Plato, like many philosophers throughout history, wrote:

"People use logic, deduction, and induction, to reach conclusions they think are true. Conclusions reached in this way are considered more certain than sense perceptions on their own. On the other hand, if such reasoned conclusions are only built originally upon a foundation of sense perceptions, then, the argument being considered goes, our most logical conclusions can never be said to be certain because they are built upon the very same fallible perceptions they seek to better." Properties of logical systems consist of:

Completeness, which means that if a theorem is true, it can be proven.
Consistency, which means that no theorem of the system contradicts another.
Validity, which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from true premises.
Soundness, A logical system has the property of soundness when the logical system has the property of validity and only uses premises that prove true (or, in the case of axioms, are true by definition).

On the surface it would seem the matter comes down to refuting a dilemma in that an either or situation is at hand. Dilemas can be refuted by either grabbing the bull by the horns, or escaping between the horns. The former would entail proving either conjunct false, i.e., disprove the missile or the plane theory. Escaping between the horns as a method to refute the dilema, not so much; it requiring a sound third alternative, e.g., ortho-linear methane hydrate ejecta-bolide phenomena.

Quite frankly I disbelieve that the missile theory can be complete on a fundamental level. All arguments made in its defense have been speculative, intuitive and axiomatic assertation. At best a strong inductive form of the arguement may be plausible, however I outright disbelieve the possibility of it being cogent. The foregoing especially since the images at posts #51 & #303 are mutually exclusive with the arguments made in support of the theory. I believe this to be evidence for lack of consistancy. Therefor, the validity of the missile theory is entirely immaterial (if not outright irrelevent), and ultimately its soundness wholly moot.