Smithers couldn't have shot Mr. Burns because, as Sideshow Mel pointed out, Burns was shot while Smithers was at home watching the TV program that he quoted on the news.
The ‘Smithers did it’ alternate ending was written as an attempted prank on any media who would publish spoilers (although none did in the event). It’s stupid and contradictory on purpose.
Inductive reasoning: what appears to be true, but there's still room for another explanation, usually a less probable one. Think I've got it. The Court System
I would say Lisa is guilty of inductive reasoning in Lisa's angel. While the fossil is fake, the only thing she knows is that it isn't an angel because they don't exist. If it weren't a fake, for arguments sake, and she were wrong, her only defense would be that she knew angels don't exist. Sidebar: her fish explanation is terrible based on the fact that the fishbones don't look like wings and the "angel's" wings are crossed.
Yes, her arguments were initially hasty, however her character is skeptical and the body of evidence against angels existing in evolutionary biology made her doubt the fact it was an angel and further research would be needed, she thought, to determine it actually was or was not in fact one. The rest of the community instead immediately concluded it was an angel, as the skeleton had angelic aspects (i.e. skeletal wings).
Playlist: ruclips.net/video/RnMmXTVOjBY/видео.html
Smithers couldn't have shot Mr. Burns because, as Sideshow Mel pointed out, Burns was shot while Smithers was at home watching the TV program that he quoted on the news.
pardon my zinger
The ‘Smithers did it’ alternate ending was written as an attempted prank on any media who would publish spoilers (although none did in the event). It’s stupid and contradictory on purpose.
These videos are fascinating
This explains why I can’t do Prometheus
Inductive reasoning: what appears to be true, but there's still room for another explanation, usually a less probable one. Think I've got it.
The Court System
love these videos keep it up! you have a new sub
Thx!
Murdidilyurder
If you’re not Flanders, you’ve done your homework.
Would Bart saying that's not the real Ned Flanders be a No True Scotsman fallacy?
🐱👍
I would say Lisa is guilty of inductive reasoning in Lisa's angel. While the fossil is fake, the only thing she knows is that it isn't an angel because they don't exist. If it weren't a fake, for arguments sake, and she were wrong, her only defense would be that she knew angels don't exist. Sidebar: her fish explanation is terrible based on the fact that the fishbones don't look like wings and the "angel's" wings are crossed.
Yes, her arguments were initially hasty, however her character is skeptical and the body of evidence against angels existing in evolutionary biology made her doubt the fact it was an angel and further research would be needed, she thought, to determine it actually was or was not in fact one. The rest of the community instead immediately concluded it was an angel, as the skeleton had angelic aspects (i.e. skeletal wings).