To Robert's Translation of Kholoruuf's "Notes on Goodness"

Home

Robert's Translation of the "Amazing Coincience" Argument

from the Truth-Engine Book Did a Ship from

Another World Crash Near Ashekh in Kaleh.


DID A SHIP FROM ANOTHER WORLD CRASH NEAR ASHEKH IN KALEH?


[Note that since Robert's translation covers only part of a larger work, it includes references (passage numbers and page numbers) without referents.]

The “Amazing Coincidence” Argument


I think Skeptic’s arguments here are the strongest arguments against the claim that the Ashekh debris was otherworldly. But there is a good answer to them, and in the process of rebutting them, we learn something new about the visitors’ intentions. Skeptic says:

[vs. 89 (p. 1c.)] You claim (see 89) that “an alien spacecraft crashed and left the debris in the Forest of Kesh near the village of Ashekh in Kaleh.” The following is an argument against that claim: 400Army officer Telterrik-Bohot, in his log for the twentieth day of the fourth month of the year thirty-one of the forty-ninth tlahok (see 271-286, p. 8), describes the launch of a very small unmanned reconnaissance [literally spy] cloudship. 401This ship was lost and never recovered. 402My dear Believer, I’m sure you will agree that this cloudship might well have carried a king’s authorization of flight 403If it did, then the ship probably had the emblem of the Prince of Kaleh printed on its sail strip. 404Furthermore, there are good reasons (see above, 293, p. 8) to think that this flight was heading toward the Forest of Kesh when it disappeared and equally good reasons (323-328) to think it wasn’t. The flight path cannot be reconstructed. 405Therefore it remains a distinct possibility that on the twentieth day of the fourth month of the year thirty-one of the forty-ninth tlahok, a flight carrying the emblem of the Prince of Kaleh was launched and was heading toward the Forest of Kesh in Kaleh when it disappeared.

Now consider this: 406If such a craft crashed into the Forest of Kesh, its remains would consist of gossamer sails, emblazoned with the prince’s symbol; light-wood beams; three clear plastic fuel bottles; sponges (to seal the bottles); plastic twine, and a small box engine. 407But this matches exactly the gross properties of the Forest of Kesh debris. 408Everyone agrees that the Ashekh debris consisted of a gossamer-like substance with a pattern on it that closely or exactly resembled the emblem of the Prince of Kaleh, light-wood-like beams, three clear bottle-like objects, pieces of a spongelike material, tough string, and a small box. 409If the Ashekh debris was from a crashed, otherworldly spacecraft, then this amazing cloudship match was coincidental. 410But the chances are infinitesimal that a crashed exotic craft would just happen to leave wreckage that so closely and coincidentally matched, even in gross appearance, the parts of a reconnaissance cloudship that may well have disappeared in the same area at roughly the same time. It’s ridiculous to believe that such a fantastically incredible coincidence occurred. 411So the material was almost certainly not that of a crashed alien craft.*


Summary

409If the debris did come from a crashed alien craft, the match was coincidental.

410But the match was almost certainly not coincidental (since the chances of such a coincidence would be tiny).

Therefore

411The debris was almost certainly not that of a crashed alien craft (MT*).


412[vs. 87, p. 1c.] My dear Believer, you say (see 87) that “the recovered materials, the bodies, and the ship itself were exotic, otherworldly.” 413Now if the material was otherworldly, then an otherworldly ship crashed. But I’ve just proved that (411)the debris was almost certainly not that of a crashed otherworldly craft. 414So the materials were almost certainly not otherworldly.

Summary


413If the material was otherworldly, then an alien ship crashed.

411The debris was almost certainly not that of a crashed alien craft. (It is almost certain that an alien ship did not crash.)

Therefore

414The materials were almost certainly not otherworldly (MT*).


415[vs. 413] I actually agree with Skeptic when he says, “(410) The match was not coincidental,” and so I agree that “(411)The debris was not that of a crashed otherworldly craft.”

But I think his claim that “(413)If the material was otherworldly, then an alien ship crashed” is baseless because it is possible that the material was exotic even if there had been no crash. This is possible because the materials could have been left by aliens in order to simulate a crash—that is, the aliens might have staged a crash. In this case the materials would be otherworldly without a crash having occurred at all. Since 413 is baseless, the conclusion, “414The materials were almost certainly not otherworldly” is also unjustified. 415Skeptic, although he has proven there was almost certainly no crash, simply has not shown that the materials were not otherworldly. (But notice that a claim that the materials were otherworldly requires the aliens to have staged a crash.) The skeptic, however, might say:

416[vs. 415 and vs. 183] You seem to be suggesting not merely that the idea that it was staged is possible but that it is actually plausible. But that’s ridiculous. Ockham’s Razor [rokhshe palatke—literally “the law of parsimony”] simply rules it out. You have all these aliens from some other planet staging this elaborate effect for who-knows-what complex reason when the simple drone explanation is right there. You have no reason to attribute the Ashekh incident to aliens.


I do not think that the alien-staging explanation is merely plausible; I think it’s highly probable.

418[vs. 416] But if that was all there was to the argument, then the idea of “alien staging” would, indeed, be ruled out by Ockham’s Razor. But the following argument forces us to accept alien staging. First let’s assume that you’re correct in saying (see 413) that “if the material was otherworldly, then an alien ship crashed,” and see where that gets us: 419 iIf the material was otherworldly, then a saucer crashed, but iiif the material was not exotic, then the testimony of Officer Ishshor and the other witnesses, who stated that the recovered materials were far stronger and far more durable than any human-made material, or known natural material, is unreliable. 420Either i the material was otherworldly or iiit was not otherworldly. 421Therefore either ia saucer crashed or iithe testimony of Ishshor and the others is unreliable.*


Summary


419 iIf the material was otherworldly, then an alien ship crashed, and iiif the material was not otherworldly, then the witnesses were unreliable.

420Either ithe material was otherworldly, or iiit was not otherworldly.

Therefore

421Either ian alien ship crashed or iithe testimony of Ishshor and the others is unreliable.


422But 421 seems (probably) false—that is, it seems that both 421i and 421ii are (probably) false. You showed (see 410) that the debris at Ashekh (very probably) didn’t come from a crashed alien ship, and the believer showed (see 86, p. 1c.) that the witness testimony (probably) is reliable.

423But if the conclusion (421) is false, then at least one of the premises (419 or 420) must be false. 424The false premise cannot be 420, because it’s just simply true that the debris was either otherworldly or not. 425Therefore it is 419 that is probably false—but which part of 419? 426Clearly 419ii is true; it’s simply true that if the debris wasn’t otherworldly, then the witness testimony was not reliable. 427Therefore, probably, what is false is 419i; i.e., it must be false to say that if the debris was otherworldly, then a saucer crashed—that is, it’s true that the debris was otherworldly, yet there was no crash. 428This forces us to conclude that the “crash” was staged by otherworldly beings.


The skeptic could say:

429[vs. 428] You can solve this dilemma in one of two ways: First you could do as you do, and question the truth of 419i. But alternatively, you could say, contra your 422, that 421 is not false—that, even if it seemed improbable, 421ii is true; that is, that the witness testimony is, in fact, unreliable. 430It seems more reasonable to do it the second way.


431[vs. 430] But I think it’s more reasonable to do it the first way. The idea of alien staging was rejected (417) only because of Ockham’s Razor; it was not deemed improbable. The fact that the witness testimony is unreliable, however, is improbable.

Notes

411. 409, 410 MT*

414. 413, 411 MT. from an argument by Tshoemsere: pp. 10-11

421. 419, 420 ECR**


*MT stands for “modus tollens,” The valid argument form that has this structure (where p and q are any two statements): “If p then q. Not-q. Therefore not-p.” The Atlanians called this form ash palle.

**ECR stands for what the Atlanians called the “Exclusive Constructive Rule” (Atshkel Parkahe Kesh). Since the premises seem true, but the conclusion seems false, this form is what we call a “constructive dilemma.”

To Robert's Translation of Kholoruuf's "Notes on Goodness"

Home