| rdfs:comment
| - Just one quick thing to add for those reading this: Just because a thought could be true, does not necessarily make it a valid theory. For example, one might posit the thought that Libby and Ana-Lucia are not dead and that their killings were a hallucination. Could this conceivably be true? Sure. The entire series hasn't been written, so the producers could find some way to bring back the characters, as much as a strech as it would be. Does it make for a valid theory? No, as there is absolutely zero supporting evidence. Think of the movie "Dumb and Dumber", when Lauren Holly told Jim Carrey the odds were a million to one against him, and his response was, "So you're saying there's a chance...". That's not enough of a chance for something to be considered a valid theory, or, in the inverse,
|
| abstract
| - Just one quick thing to add for those reading this: Just because a thought could be true, does not necessarily make it a valid theory. For example, one might posit the thought that Libby and Ana-Lucia are not dead and that their killings were a hallucination. Could this conceivably be true? Sure. The entire series hasn't been written, so the producers could find some way to bring back the characters, as much as a strech as it would be. Does it make for a valid theory? No, as there is absolutely zero supporting evidence. Think of the movie "Dumb and Dumber", when Lauren Holly told Jim Carrey the odds were a million to one against him, and his response was, "So you're saying there's a chance...". That's not enough of a chance for something to be considered a valid theory, or, in the inverse, to disqualify accepted truths from being considered facts...--Bernini 17:16, 26 May 2006 (PDT) Amen. i don't like the wording "a theory is a belief..". A theory and a belief are quite opposite. Wiktionary [1] has a very good scientific definiition: [a theory is] "A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena." perhaps a better definition (for Lostpedia) would be: "A theory is a coherent statement, observation, or fact, or a collection of the above, that attempts to explain an observed event/phenomenon" 14:02, 29 May 2006 (PDT) I don't care what the dictionary calls a theory, all users are enttled to his or her sa on what's going on with a person as long as it is located in the correct part of a page (see my post below), but if sed theory involves something that is completely bogus, for instance a gigantic moose controls everything on the island from his bachelor pad in a satelite, then it should be removed. This is, after all, intended to be an reference for LOST, not a repository for stupid ideas. Many of you are fimiliar with my thoughts on non-cannon site articles, Theories sit on the borderline for me, but if a theory is just stupid I say delete it. Also if it is not basked up by some lost fact, back it up or (if not possible) delete it. 18:42, 26 May 2006 (PDT) as far as i'm concerned, what we need to differentiate between is ideas which have developed some degree of consensus and support online, and those which are the view of one or two people; much as i love his work, Themisfitishere is a perfect example of the latter. the internet sort of imposes its own rigour on theories when it comes to things that are popular; if there's a hole in your theory, someone will notice. and essentially that's what distinguishes between theory and opinion. you can be non-canon, yet your theory can fit, but the converse of that also applies. -- 19:02, 26 May 2006 (PDT) (wow, so many colons) the problem is, at this point all current theories aren't based on any evidence, or based on baseless evidence that can be easily evaded by same baseless counter-attack.. we don't know what it is, and most probably the producers will try to come up with something that we won't assume and then there are two choices: give up or keep all in. I don't know if I am breaking a taboo by saying this but lostpedia shouldn't just be a place for lost information, but also contain lost misinformation, like non-canon sites, so one can check here, trust here and say "gee, so thats not a part of the show?".. and if some user enjoys wasting his/her time by entering down the details about some non-canon site, they can knock themeselves out.. extending this, there can also exist some wacko theory, not in great lengths perhaps, or maybe even personally debunked by producers.. and there is.. but i'm just trying to stop this nice part of the wiki; it also tells us debunked/dropped details, and i just hope for a policy that dont go harsh on different aspects thing.. surely that doesn't mean moose controlling the island theory should be kept out of respect, but also doesnt mean that a theory involving aliens should be debunked because it lacks soo much evidence (it has more than moose one thats for sure.. still baseless tho).. 21:34, 26 May 2006 (PDT) Where theories are concerned, I don't mind giving a bit of leeway on them. As an example, on the Michael page there is a theory: The construction company he worked for was a Widmore company. There is nothing in the show to back this up as a theory. It is simply speculation based on 2 facts: "Michael worked construction" and "there is a Widmore construction company". It's a possibility (though with Michael off the island I don't suppose they will be doing another flashback concentrating on him) however and I personally don't have a big problem with leaving it in the theories section even though it is not really a "theory" per se. This approach requires using some common sense though. In contrast I give you the Kate theory section (or what was the section before I deleted it):
* Kate is Persephone. Two years after the crash of Flight 815 she (and possibly others) make it back to civilization and she tries to bring down the Hanso Foundation for what they're doing on the island. As Hugh McIntyre said on Jimmy Kimmel Live, the Lost creators have attached themselves to The Hanso Foundation. In this line of thought, if Lost exsists within it's own reality, she may also have given the creators of the show the idea for Lost based on her experience.
* She accedently kills Ray Mullen just like she accedently kills Tom Brennan.
* She wants the marshall dead in the same way Michael wants Libby dead. They both ask Jack, "Did he/she say anything?" The first is just a complete flight of fancy, the second baseless, and the third is a misrepresentation (both were concerned about the knowledge that could be transferred by the dying parties, hence the statements). None of these qualify as theories in my opinion. Bottom line, I think a guideline/policy is very useful to have here and what I see on the main page looks good. Implementation doesn't need to be completely strict, in my opinion, but can be applied with common sense. If anyone has a big issue with their "theories" getting deleted, offer them the opportunity to list out unfounded theories on their userpage.. I've got a bunch of them on mine; some credible, some complete jokes. Mostly, I just don't want to see this turn into a "theory police" situation where people are gaming the system to keep or remove content.--Isotope23 06:26, 30 May 2006 (PDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)