Yes I am open to the possibility in the sense that all my beliefs are
provisional. However that doesn't me that I'm willing to give equal
attention to every just-so story someone makes up; there simply isn't
enough time in a single lifetime even if I wanted to.
If your theory on non-coincidental coincidences (or any other theory for
that matter) doesn't explain something that can't be explained otherwise,
why propose it? Also, if the new theory is predicated on some postulated
phenomenon that would be inconsistent with my current set of beliefs, then
(obviously) I have to discard some of my current beliefs to maintain
consistency. I don't mind doing that, but I do require strong evidence
because I usually have good reasons for holding the beliefs that I do.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/