But then my friend the philologist remarked that, although my ideas were not without interest, they had not been proved by anything.
At first, I was extremely surprised, but when I managed to understand the sense of what he was saying I saw that here, too, he was strictly consistent.
He called proof only a text containing precisely formulated information, but not considerations about the subject raised. Of course, I did not agree with him.
Because then I would have been obliged to assert that Prester John ruled in the "Three Indias"!
[...] In the accounting system offered, a "proved statement" will not be one which has a footnote to an authentic source, but one which does not contradict
strictly established facts and logic, however paradoxical the conclusion based on such principles. Incidentally, this is how all natural scientists work.
Thurl Ravenscroft: Yes, it's Superior Duck! The Duck of Yesterday! Daffy: Tomorrow. The Duck of Tomorrow. Ravenscroft: Oh, uh, y-y-yes. Ahem. Superior Duck, the Duck of Tomorrow! Yes, it's Superior Duck! Able to leap the tallest locomotive! Daffy: There is no such thing as the tallest locomotive. The accepted verb is not leap; the noun is not locomotive. Understandez-vous? Ravenscroft: Yes, uh, oh yes, yes. Superior Duck! Faster than a speeding building!
Daffy: [to audience] Do you too have trouble with your narrators?
Battler:At the end of the 1st game, it was revealed that this story was passed on to people in the future by that message bottle.
......Someone had written about this crime...this tale.
In other words, ......this tale is all part of a world that includes the personal opinions of an observer, namely, the person who wrote the message in a bottle.
In other words the observer isn't God. It's a human.
Therefore, there's no guarantee that this description is truly impartial.
By the end of the first game, it had already been made clear that we had broken the constant premise of the mystery genre: that the story itself must be seen though the eyes of God.
