For this question, there are many circumstances in which will produce different answers. The first circumstance is when someone has really seen and observed something, and that it is a hundred percent true, then when he tells someone else, the story would least likely to be altered. The witness tells someone, and that person hears the story, it will be the original version, and continue to tell the original version to someone else, who, in turn, would also tell the equivalent to another person and this carries on, so under this kind of circumstance, the story, or belief, is true.
However, contrary, if a group of people have just met a coincidence, and are met with no proof or evidence what so ever, then they try to come out a reason for their fortune or downfall, with this, they start spreading their own creations of the story and that version of the story is least likely to be true.
There is also a third circumstance to the situation. It is when a person tells a true version of the story, and is overheard by a third party, however, the third party has not completely heard the whole version of the story, and tries to cover up the unheard parts of the story with her own, telling a mixture of both her own, and the original version. For this kind of circumstance, the story is of course, untrue.
Therefore, a validity of a certain story is pretty much undecided due to the many possibilities of the story's origin. So, for this question, the answer remains as plausible, the story may come from the true person who experienced and witnessed it happen, or it may come from someone who jus filled up the missing patches.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment