[bmy78]

This. Holes in the conventional theory do not act as evidence for alternative theories because you end up inadvertently filling up those holes with presuppositions to support those theories. Case in point: a very plausible explanation for the Shakespeare example is that he was an absent father. You’re making the assumption that since he was a popular playwright and a master of the English language, he would want his children to at least be proficient in the language he loved. That presupposes the notion that all people who have a passion want to pass down that passion to their children. That’s not the case.

Hole h in conventional theory c exists, therefore c is invalid and alternative theory a is correct is the kind of illogical reasoning that is the underpinning of so many conspiracy theories. Alternative theories need to have their own support for them, not simply rely on missing gaps of knowledge in the conventional theories.