Table 10 summarizes how well each theory explains the many strange things associated with frozen mammoths. Each column corresponds to a theory, and each row represents an unusual detail that requires an explanation. As with a traffic light, a green circle means “go.” That is, in my opinion, the column’s theory reasonably explains that row’s diagnostic detail. Yellow (caution) and red (stop) circles indicate moderate and serious problems, respectively. Numbers in Table 10 refer to additional information below. Table 10 shows both the details and the broad perspective—“the trees and the forest.”
Readers may make their own judgments and independently assess each theory’s plausibility. For example, if you feel that a detail or theory has been omitted or misstated, modify the table. This approach focuses future discussions on areas of critical disagreement. It also helps keep all details and competing theories in mind, encouraging balance and thoroughness. Often, a disagreement becomes moot when one realizes that other facts oppose some theory. When a theory is proposed, usually only the details supporting it and opposing competing theories are mentioned. Table 10 contrasts all published theories with all known diagnostic details.
In seeking the cause of many strange and related details, one is tempted to use a separate explanation for each detail. Throughout the history of science, experience has shown that the simplest theory explaining the most details is probably correct. For example, a sudden rash of fires in a city may all be unrelated. However, most investigators would instinctively look for a common explanation. Centuries ago, each newly discovered detail of planetary motion required, in effect, a new theory. Later, one theory (Newton’s Law of Gravitation) provided a simple explanation for all these motions.