“What a novel idea-having a Spaniard as the representative of the USE.”
“You know what I mean.”
“Yes, I do. And I still disagree. I may be well-versed in my century’s traditions of debate, my heart, but I do not have your patience, nor your fine mix of practicality and compassion.”
Vitelleschi was staring at Wadding. “Cardinal Wadding, will you be able to extend to Cardinal Mazzare the same discursive courtesy he has extended to you?”
Wadding had the wary look of an old fox that knew himself to be in the vicinity of an unseen trap. “I cannot presently see any reason why I would need to interrupt my colleague.” Wadding’s caveat-“presently”-was not lost on any of his listeners, judging from the collection of raised eyebrows.
Mazzare nodded at his Irish colleague and turned to the rest of the clerics. “I must begin by pointing out that Father Vitelleschi’s charge to me-to prove Grantville’s origins beyond a ‘reasonable doubt’-places the burden of proof upon the accused, not the accuser. That I need only prove it beyond a ‘reasonable’ doubt, while helpful, is still problematic: there is no criterion for distinguishing what is reasonable from that which is unreasonable. And this is a most urgent definitional requirement since I must adduce positive, rather than negative, proofs.”
Vitelleschi frowned. “I am unfamiliar with your terms. What is the difference between a negative proof and a positive proof?”
“Father-General, in my world, there was a philosopher named Karl Popper who averred that the only true proof was negative proof. By this, he meant it is possible to conclusively disprove an assertion, but almost impossible to conclusively prove one.
“Allow me to furnish an example: I propose the hypothesis that all stones float. It is easy enough to conclusively prove that hypothesis wrong. We walk to the nearest body of water and cast in stones. As soon as the first stone sinks, the assertion is disproven. This is negative proof.
“I then follow with a seemingly logical extension of the first hypothesis: I propose that all rocks will sink. We perform the same test, and achieve the same result. But we have not conclusively proven this second hypothesis, even though it seems to demonstrate the exact same property of all rocks: that they sink.”
Vitelleschi nodded. “Of course; the first can be easily disproven by a single test, but the second can only be proven by an impossibly omniscient observer who would have to be present every time a rock is cast into water. Consequently, the hypothesis-however strong and unexceptioned-cannot be considered proven as a truly universal law of nature.”
“Just so, Father-General. And in the case of investigating the origins of Grantville, this distinction is not a sophistry, but a crucial caveat. Specifically, there is simply no way to conclusively demonstrate that Grantville’s origins are entirely mundane, because the task ultimately requires positive proof, not negative proof. Which means that some doubt will always remain. Therefore, insofar as I must eliminate all ‘reasonable doubt,’ you might say that I do not start from a clean slate, but begin with an unavoidable deficit.”
Vitelleschi nodded carefully. “Perhaps so. But what may be done?”
“Simply this: in an issue where all logic and likelihood points in a single direction, let us agree that this constitutes the removal of reasonable doubt. So, if the viability of one of my arguments-or Cardinal Wadding’s- depends upon rejecting most of what we hold true about our Church, or goes against the deductive cut of Occam’s razor, I would humbly ask that those arguments not be validated. Let us not stand the world on its side to explain how a fly may remain affixed to a vertical wall.”
Vitelleschi’s face was utterly rigid, which Sharon swiftly and surely interpreted: he was resolved not to show the degree to which Mazzare’s reasoning and erudition had pleased him. “Your point is well taken, Cardinal Mazzare. Please begin.”
Mazzare bowed slightly. “Logically, if a person asserts that Grantville was constructed by Satan, they must also believe that the Devil either has the power to create life-meaning, the power to create its up-time inhabitants-or he has the power to shape us from either demons or the souls of the damned. In the latter case, Satan must also have the power to replace each soul’s genuine memories with false ones. This violates all canonical theology, which holds that Satan does not possess such sweeping powers.
“But of course, if either of these circumstances proves to be true, it not only demolishes some foundations of canonical theology, but obligates you to kill all of Grantville’s original inhabitants. Logically, that same campaign of demon-extermination must be extended to include all the offspring of the hundreds of unions that have now taken place between them and down-timers. Your reflex toward mercy might prompt you to spare such unwitting half- demons, but scripture leaves no room for debate: ‘ye shall not suffer them to live among ye.’”
Sharon exchanged wide-eyed looks with Ruy. Larry was certainly gambling big with that point, because if he lost…
Mazzare was already moving on. “Let us turn to the material aspects of Grantville, and in particular, its library. You are all familiar with its detailed information on advanced mathematics, science, and engineering.
“However, for every tome of information and insight, there are a thousand utterly banal records buried in every filing cabinet in the town. Now, the Devil may be renowned for being as wise as the serpent, able to wait long years for the final corruption of his prey, but constructing this edifice of flawlessly consistent paperwork would require the patience and demeanor of a slow-witted stockroom clerk. So I ask, according to your own representations of Satan’s nature, how and when did he acquire the virtues of humility and patience necessary to construct a conceit so intricately seamless, and yet so numbingly dull? That is almost as great a mystery as the one cited more often: how could data from Grantville be of infernal origin, since it has already promoted both edification and peace in these dark times, and promises to be of greater assistance with each passing year? Would a Prince of Darkness include such beneficences in his construct?”
“Most assuredly, he would.” Wadding interjected.
Vitelleschi’s left eyebrow raised. “Why, Cardinal Wadding?”
“For the same reason he would give the fabricated persons of Grantville belief in their memories: to make the underlying conceit all the more convincing. The arch-fiend would indeed foresee that many of us presume that there can be no goodness or grace in his creations. Consequently, he would, on the contrary, embed small elements of just such goodness and grace in order to create the perfect illusion that the town was not a creation of his.”
“And how do you respond to this, Cardinal Mazzare?” asked Vitelleschi.
“I think that Cardinal Wadding must propose this alternative in order to preserve the narrow thread of deduction by which his original argument hangs. For Grantville to be a creation of the Devil, any virtues associated with it must be a stalking horse to conceal deeper layers of perfidy. Of course, one must then wonder why Satan created a town where the young women are clad so scandalously, to down-time eyes. I can hear the apologia already: this perplexing mixture of virtue and vice creates an optimally convincing reality by adding an authentic touch of confounding inconsistency.
“However, a cursory study of the library’s record of the social and historical trends of up-time America will provide you with simple, culturally consistent explanations. And while you are there, you should also look up the term ‘conspiracy theorists.’ Their presumptions of a world controlled by sub rosa star-chambers resonate with the satanic plots being proposed here today. Both ignore the common-sense limit of every conspiracy: the more ponderous its originating casuistries and implausibilities, the more likely it is to collapse under its own weight. May I resume my own presentation, Father-General?”
Vitelleschi nodded.
“Cardinal Wadding’s argument also necessarily presumes that God not only permits Satan an uncanonical measure of power, but that he is permitted equally unprecedented knowledge of both natural phenomena and the future. After all, in our library, down-timers have found precise forewarnings of floods and epidemics, have learned methods to test the fossil record of earlier days, have schooled themselves in novel chemical reactions and natural properties, have found lost cities, discovered unknown islands, reclaimed lost languages, located unsuspected resources. All these revelations must, according to Cardinal Wadding and others, be prophecies and sorcery pouring forth from the bowels of Hell itself.
“Allow me to unsheathe Occam’s razor. How do we reconcile these presumptions with the Church’s doctrine that, just as Satan is unable to create genuine life ex nihilo, that there are also limits upon both his knowledge and how much of it he may share? For if he is not so limited, then why has he not used a ‘ruse’ like Grantville before?
“The only one logical answer-that until now, such a ‘ruse’ was not a winning strategy-only leads to an even more thorny question: what has changed? Why is the ‘ruse’ of Grantville a winning strategy now? Indeed, how can
