Alternative History:Possibility vs plausibility

while both term are often use interchangebly, nowhere more so then in alternate history discussion should these 2 terms be differentiated.

While "possible" refers to *any* events that (according to our current body of knowledges) could be true, "plausible" refers to that which is *most likely* to be true.

The best way to illustrate this is with the following classical exemple:

A man is walking in the forest and comes upon 2 paths. The first is well maintained and inviting while the second has clearly been overlooked for years and looks foreboding. Although the person could *possibly* choose either of the paths, his psychological makeup as well as outside factors would make the choice of one more *plausible* then the other. A phobic person would choose to avoid the one which feeds his fears (darkness, insects, being alone, etc...) or he might simply be afraid of dirtying his clothes. A bored person on the other hand would probably go for the second in hope of seeing something exciting.

The same type of process would apply to any point of departure and usualy a judged based on some or all of the following:


 * Are the persons involved acting "in characters" ? (based, for exmaple, on biographies)


 * Do decisions taken follow what the persons thoughts privately ? (based on private memos and the like)


 * Is there a precedent ? Have similar events in OTL unfolded in a similar fashion ?


 * Does it follow scientific knowledge ?

Of course the 2 last points would seem to preclude any counterfactual POD however in these cases, it is usualy less the POD itself which would be judged for plausibility then the reaction of people to it.