Cary L. Brown wrote:
All they "really" are are three lighted pieces of plexiglass and one painted rectangular spot, evidently intended to resemble the backlit pieces.
Since this is the same technique used for windows, I treat them as windows.
Really? You didn't know he was talking about in universe when you posted that they were plexi-glass?
I knew that perfectly well, thank you very much.
What I was doing was exercising a process known as deductive reasoning. There are two principle forms of reasoning - inductive and deductive.
In inductive reasoning, you start with a known idea, and work "backwards" to the explanation.. in this case, for example, we'd be starting with "those are windows" (or whatever you think that they are) and work backwards to support it.
In deductive reasoning, you go in the other direction... you start with known facts, and derive a conclusion from that.
In this case, the only "known facts" are "what are these panels on the model made from" and "what else is made from the same technique as these panels on this model."
We know that windows are made in the model using this technique, and we don't know specifically about anything else in this model made from this technique. Therefore, is is logical to conclude that these are most likely windows.
The other statements here are inductive reasoning, though... claims that they are sensor elements or whatever else. In these cases, the persons making those claims are starting from "what makes sense to me" and then trying to develop support for those positions.
Both inductive and deductive reasoning are valid tools. But if you use deductive reasoning, the most likely explanation for these is that they are intended to be large, in-ceiling windows.
Now... whether they are windows over big lounges, or over rooms filled with scientific hardware which get a view of space through these windows... that's ENTIRELY undefined and undefinable, using either methodology.