Again you misrepresent my position. I have already said that conclusive evidence for an alien spacecraft would be an alien spacecraft and that there is no such craft in the possession of anyone that can be confirmed by direct and open examination.
No need for the 'conclusive' in your sentence, ufolo. Evidence for an Alien Space Ship would be an Alien Space Ship.
As for what consitutes sufficient, you are missing the context. Whereas an objective person only requires sufficient evidence, a non objective person requires something "extra" ...
Whoaah right there, fug. There is no such thing as 'an objective person'. People can either engage in being objective or subjective. If they are being subjective, they are referring to, or relating something, to themselves, hence the clue in the word: subject. Objective means relating to other than oneself.
be it "extraordinary" or otherwise. So no matter what objective differences there may be between amounts that are sufficient from one example to another the requirement that under certain circumstances something "extra" must be tacked on as well only indicates bias.
No really, this is absurd. Are you seriously asking me to accept on someone's word that they saw an alien space ship in the way that they I would accept their word that they saw their shed at the bottom of their garden this morning?
That's not bias, that's just not being an idiot.
You have been programmed by the skeptics to believe you need this "extra" bit of validation and you must defend the idea that it really isn't bias, but deep inside you know it makes more sense to accept that sufficient evidence is all the evidence you really need and nothing more ... no CSICOP slogans, which is what the Sagan Standard aka ECREE is.
I haven't been programmed by anyone, foolo. I grew up learning about what was common in the world and what was a rare occurence. I learnt this through my own experience of living, not from what I read on this forum.
You're right on one point, I don't need to know what Sagan or Truzzi have said. Yes, inside my brain I know to accept sufficient evidence for a claim and that this is all I need. However, the more outlandish the claim the more evidence I'd need in order to be sufficiently convinced that they claim has any veracity.
We learn not to be credulous in order to better navigate our way through the world. If we believed every tiny thing that anyone told us,
well, we'd have spent all our hard-earned cash on slickly advertised junk for a start.
I like the cheese sandwich example. One afternoon I come up to you, foolo, and tell you that I had a cheese sandwich for lunch. In my hand I have my empty lunchbox. This would probably be sufficient evidence for you to accept that I did indeed have a cheese sandwich for lunch. Now, imagine I came up to you and told you that today I had a cheese sandwich for lunch
whilst sitting on the moon? Well! You'd probably want to see more than just my empty lunchbox to be convinced of
that claim. Thta's becuase it's more extraordinary! You'd maybe want me to produce some moon rock, or even better show you the rocket in which I made my trip to the moon.
Do you see how the more outlandish claim of cheesy lunch
on the moon requires a greater amount of evidence into order to be
sufficiently supported?
