"E. L." <nyceddie@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2721-3F0A2EAC-550@storefull-2378.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Extra-ordinary claims require extra- ordinary evidence, or any claim
requires evidence.


In an earlier post in this thread I asked if anyone wanted to rerun The
Great Great Wall Debate, I didn't expect any takers:-)

You know, originally I came up with that to disprove Sagan's silly
"extraordinary evidence" nonsense... but now, it must be 12 years later by
now, and after 4 runnings of The Great Great Wall Debate, we have never made
it too "extraordinary evidence" because nobody has ever been able to submit
a single shred of "normal evidence" for that wacky wall.

But, since I'm fairly certain that the last thing any debunker around here
wants too see is someone induce me into a 5th running of The Great Great
Wall Debate, I'll assume that you weren't taking me up on that and just skip
up too Sagan, a good idea since you would never get to "extraordinary
evidence" in the Great Wall debate anyway...

There is no such thing as "extraodrinary evidence". There is evidence and
there is conjecture. No claim requires a higher level of "proof" than any
other claim, "proof" is an absolute that is either achieved, or not, through
the accumulation of evidence. "Extraordinanry evidence" is simply an
unatainable goal and a debunker ploy. There is no such thing as
"extraordinary evidence" just as there is no such thing as "extraordinary
proof".


-- Marc Michalik (A.K.A. "The Rational Proponent", "The Teflon Believer",
The one and only Great Wall Debunker)


---
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart