In article <3DqOa.1848$OZ2.849@rwcrnsc54>, Kavik Kang wrote:

snip

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".

	I agree!

	I wrote a few years ago back in the old days of Clinton. You can check in 
the google archives for when it was origionally posted.

begin insert

	The often quoted phrase Extra ordinary claims require extra
ordinary proof, is perhaps the most silliest thing Carl Sagan ever said.

	Proof cannot be extra ordinary in any way. It is the bench mark of
the ordinary as it is the usage of the laws of science.

	Let's put this in the real world with examples.

	Cold fusion is an extra ordinary claim. Say i have a machine that
from a simple glass of water will power New York City. (Which BTW is a
real claim by some.) I arrive with my machine, patent in hand, and ask for
a glass of water and power the city. What is then the extra ordinary
aspect of this? It works? Proof positive.

	Same thing for aliens. I say aliens exist and arrive with a grey
from outer space, spaceship in tow. There can be nothing extra ordinary in
this proof either. 

	Compare the two above examples to this. When you say you exist,
does any one demand extra ordinary proof? When you turn on your computer,
do you demand of it extra ordinary proof? Of course not.

	Now, while both examples are nice are they possible? In the cold
fusion debate, the scientists who thought they had made a discovery, did
what they should have done as scientists. They published their results in
the scientific world so that they could be checked on. They were open and
honest with their experiment, they did not try to fudge the data. In the
end it was shown that they were in error, is the exact thing that science
is supposed to do. Dream up a theory. Test it and then get others to test
it as well. Confirming or disproving your theory.

	So far we have found no link to an extra ordinary process. Just
regular science at work.

	Similarly, we often hear the claim i saw something in the sky.
Again a rather ordinary event. What leads to trouble is that the claimer
tends to then say what they saw is equal to intelligent life from another
planet. That claim is extra-ordinary and requires proof certainly, but
does it need extra ordinary proof? No. If the ship landed and the grey got
out, talked, drop by Bubba and the piece of wood at the White House,
talked to Sam Donaldson on ABC... or James Oberge :-) All of which happen
every day. People do talk to Sam and James, Bubba and well... does any one
ever talk to Al Gore? (Tipper maybe? :-) People visit the White House
everyday. They have a tour regularly scheduled. So where would we be able
to find extra ordinary proof?

	No, the key here is as it always has been. The key is that an new
claim is extra ordinary and all that is needed is proof.

	Now all we have to do is find some!

end insert

		Just Thought I Should Mention It