"Kavik Kang" <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BywRa.81018$ye4.60724@sccrnsc01>...

"neepy" <dsutherland7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4bd1f7c.0307160651.55fd3425@posting.google.com...

"Proof" is "proof", I accept, but "absolute proof" is not easily
obtained in the real world.  There are, however, grades of "evidence"
(from "not at all convincing" to "very convincing", for example).
Sagan's point was that, in the real world, we often settle for
"evidence" near the bottom end of this scale... this is not
unreasonable when the claims are NOT "extraordinary".

So if you claim you have a pet cat, for example, I  will (under
ordinary circumstances) probably not ask for any evidence at all, but
will just take your word for it.  If I have some suspicion you may be
(for example) a habitual liar, then I may ask for evidence, but will
probably settle for (maybe) a photograph of you with your cat.  If you
claim to have a pet tiger, a photograph is probably the bare minimum I
will accept as evidence (though these things can be faked).  If you
claim to have a pet T. Rex, I will want to see it with my own eyes.

Hope that clears things up for you.

I didn't say 'absolute proof', I said that proof is an absolute, their is a
big difference.

Can you explain that "big difference"?

Sagan was just wrong. There is no such thing as "extraordinary evidence"

So what is wrong with what I said above?  Do you ask for (absolute)
proof everytime any claim is made?  Or does the standard of evidence
that will satisfy you depend on the nature of the claim?

Actually, I get the impression that the more "extraordinary" the
claim, the LESS evidence you will ask for...