"Garry Bryan" <garry@soco.agilent.com> wrote in
message
news:1058819589.346579@cswreg.cos.agilent.com...

In alt.alien.visitors Xcott Craver

<caj@b-r-a-i-n-h-z.com> wrote:

: Kavik Kang wrote:
:>
:> You are the one re-writing it. What it says

is ""extraordinary claims

:> require extraordinary evidence", which is

incorrect. Extraordinary

:> claims require the same exact type and level

of evidence as any other

:> claim.

:        The property of extraordinary claims

requiring extraordinary

:        evidence is a natural and direct

consequence of the mathematics

:        behind Bayesian hypothesis testing.

:        You just do the math, you work out the

optimal threshold

:        for deciding between a null and

alternative hypothesis, and you

:        find that the threshold depends in part

on the relative

:        plausibility of each claim (i.e., the

estimated a priori

:        probabilities of each at the present

time.)  An extraordinary

:        claim results in a higher threshold,

requiring a lot more

:        data points in its favor, or data

points which extraordinarily

:        favor that claim over the other.  Or

both.

:        This is not an arbitrary principle some

skeptics made up, but

:        a plain English restatement of a basic

mathematical result in

:        hypothesis testing.  Yes, extraordinary

claims require

:        extraordinary evidence.  Perhaps you

can explain in further

:        detail why you have concluded the

opposite?

If you claim that there are aliens and produce

one, how is that any more

"extraordinary" than stating there are white

bears and producing one? In fact,

if the ET evidence *is* extraordinary, such as a

device the size of a cigarette

pack that produces 10 megawatts of power, it

would become it's own extrordinary

claim. . .

Garry

Go back to sleep Gareeee.  Your ignorance is
showing.  Obviously you did not learn anything
from the above.  I even doubt that you understood
any of it.

Harry