In alt.alien.visitors Michael "The Obtuse" Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Further proof he is obtuse. . .what about the word "if" don't you understand?
You try and turn the hypothetical into the literal. . .try again in the bonus 
round. . .HTH

Garry 

: Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong" 
: Bryan wrote:

:> In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:> : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong" 
:> : Bryan wrote:
:> 
:> :> 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?
:> 
:> : I claim there are white bears. Go to the San Francisco zoo and 
:> : check out the polar bear exhibit. Ok, your turn. Where can I find 
:> : your imaginary "little doctor" aliens?
:> 
:> I've heard they tend to gather at Groom Lake. .. go see for yourself. . .

: Thanks, but I don't feel like getting shot. I told you where to 
: find a white bear in your own back yard with no muss or fuss at 
: all. All you can respond with is amazingly lame directions to 
: someplace that is over 2000 miles away from me and that I couldn't 
: get into anyway even if I went there. Are you totally oblivious to 
: how much faith is required to believe the sort of crap you spew? 
: Face it, your beliefs are a religion (or a delusion), not a reality.

:> just 
:> seeing a white bear isn't proof that it isn't dyed or some other animal. . .
:> but a sceptic such as yourself would know that. . .

: Here's an idea. Tie a pork-chop around your neck, smear yourself 
: with seal fat, and take a nice long hike out on the pack ice on 
: the Bering Sea. Get back to me afterwords if you are still 
: skeptical about the existence of white bears.

:> 
:> :> 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. . .
:> 
:> : Fantasizing noted. Quit spinning fantasies and answer the above 
:> : question, kook. If your fantasies are real then you ought to be 
:> : able to answer it as well as I did.
:> 
:> Why skip over the point. ..

: You had a point?

:> if my proof of alien existance

: What proof?

:> was an item unlike
:> any that mankind can produce that would be extra-ordinary, not the original 
:> claim. . .

: Until you actually have such an item, you are just uselessly 
: fantasizing. Basically you are just engaging in pointless, mental 
: masturbation. It isn't logic, it isn't proof, it isn't convincing, 
: and you aren't fooling anyone, kook.

: --
: The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
: http://mdavis19.tripod.com
: http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
: Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

: "I don't have to do anything except post my name and it get 
: ridiculed whether it has anything to do with UFO's or not." - 
: Garrrry Bryan brags about the reputation he has built for himself.