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 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.

It is not up to me to do your homework, but the issue isn't the existance of
white bears, it is the issue of making demands of those who make claims and
then refuting every example based on nothing more than verbage. . .like you. . .

:> 
:> :> 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?

Ignorance of the hypothetical noted. . .

:> 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.

And you are still avoiding acknowledging the point that anyone can maintain
the debunkers position dispite data and evidence to the contrary. . .

Garry

: "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.

Here is a fine example of Mikey's methods. . .he is the only one who 
compulsively comments or complains about my posting, attachs labels and then
imagines that is is somehow independent of his own delusions. . .