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 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,

I did my own homework. It's not my problem if you don't like the answers I came up with. Been down to the zoo yet? What's the matter, afraid they won't let you back out?

but the issue isn't the existance of
white bears,

Well make up your so-called mind already. White bears seemed to be all the rage with you yesterday. Now that a half dozen people have shown you what a stupid analogy that was though, suddenly you are claiming it isn't the issue. The word "lame" hardly begins to describe you, Garrrrrry.

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. . .

That's because their examples are nothing but verbiage (note correct spelling). You can't back up one bullshit claim with another. Only hard evidence will back up a claim. Too bad none of you silly saucer heads have any.

:> :> :> 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. . .

Hypotheticals aren't proof of anything, kook. I ask again, 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.

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

No. If evidence really exists then debunking isn't possible. You need to ask yourself why it is that your kooky beliefs are the focus of debunking?

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. . .

Did you learn this kooky "talking to an imaginary audience" thing from Kang? It makes a fine addition to your already broad repertoire of kook characteristics.

he is the only one who compulsively comments or complains about my posting, attachs labels

You wish. See below for just one other example.

 and then
imagines that is is somehow independent of his own delusions. . .

Speaking of delusions...What exactly have you deluded yourself into believing that whining like this will accomplish? If you have a problem with people snagging your amazingly stupid utterances and using them as sigs, then I suggest you simply stop saying amazingly stupid things (that's gonna be real hard for you though, isn't it).

Speaking of sigs, here's a blast from the past.

--
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

"Garry got up this morning and told himself 'I'm gonna post something really, really, really fucking lame today.'" - John Griffin