"Shaun Howell" <SHOWELL2@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BC5E4C67.7070%SHOWELL2@satx.rr.com...

in article t85_b.577035$JQ1.94062@pd7tw1no, tim gueguen at

tgueguen@shaw.ca

wrote on 2/22/04 10:53 AM:

"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers �.S.�." <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote

in

message news:pe1_b.4018$_4.157@www.newsranger.com...

What level of proof is adequate proof, then?

SF: I talk in terms of evidence. The legal profession recognizes

certain

standards: in a civil court, "preponderance of the evidence;" in a

criminal

court, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Which are not appropriate concepts for scientific questions.  One only

has

to consider the people convicted of child abuse in the '80s and early

'90s

on the basis of very questionable testimony to see cases where the

courts

handled extraordinary claims poorly.

Interestingly, the various abuse support groups that "saw" a satanic hand

in

the child abuse, wouldn't admit that they were wrong as the stories fell
apart. Rather, they concocted a VAST conspiracy of satanic covens that
operated with the knowledge and support of all western governments. The
absolute lack of any proof other than questionable testimony only goes to
demonstrate how far reaching and powerful the conspiracy is...

kind of like the witch hunts and mass hysteria of the past........
Some people are guillable beyond words............or reason.
Its not mere conspiracy..........just some people will believe
unquestioningly anything they are told.........