| Subject: What level of POOF is adequate poof//BUGGERED AGAIN! |
| From: Shaun Howell |
| Date: 22/02/2004, 18:06 |
| Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.abduct,sci.skeptic |
in article t85_b.577035$JQ1.94062@pd7tw1no, tim gueguen at tgueguen@shaw.ca
wrote on 2/22/04 10:53 AM:
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers Å.S.Å." <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message news:pe1_b.4018$_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...