Comment: is that what we call evidence

(See in situ)

is that what we call evidence

is that what we call evidence now..? ray finkle laughs and says no, no way. that's the evidentiary threshold?

i don't even know what to say anymore. if you have a theory, present sufficient evidence that would persuade an unbiased and interested mind.

unbiased and interested, those are hard to define and pin down. but at least try to present evidence that would be persuasive or constitute a prima facie case, if not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to a non biased observer who was interested enough to inquire about all the available facts.

there is nothing, on its face, that would indicate to me that power cannot go out. i admit i lack the level of interest to look into a complex argument about this particular event. but is there such an argument or set of facts? is there good reason to doubt the possibility that the power could go out for a sustained period of time at an important event?

if there is, present such an argument and set of facts. even if i don't look deeply into it, i will at least reserve judgement, knowing such an argument is out there from a credible or seemingly reasonable source.

there has to be more than just doubt, and a bias to disbelieve everything. refusal to believe any version of events not endorsed by authority - that may be the more common failing.

but favoring a hidden explanation for every event, without evidence, without any standards, is also a disorder and is not productive. people who think this way allow the rational skeptics to be painted as lunatics by the establishment. because there really are irrational conspiracy theorists.