> Concerning _evidence_, Jack Sargeant said to Troy H. Cheek in UFO:
 >>> Then answer the question.  Why is one person required to back up
 >>> his claim while the other isn't?
 >  JS>
 >  JS> It depends on the claim being made. The obsurdity of the claim takes
 >  JS> precedent.
 > And who decides the "obsurdity?"  It looks to me like it's along
 > the same lines as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
 > proof" in that one party can always pretend (or even believe) that
 > his own claims are strictly "ordinary" while his opponent's are
 > not.
 >  JS> In most cases, it's the skeptic challenging the claim of a believer.
 > And, in those cases, that's proper and expected.  When the skeptic
 > starts making his own claims (e.g. "It was weather balloon." like
 > in my example), though, I
 > believe he should be held to the same standards to which he holds
 > the believer.
Still, it's the extraordinary claim that requires proving. For
instance, which is more likely to be true... You saw a space ship
from another planet, or a weather balloon? If the skeptic is being
fair-minded, he will only suggest the weather balloon as the most
likely alternative.
It is illogical for you to assume a UFO is an alien space craft.
It would be more logical to eliminate the mundane explanations
first. When you can say it definitely was not a balloon, aircraft,
bird, etc, then you can speculate about possible alien visitors.
Seeing an alien behind every bush is what makes Johnny an "ftb."
...At least in the eyes of the rest.
Regards,
Jack
--- FMail 1.22
---------------