> On 12 Jan 98, concerning _evidence_, RON TAYLOR said to TROY H.
 > CHEEK in UFO:
 >  THC> I suppose now you'll want to argue that reports aren't
 > evidence.  A lot
 >  THC> of my work based on reports, eye-witness accounts, and
 > direct observation,
 >  THC> so I can't agree with that argument.
 >  RT> Good :).  We agree.... eye witness reports aren't good evidence 
without
 >  RT> something physical to substantiate.
 > Bad :).  We don't agree.  I just said that I can't agree with the
 > argument that reports aren't evidence.
The problem here as I see it is, the word evidence as opposed to the
word proof.  A sighting of a UFO with multiple witnesses is good
evidence that they saw something most likely physical. ...But it's
not proof of anything. I think skeptics use the word "proof" to
their advantage too often. Maybe I should ban the use of the word
in UFO. (just kidding)
If 50 people see a UFO land in a field then fly away leaving landing
marks behind, the landing marks are evidence that a skeptic may
consider worth further investigation, but it (the marks) is not
proof to the skeptic that a UFO landed there. I would be inclined
to give the witnesses the benefit of the doubt. The skeptic may not
be so generous. (Unless he was one of the witnesses.) ;-)
Let's carry this a step further... If a skeptic was one of the
witnesses, would that change his mind about UFOs? ...Probably,
but not in all cases. Besides, he might deny having seen a thing.
"Why do you say you didn't see that UFO, mister?"
"Because that man in uniform over there slapping that stick in his
hand told me I didn't see a thing!"
Regards,
Jack
--- FMail 1.22
---------------