It's almost impossible to understand what you're trying to say in amongst all the waffle, but the gist of it seems to be "ECREE is nonsense and here's why".
That'll end well.
Not Exactly,
He says, just before saying exactly the same thing.
Requiring extraordinary skepticism is different than requiring extraordinary evidence.
Since 'extraordinary skepticism' seems to be nothing more than a silly term you made up yourself to go with the rest of your silly arguments, I'll take your word for it.
As for ECREE, the evidence for extraordinary claims just ends up being deemed extraordinary in a subjective way, but it's not a "requirement" other than to convince someone is highly biased.
No, although I'll grant you that the term extraordinary may be
somewhat subjective, or perhaps more accurately, contextual.
I can accept that to a Papuan tribesman a claim of a giant, noisy bird that could transport his entire family to a village three days walk away in a matter of minutes would indeed be an extraordinary claim, and that to him, a common garden Blackhawk helicopter would be extraordinary evidence for that claim.
But we here in Jreffia are worldly and educated members of a sophisticated, technology-based society and to us, 'extraordinary' obviously means something quite different from what it means to the Korowai. Think 'alien raygun' and you might be on the right track.
Referring to this as being 'highly biased' in order to try and sustain your argument is intellectually bankrupt
From an objective point of view the evidence may not be extraordinary at all.
Stop weaseling. The only point of view that you need to concern yourself with is that of the people you are here to try and convince. That, folo, is your 'objective'.
In other weasel words any claim, including so-called extraordinary claims simply requires sufficient evidence, and such evidence may or may not be extraordinary.
my strikingness
For mundane claims:
sufficient evidence = mundane evidence
For extraordinary claims:
sufficient evidence - extraordinary evidence.
It's not that hard, folo, despite your (and Rramjet's before you) concerted attempts at obfuscation.
For example it was once thought to be an extraordinary idea that streaks of light in the sky were caused by rocks from space. Then we found the rocks ... and they're just rocks ... there's nothing extarordinary about them ... space it littered with them.
What you're dishonestly trying to do here is place the claim in the context of people who had no understanding of the way the cosmos worked and the evidence in the context of people like us who know all about such things as bolides.
When the first meteorites were found and identified they
were not 'just rocks'. They turned out to be extraordinary evidence for what had until then been an extraordinary claim.
The only thing that made the evidence extraordinary at the time was the subjective bias of those who didn't subscribe to the rocks from space theory.
Codswallop.
Expressing doubt in something that had previously never been shown to exist
is not 'subjective bias'.
