Originally posted by Surtur
He's demanding "incontrovertible evidence" that this was a hoax from day one, lol.
Is it possible to construct such a case where each individual piece of evidence does not function to reach a state of "incontrovertibleness" but, in aggregate, does attain a state of incontrovertibility?
I think we are at a 9 but 10 is incontrovertibleness/inexorability.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, lay out all of the incontrovertible evidence that was known to the public on day one that would leave one with no alternative but to believe it was a hoax. Incontrovertible, meaning it could not be contextualized to provide a plausible alternative explanation.
Nice strawman
Originally posted by Surtur
He's demanding "incontrovertible evidence" that this was a hoax from day one, lol.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Nice strawman
Not a straw man:
Originally posted by Surtur
LOL! You just did it again! There was sufficient reason to believe it was a hoax long before this thread was posted.Good stuff, top notch, drinks all around 👆
Surtur and BrolyBlack are claiming the evidence was sufficient. Ergo, they bear the burden of demonstrating the truth of that claim.
I would like to see what standard of evidence they are using to evaluate claims. And why that same standard is sufficient in one instance and not another.
Hence, why I am asking them to provide the evidence.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Sufficient and incontrovertible don't mean the same thing. IOW, you are demanding a level of proof that far exceeds their claim.
If you have two competing claims, and the same standard of evidence for claim A can also be used to support claim B, then that standard is not sufficient to support either claim.
If your standard of evidence can be contextualized or interpreted to support the competing claim, i.e. if it is controvertible, then it is not sufficient.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you have two competing claims, and the same standard of evidence for claim A can also be used to support claim B, then that standard is not sufficient to support either claim.If your standard of evidence can be contextualized or interpreted to support the competing claim, i.e. if it is controvertible, then it is not sufficient.
Again, sufficient and incontrovertible don't even come close to meaning the same thing and no amount of you pretending otherwise will change that. all you're currently doing is making yourself look even sillier to the neutral people on the board.
"Sufficient evidence" to support it being a hoax just means enough evidence to make a hoax the more likely explanation.