Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

If I could clarify what I meant. It's not about what the standard of reasonable evidence is, but how it is handled.  I think it is unreasonable to be expected to hit an ever moving an illdefined target.  I don't think that reason and logic are subjective, nor that they only apply to common occurances. I'm open to discussing where the bar is set, but I think it should be able to be applied to all arguments, not just some.

That's pretty unrealistic where the real world is concerned, as shown above.

It'd be nice if the real world was that cut-and-dried, but it ain't.

There are a lot of variables, so two instances are never exactly the same.   But I find no problems living in the real world and I am understanding that many things are not about reason.