Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

No;  I accept neither on epistemological grounds.  You haven't provided sufficient evidence.

Do you agree, that between two similar scenarios given the same facts, and given the same reasons, that a coherent and consistent logical foundation should come to the same conclusion?  If not, how do you logically justify the discrepancy.

One of the clear differences in the two scenarios is that people are known to have pet cats, and commonly do so. But nobody is known to have a pet invisible dragon.

If I live in a location where cats are never seen and someone local claimed to have a pet cat, I might well ask for more evidence to substantiate their claim.

This works for more ordinary examples. When I was growing up, having pet lizards was quite rare (I knew nobody who did), so someone claiming to have one would be asked for more proof.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Thanks, we had talked about this a while ago; so I’m going to recap. I find this maxim, to be vague, subjective, inconsistent, and unjustified. Your reply is very similar to what was said before, and I really never get anything when I ask why this should held, and people get upset when I use it. Perhaps you could answer the questions I asked.