Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

I'd like to add that not believing an account isn't the same as announcing the account is wrong.

I agree.

I have no need to say any given crazy sounding account didn't actually happen, just that I have no good reason to think that it did happen.

I think that "good reason" is what we are discussing.

I don't know whose standards it is you're trying to haggle here, Roadrunner. Historians standards? Scientists? Ours? I really don't know where you're going with any of this. We're not stopping you believing whatever you want, but nor are we suddenly going to believe a particular bunch of crazy stuff over any other.

Not trying to haggle anything, and as said, there are going to be category constraints specific to the claim.

Any individual self-proclaimed sceptic may well have stupid standards of evidence. They may well use silly arguments to justify disbelief in things that are rational to believe in. They're not accountable to us. The only time standards are formally agreed is when work is done such as science or history.

And that is what I am talking about... reasonable standards in regards to history and science.