Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Cyberman]

I see hoofprints in the ground. What quality of evidence do I need to support each of these proposed causes:

1 a horse
2 a zebra
3 a unicorn

I would ask, what in the evidence leads you to one conclusion over the other.  But even without that, you have pretty sufficient evidence for a hooved animal of some kind having made those prints. I think it would be silly for someone to deny the evidence of the prints because they don't particularly like zebra's.

With only the information you have given, I don't think you are talking about evidence however, but rather of assumptions.

In Wyoming the hoof print is most likely a horse and in Africa a zebra. One could suppose it to be a unicorn, but either of the first two would be more likely. I don't see the relevance. The question is how do we explain what is clearly evident. The hoof print is evidence, plain and simple. Whether or not the evidence justifies a specific claim is another issue entirely. Even if you say, this hoof print is from a unicorn, you are still presenting me with evidence, i.e. a hoof print. The evidence just might not mean what you think it does.

Now you're both starting to get it.