Street Epistemology - Practice

[Abaddon_ire]

To answer your questions on this:
1) Would the "evidential" bar not be raised the more out of the ordinary a claim is? Assessing what is ordinary and what is not though is subjective.

Nope. RR79 considers god to be equivalent with my cat at this point

2) No, only if the cases are similar. When a case becomes more out of the ordinary (eg a Zebra is not ordinary), then heresay is not sufficient evidence. Would you agree with this?

Nope. Evidence for gawd is more weighty than anything else so long as it increases bias.

3) You stop when you are subjectively satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for you to verify the claim in question. However, I personally don't stop here as my logic could be impaired so I usually go and ask others whether I am thinking right on analysing the evidence of the claim (obviously this claim should be incredulous for me to ask for someone else's opinion).

Nope. The conclusion is determined before any evidence is offered, thus all evidence must retropectively be evidence for gawd.

How one might rationalises such a position I leave to the reader. the god botherers? They care not.