Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

1.)  Why
2.)  No... and the question is still why wouldn't the conclusion still follow?  Let's say that the only thing different is frequency (extraordinary).  Why and how does this change things?
3.) Would you say then that your epistemology is largely based on feelings, and the opinion of the crowd?   I don't condemn looking to other's for vindiation.  However I do think that is only valid, if they give you reasons.   If it's just that they subjectively agree, I don't think we have gotten very far down the road.

1) The exact same reason that you would justify how sufficient evidence needs to be for the nature of the claim. I still do not understand your train of thought. Obviously you also have a spectrum of how much evidence you need (from low epistemic burden to high) for the evidence to be sufficient to justify a particular claim. How do you determine when there is an epistemic burden and also how much evidence you would deem sufficient?
2) Same reason that you gave me when I claimed that I had $10...ie there is no epistemic burden on the $10 claim. So I would not look further into Abbondon_ire's dog claim. But would you not agree that there is an epistemic burden on Abbondon_ire when he claims to have a Zebra?
3) No. I assess other people's opinions for logical sense and to compare whether my reasoning is sound. My feelings aren't considered for any conclusions that I reach for any claims that I consider. When I ask other's opinions, I look for points of disagreements to my view to see whether they are valid point or not.

I agree, that you are not understanding.  What I am trying to say, is that there is no sliding, subjective low to high epistemically burden, based on your or my incredulity, or how common it is.  I would say that it is difficult to pin down exactly where that line  is, and I think we will vary there, and I don’t quibble over an allowance for that.  However as you agreed, that the same reason and logic should produce the same results, the same applies epistemologically.