(October 8, 2018 at 11:15 am)polymath257 Wrote:(October 8, 2018 at 9:54 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The problem however is, that just because something doesn't happen frequently, doesn't give you any evidence for your claim. That doesn't follow from showing that the occurrence is rare, that someone is gullible for believing it.... that's just bad logic, as shown by the equivocation.
But that they believe physical laws were violated *does* show them to be gullible. that is *by far* the more reasonable explanation, don't you think?
What physical laws where violated? Also how do you know that they where not just manipulated, or that an outside force was involved?
Have we moved away from the statistical nonsense.... this seems like you jumped topics from the previous context?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
