(January 18, 2018 at 11:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(January 18, 2018 at 11:34 pm)polymath257 Wrote: On the contrary, it is based on statistical evidence, and uses maximum likelihood to establish when more evidence is required. It may be used inconsistently by people, but that doesn't mean the basic principle is inconsistent. And it is justified by the overall justification used for induction as a key to knowledge in the physical sciences.
I could go deeper and provide a Bayesian analysis if you would like.
The claim is that similar circumstances demand similar conclusions, but I deny that it is a case of similar circumstances when the commonality of feline pets is well-established and that of invisible dragons is not. Your claim to what type of pet you have is not the only aspect of the relevant circumstances.
I’m curious.... but this is a little bit off topic. If you would like to have an in depth discussion, perhaps it would be best to start another thread. I do like to test principles though. I’m also curious what is extraordinary evidence and how we determine what is necessary for a particular event.
Certainly feel free to start a new thread. Extraordinary evidence would be evidence different than what is implied by best current testable understanding but that is implied by the claim.
