(October 7, 2016 at 9:25 am)robvalue Wrote: The flaw of reasoning is that if lots of people report something vaguely similar, there must be some truth behind it. Sure, there's probably a reason behind it. But that reason could be any number of things. People are very easily fooled, especially when they expect things to be a certain way.
For example, loads of people report seeing ghosts. They can't all be wrong, right?
Sure they can. For one thing, what the fuck is a ghost? Who is an authority on saying what is and isn't a ghost? Until there is a criteria, no one is. Just saying "What else could it have been?" or "I know a ghost when I see it" is not good enough. Sorry. You saw something, sure. You've heard of ghosts. Your mind made the connection. It doesn't meant you're right. In fact, it's extremely likely you are wrong, because there's so many mundane explanations for why you might think you've seen one.
Of course, loads of people are going to make these kind of reports. It doesn't make them validated, because everyone has heard of ghosts so it's actually to be expected.
When you're dealing with history, it's a soft science. You can never have all the information. You draw conclusions as best you can from the available evidence. If the evidence isn't very good, then too bad. Getting in a flap about it doesn't make the evidence better. Maybe it convinces some people, that's fine. Notice how almost all religious claims are dealing with the past. What's happening now, exactly? Fuck all, that's what. If anything was going on back then, it's done now.
The content of the testimony is also important. It is not the conclusion that is evidence, but the transfer of information about what was seen and experienced. In the majority of UFO sightings, what was seen can be explained. However this doesn't give one license to read into or modify the evidence, to come to their desired conclusion.
