| >If you think something "feels false" but you have no evidence for it, that's not a particularly strong basis for reasoning. That's true, but an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence is also not a particularly strong basis for reasoning. and from the original post... >I consider it worrying that a claim wholly lacking evidence is getting so much attention. That is, the conclusion reached by twitter is not well-reasoned, which gives kevindong the well-reasoned conclusion: it's probably false. >It's classifying the first instance as false. >This *FEELS* (not saying it is) like a false claim. I'm not clear how you can read this as anything other than a probability. It says nothing about the premise, and it clearly specifies that the conclusion has not been [definitively] classified. Otherwise, if that ain't the money-quote, I don't know what you're reading but it's not what I'm reading. |