|
|
|
|
|
|
by brudgers
5471 days ago
|
|
|
It's not exactly special insight, but presumably all the people involved have experienced a number of encounters with Ted whereas for flying saucers, it is generally the case that all parties to the conversation have not had a number of encounters with flying saucers - unless one has - to a high degree of probability - entered an intellectual black hole of the sort described in the article. The argument is premised on long standing principals of ordinary language philosophy, i.e. "It's not Ted, because Ted is on holiday," is an appropriate response whereas, "It's not Ted, but a robotic doppelganger," is a bullshit response [a recent addition to the philosophical classification of propositions] in ordinary circumstances. |
|
|
On top of that, there have also been many cases of believing incorrectly that somebody else is out of town.