Just curious: why did the comment quoted below get down voted? While it may be a bit a bit colorful it raises an issue that is relevant in this case: do we discriminate between evidence a priori?
“Also, remember to apply even standards to evidence. If you flat out deny ufo eye witness accounts as being without epistemic value, also do this for all other eye witness accounts:
Your girlfriend says she saw an eagle over the creek? Didn’t happen. And don’t investigate any further.
Your friends talk about the beautiful yacht that left the harbor this morning? Flat out deny it. And don’t investigate any further.
Your kid eagerly tells you about the squirrel she just saw in the tree outside. Tell her you don’t attribute any truth value to her utterings. And don’t investigate any further.
If you don’t, you have a priori established double standards for the epistemic value of the same type of evidence. This is also known as ‘bias’.”
This was the follow up comment. Is it too colorful as well?
“The same goes for radar: Today air traffic controllers attribute epistemic value to radar data on the question of determining size and movement of objects in the sky. However, they really should ditch their equipment as we attribute zero epistemic value to the radar signals if the objects it detects move in ways that current man made objects cannot or if the objects are larger than current man made objects (say, with a diameter of two aircraft carriers. Right?”
Just curious: why did the comment quoted below get down voted? While it may be a bit a bit colorful it raises an issue that is relevant in this case: do we discriminate between evidence a priori?
“Also, remember to apply even standards to evidence. If you flat out deny ufo eye witness accounts as being without epistemic value, also do this for all other eye witness accounts:
Your girlfriend says she saw an eagle over the creek? Didn’t happen. And don’t investigate any further.
Your friends talk about the beautiful yacht that left the harbor this morning? Flat out deny it. And don’t investigate any further.
Your kid eagerly tells you about the squirrel she just saw in the tree outside. Tell her you don’t attribute any truth value to her utterings. And don’t investigate any further.
If you don’t, you have a priori established double standards for the epistemic value of the same type of evidence. This is also known as ‘bias’.”
This was the follow up comment. Is it too colorful as well?
“The same goes for radar: Today air traffic controllers attribute epistemic value to radar data on the question of determining size and movement of objects in the sky. However, they really should ditch their equipment as we attribute zero epistemic value to the radar signals if the objects it detects move in ways that current man made objects cannot or if the objects are larger than current man made objects (say, with a diameter of two aircraft carriers. Right?”