Yes, I should not have used the word exponential… but I don’t know the word for “grows at a rate that is a tower of exponentials”… “hyperexponential” perhaps?
However—I consider that my argument still holds. That the evidence required grows at the same rate as the size of the claim.
My point in explaining the lower levels is that is that we don’t demand evidence from most claimants of small amounts of damage because we’ve already seen evidence that these threats are plausible. But if we start getting to the “hyperexponential” threats, we hit a point where we suddenly realise that there is no evidence supporting the plausibility of the claim… so we automatically assume that the person is a crank.
Yes, I should not have used the word exponential… but I don’t know the word for “grows at a rate that is a tower of exponentials”… “hyperexponential” perhaps?
However—I consider that my argument still holds. That the evidence required grows at the same rate as the size of the claim.
The evidence must be of equal value to the claim.
(from “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”)
My point in explaining the lower levels is that is that we don’t demand evidence from most claimants of small amounts of damage because we’ve already seen evidence that these threats are plausible. But if we start getting to the “hyperexponential” threats, we hit a point where we suddenly realise that there is no evidence supporting the plausibility of the claim… so we automatically assume that the person is a crank.