Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof • Hacker News Board

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#61

Post by woodman » Wed, May 04, 2016, 3:01 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #60

woodman wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...behavior of the people involved in the discussion... It is the context of the "sociological event" that I refer to, not the discussion about the discussion that you seem to have in mind. > There's always some possible explanation, no matter how outlandish. You are describing the satisfiability problem, where a lot of contrived problems are obviously impossible to satisfy. That isn't emotionally driven goalpost m…

> It is the context of the "sociological event" that I refer to, not the discussion about the discussion that you seem to have in mind. Then let me clarify my intent. That "for some there is no burden of proof high enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or manipulation." see,s self evident from my experience in seeing how people are treating this discussion, and the "evidence" being put out to su…

I'm sorry, but your clarifying statement left me even more uncertain about your message. I think we'll just have to leave it, the comparison of any party in a discussion to moon landing conspiracy theorists pretty much shuts down the conversation in a Godwin like fashion.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#62

Post by kbenson » Wed, May 04, 2016, 3:40 AM UTC

woodman wrote: post #61

kbenson wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is the context of the "sociological event" that I refer to, not the discussion about the discussion that you seem to have in mind. Then let me clarify my intent. That "for some there is no burden of proof high enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or manipulation." see,s self evident from my experience in seeing how people are treating this discussion, and the "evidence" being put out to su…

I'm sorry, but your clarifying statement left me even more uncertain about your message. I think we'll just have to leave it, the comparison of any party in a discussion to moon landing conspiracy theorists pretty much shuts down the conversation in a Godwin like fashion.

I think you really are misinterpreting me. I wasn't using belief of the moon landing hoax in a terribly disparaging way, and I wasn't comparing a single party of a discussion to people with that belief, but multiple people from both sides (if you think I was taking a side, I urge you to re-read my comments considering that I most definitely am not). That doesn't make them stupid, it just means they have a narrative that they believe, and are invested in, and that makes certain ideas that others would consider not worth considering much more likely to be true in their eyes. Everyone does this, some of us have a narrative that's more likely to match with reality in some instances than others, but by the nature of the problem it's very hard to know if that applies to yourself.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#63

Post by oluckyman » Wed, May 04, 2016, 7:49 AM UTC

theli0nheart wrote: post #31

If Dr. Wright is indeed taking us for a ride, he doesn't seem worried that the "real" Satoshi won't come out and expose him as a fraud (like he did a few years ago with Dorian Nakamoto). Although the circumstances were different then, the chances of this happening are absolutely non-zero, and it could happen at any time. Why continue pushing the issue and drawing attention, which only adds to the risk of this happeni…

I'm not aware of any evidence that his "Dr." title is accurate.