3 ms·

Yeah. It's obvious that these claims are lies or at the very least exaggerated. And if they aren't lies, then we should be demanding real evidence. I don't get

by qubax 8y ago

Yeah. It's obvious that these claims are lies or at the very least exaggerated. And if they aren't lies, then we should be demanding real evidence. I don't get why people are downvoting me. Of all places, you would think that HN would be where skepticism reigns supreme.

nkoren 8y ago
That's not how skepticism works. A cursory search reveals that his case is quite well-attested to since the early 1970s, and the verifiable facts are not in dispute. What happened when he was alone in the wilderness is not verifiable, so "I won't believe it without evidence!" is a hollow and useless bellow. There are many situations in which evidence will never be available -- there were no webcams set up to observe wolf-child interactions in the mountains of Spain in the 1950s -- but that doesn't mean its untrue. A skeptical mind, in such cases, needs to rely on other faculties rather than complain about a lack of evidence.
- jeandejean 8y ago
  I agree the lack of evidence doesn't mean it's untrue. But it doesn't mean it's true either. So here we have to believe the story of a man. Some people do, some don't...
yiyus 8y ago
This is a quite well known story in Spain. It made the news at a time when everything to watch on TV was the same news program, so everybody talked about it. The general belief is that his story is indeed exaggerated, but there is no consensus if he really believes all of it or is exaggerating on purpose, or maybe he exaggerated at the time because they wanted a better story and he was just a child and it is too late to know what really happened. However, calling people naive and comparing yourself with him because you have been in Central Park is not going get you many upvotes. Expecting otherwise is naiver than believing the raised-by-wolves story word by word.

3 ms·

Yeah. It's obvious that these claims are lies or at the very least exaggerated. And if they aren't lies, then we should be demanding real evidence. I don't get

by qubax 8y ago

nkoren 8y ago
That's not how skepticism works. A cursory search reveals that his case is quite well-attested to since the early 1970s, and the verifiable facts are not in dispute. What happened when he was alone in the wilderness is not verifiable, so "I won't believe it without evidence!" is a hollow and useless bellow. There are many situations in which evidence will never be available -- there were no webcams set up to observe wolf-child interactions in the mountains of Spain in the 1950s -- but that doesn't mean its untrue. A skeptical mind, in such cases, needs to rely on other faculties rather than complain about a lack of evidence.
- jeandejean 8y ago
  I agree the lack of evidence doesn't mean it's untrue. But it doesn't mean it's true either. So here we have to believe the story of a man. Some people do, some don't...
yiyus 8y ago
This is a quite well known story in Spain. It made the news at a time when everything to watch on TV was the same news program, so everybody talked about it. The general belief is that his story is indeed exaggerated, but there is no consensus if he really believes all of it or is exaggerating on purpose, or maybe he exaggerated at the time because they wanted a better story and he was just a child and it is too late to know what really happened. However, calling people naive and comparing yourself with him because you have been in Central Park is not going get you many upvotes. Expecting otherwise is naiver than believing the raised-by-wolves story word by word.