3 ms·
What is ordinary about them is a better question. The burden of proof is absolutely in your ballpark here. Can you prove these aren't just crackpot theories? D
by oxide 7y ago
What is ordinary about them is a better question. The burden of proof is absolutely in your ballpark here.
Can you prove these aren't just crackpot theories? Do you have any primary sources or tangible evidence to support your claims?
- staticautomatic 7y agoOther way around. You're the one who said they were "extraordinary."
- rmilejczz 7y agoIn the absence of evidence of the extraordinary, it seems most prudent to fall back to the ordinary in the vein of Occam’s razor. If you see a bright flash and then a tree catches fire, do you assume it’s lightning or a deep state conspiracy?
- nickpsecurity 7y agoI argued they're so ordinary and pervasive that considering that angle should be more common: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/the_psychology_7.html#c1503021 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/the_psycholog...