>>507106135
>You do. But you'll pretend not to to try and make an irrelevant point
wow, look at this fucking telepath divining the true secrets of my mind.
>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
this isn't some inviolable law of logic, it's some retarded catchphrase one the faggot pop-sci leaders of your nu-atheist cult came up with, sagan or hitchens.
it's tautological ("extraordinary" is undefined and circular), vague (lacks measurable thresholds), and presumes what it aims to prove (assumes extraordinary claims MUST have higher evidentiary burdens without justification. it conflates epistemic rigor with subjective astonishment.
you should feel embarrassed to have typed it.