Lem wrote:Maybe that's part of the confusion. I certainly don't think that, and I'm not really seeing anyone telling you that,
I'm not either. Res and I are in two different places: why it can't be ruled out vs. why I should accept it.
I have some serious philosophical differences with Gemli, but he makes the best default skeptic cases ever. I think if Gemli were here, he'd just say the burden of proof is on Nelson or those who believe the story to provide the evidence and until then, he'll just sit there kicked back in his chair with his feet on the coffee table, and call BS. There's a major asymmetry of effort here: Showing the black duck vs. all ducks are white. There could be an incident report or a story in the paper, or a memoir by a pilot or someone close to the scene on a blog and case closed. Such a shred of evidence could have been provided if nothing else, for the authorized biography.
Since we're telling career stories: When I was first getting into my career, a friend hooked me up for breakfast with a relative well-established in the same career -- my friend, however, gave me "the warning" about his relative. Here we are at the restaurant, and it's one whopper after the other, all told with sincerity and a straight face. The conversation was all over the place. From the killing machines he'd trained as a martial arts instructor to the war zone about the mission home on his mission. The guy was huge, overweight, sure, but tall and broad. We had to sit at a table where there'd be enough room. He winced every now and again from back pain he was in. I tried to clarify that the martial arts that he actively teaches; surely if he were serious, represented some kind of "big guy" judo, grappling style. No. He clarified that he moves like Jean Claude Van Damme (his reference, not mine). There was never a moment of humor about this or anything at that table. Another of his many random claims that morning: Somewhere in Idaho, there exists a Stake Center with 4 indoor swimming pools.
Let's focus on that last claim. How much time could we spend as a group running down every stake center in Idaho, our connections, websites, church leaders, and how many ways can we construe the claim just to be sure -- maybe the church bought some land and adjacent to where the chapel ended up were the pools? And what really stares at you in the face, again, is the disproportionate effort involved proving vs. definitively ruling out the claim. "Here's the address, run it down yourself." Asked and answered. These aren't extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, they are ordinary, but rare or suspect claims, requiring ordinary evidence.
Yes, I admit that I'm hugely biased in this case, as I was hugely biased about everything I heard at breakfast that day. Is that bias a problem? It really depends on what question you're trying to answer. Given the asymmetry of effort for believer vs. skeptic here, those calling BS could push the claimant into revealing his hand. If you want to confirm it happened, everyone needs to call BS and let the guy who has the proof present it. Our efforts will almost certainly never, in a hundred years at this point,
confirm this incident. On the other hand, if you want to answer the question of bare plausibility, with a nod to Lem's example of the Book of Mormon, then we can't yet say that every duck is white. There are always more ducks to go.
That's not to say that it's silly to be skeptical of "all ducks are white". I really believe this comes down to what you're trying to get to, personally. Maybe another 200 ducks will rule it out with near certainty, so don't give up yet. Or Given the notoriety of the claimant here, the number of times the story is told, and so on, it could be seen as a case where there's a lot on the line. Let's check 150 more ducks than we ordinarily would, otherwise we could be caught with our pants down. Skeptics have quickly blown off the Book of Mormon with valid concerns, but caution being low, accidentally put the ball on the Tee for the apologist. The apologists one day find an answer to a concern that hadn't been thought out well enough, and even though the case for the Book of Mormon doesn't advance an inch because of it in reality, it appears to in the mind of the believers. Knocking down a flippant objection is taken as proof for the primary claim. How many times has Interpreter been justified as a smashing success because it has published on Fridays for so many years, when a random critic said it would die, ten years ago? I'm just saying there are advantages and disadvantages to either attitude.