Read on Twitter
Most of society seems to thinks any idea needs *overwhelming evidence* to be taken credibly.
This is the academic POV, or the burden of proof in criminal court.
But there are other POVs. The Intelligence Community clings to the lands of "probably" and "possibly."
This is the academic POV, or the burden of proof in criminal court.
But there are other POVs. The Intelligence Community clings to the lands of "probably" and "possibly."
In civil court, it's a preponderance of evidence -- a 'chances are.'
IMO, we need to get society to *stop* thinking about things in terms of "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
That is a good metric to use before stripping people of freedoms in a court of law.
IMO, we need to get society to *stop* thinking about things in terms of "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
That is a good metric to use before stripping people of freedoms in a court of law.
But where it comes to serious thought and speculation that could lead to answers, needing to convince beyond a shadow of a doubt is unhelpful.
Doubt is an inherent part of human nature! It's easy! And that's not a bad thing.
Doubt is an inherent part of human nature! It's easy! And that's not a bad thing.
But we can embrace "possibly" and "probably" and make it safe for people to investigate & research w/out fear of being ostracized bc they can't prove an esoteric hypothesis as fact.
It is never a waste to seriously and openly investigate the experiences of thousands of people.
It is never a waste to seriously and openly investigate the experiences of thousands of people.
Suspend disbelief where interacting w/people who are sharing experiences. Listen to them. Hear them out.
Then weigh facts later. But not before taking them seriously.
At best, we learn some amazing things. At worst, we understand people better.
Giggling & stigmas don't help.
Then weigh facts later. But not before taking them seriously.
At best, we learn some amazing things. At worst, we understand people better.
Giggling & stigmas don't help.
