Hmmm....good point. But why should we aspire to anything less than
proof?
Many men have been unjustly led to the gallows by so-called "reasonable
evidence." The problem with reasonable evidence is that the first part
of
the term (reasonable) is *so* very subjective. What is reasonable to one
might be folly to another. So how are we to determine what is resonable?
Shall we use the method of plurality (if the majority believe it is
reasonable, then it is reasonable)? This seems to be a "might makes
right"
approach to solving the problem. If I manage to convince 51% of the
world
populace that computers don't exist, does that mean that computers don't
exist? Clearly not, even though most people believe it to be reasonable.
So if not plurality, then what? Should every person have his own
definition of "reasonable evidence"? This seems to be a bit too
anarchistic of an approach. (Dodge City law comes to mind...) :)
--
______ _______ ______
/_____/\ /______/\ /_____/\
\ ___\/ \ ___ \ \\ ___\/_
\ \ \ \ \/_\ \ \\ \____/\
\ \ \____\ ___ \ \\____ \ \
\ \/___/\\ \/_\ \ \ /__\ \ \
\_____\/ \______\/ \_____\/
S003CBS@ALPHA.WRIGHT.EDU