Peter Nelson wrote in message <01bd69a4$d9d219e0$0100a8c0 at spartina>...
>SW <stephen.walsh1 at virgin.net> wrote in article
><353351E9.20F8 at virgin.net>...
>> Lee Merkel wrote:
>> >
>> > Occam's razor, tremendously rusty from being over-used, gets
>> > worn out completely when people attempt to apply it to the many
>> > many thousands of reported cases of such abductions. Then it just
>>Who cares? We don't need Occam's razor to deal
>with 'alien abductions'. The case against 'alien abductions'
>is really a lot simpler - the proponents of 'alien abductions'
>have failed to present even a single solitary piece of
>evidence FOR aliens or abductions. Zero. Zilch. While
>strong claims require strong evidence, they don't even have
>weak evidence.
>>---peter
I think the evidence is overwhelming that some sort of phenomena exists,
although we don't know its ultimate cause. I agree that we don't need
Occam's Razor because so far no one has proposed a theory that can
explain all the data. Alien abduction doesn't explain it. Sleep paralysis
doesn't explain it. Hysteria doesn't explain it. Fantasy Proneness doesn't
explain it. Even Lawson's Birth Trauma Hypothesis (which does explain
more than most theories) doesn't explain it all.
Etherman
The Internet's sole purpose is to get porn and
bomb making plans into the hands of children.
etherman at mdc.net
