No, what you are doing is doubling down on your definition of "evidence".
This is factually incorrect. I advocated for the scientific approach.
You claimed I pushed for rigorous scientific-level evidence and then refuse to accept when I say I didn't. I understand if your initial thought was that I demanded something more stringent than I actually meant (interpreting 'evidence' your way is reasonable) but I've told you over and over since that I'm not actually asking you for that level of verifiability.
This is why I've pushed the Ed question so many times now. You claimed he had a reputation as a Swedish kickboxer, I disagree and ask you to simply explain why you think that. Anecdotal evidence is fine to begin with.
Because we can't actually prove anything here.
I just gave you instructions on how to prove your point.
[...]
You can go to Wayback machine. Or you can admit that you can't give me evidence.
"It is difficult to prove. Therefore, unverifiable evidence proves it."
I've already told you at least twice now that the data is gone, if it was even saved in the first place (most Swedish talks were done in chat). It's been clear to all since our debates on old SC that I can't provide verifiable evidence at a level you will accept, so why do you keep pushing this straw man that I somehow pretended I could?
You don't even trust something as reasonable as Sensy and I speaking at the same time in the same call to prove we're two people.
Now you argue that all theories must be equally probable, which is wrong in the Bayesian sense. You also ignore a priori evidence, another statistical fallacy.
No, all I'm saying is that the standard/quality for evidence you want is too high and can't be met.
