Re:Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.
by mladenkovacevic on Thursday August 01, 2013 @05:47PM
(#6143788)
Reasonably good job on taking my sarcastic remark and applying it to this situation where it really has no business being applied to. No really, kudos.
Fact 1) Woman claims she was visited by some type of joint task terrorist police force
Fact 2) She claims that they asked her husband about pressure cookers and whether they knew how to make a bomb with it
Fact 3) She claims to have searched for pressure cookers on Google earlier
Let's just try and verify if those facts are indeed true and/or related before hand-waving the whole thing off as a "Maybe not!" because there is no "hard evidence".. okay?
Re:Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.
by untog on Thursday August 01, 2013 @06:12PM
(#6143941)
I'm not sure in what sense that was supposed to be sarcasm. Hyperbole, perhaps. In any case, I took it and applied a rule that applies equally in non-sarcastic/hyperbolic situations.
Anyway. You've just stated that we have three entirely unverified facts. How is "maybe, maybe not" the incorrect response to that?
In fact, your example touches on a larger point. An article like that about God would, if presented logically, have to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that God exists- all we have to go on are people's individual written accounts, and no hard evidence.
Compare that to this situation... where all we have is an individual written account and no hard evidence.