You're proposing raising the bar of sufficient evidence to "direct video", which raises the likelihood of a false negative (thinking there's nothing criminal going on when there actually is) and lowers the likelihood of a false positive (thinking there's something criminal going on when there actually isn't)
I’m proposing knowing instead of believing. Im proposing knowing based on reality rather that reading the shadows on the walls. I’m certainly not proposing what you’re suggesting, because the genes / cancer model is already proven to be a bunch of bs from top to bottom. There isn’t going to be proof of op’s model, ever, because it’s bunk.
All evidence can be fabricated. Don't fool yourself. And setting the skepticism bar too high will increase your false-negative rate.
Ask yourself, which is worse in this case: false positive or false negative?
I’m sorry, I don’t see how your response is related to what I said.
You're proposing raising the bar of sufficient evidence to "direct video", which raises the likelihood of a false negative (thinking there's nothing criminal going on when there actually is) and lowers the likelihood of a false positive (thinking there's something criminal going on when there actually isn't)
I’m proposing knowing instead of believing. Im proposing knowing based on reality rather that reading the shadows on the walls. I’m certainly not proposing what you’re suggesting, because the genes / cancer model is already proven to be a bunch of bs from top to bottom. There isn’t going to be proof of op’s model, ever, because it’s bunk.