Comment: Re:Science! (Score 2) 57
You are incorrect. Evidence can have varying levels of quality. You get weak evidence, you get strong evidence, and you can also get extraordinary evidence.
If any hypothesis is well-supported by established theory, it is only necessary for there to be mediocre evidence for it. In the absence of any reasonable alternative, it can then be accepted as correct, because it is backed not only by that weak evidence but also by all the strong evidence that supports the established theory.
If a hypothesis contradicts established theory, the evidence for it must be particularly strong. Accepted theory is based on the BALANCE of evidence being in favour of one hypothesis over another.
There is always at least some evidence to support a crackpot claim, otherwise that claim would never have been made. To simply abandon a theory because another theory has some evidence to support it is pure folly. The only reasonable action is to compare the sum of evidence for competing theories.
(Upon re-examining your post, it seems possible that you are mistakenly taking the phrase 'extraordinary evidence' to mean 'evidence of something extraordinary', it isn't clear. If so, you have completely misunderstood the grandparent post.)