He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.He just goes on using the established theories _ d F~"conventional science'’ as usual. ) 3 critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis ( e.g., the conjecture that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact) , he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof* Sometimes, such negative claims by critics are also quite extraordinary (e.g., that a UFO was actually a giant plasma or that someone in a psi experi- ment was cued via an abnormal ability to hear a high pitch others with normal ears would fail to notice) , in which case the negative claimant also may have to bear a heavier burden of proof than might normally be expected.If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances..Admittedly, in some cases the appeal to mere plau- sibility that an artifact produced the result may be so great that nearly all would accept the argument ( e.g.Some argue, like Lombroso when he defended the mediumship of Palladino, that the presence of wigs does not deny the existence of real hair.
A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evi- dence.
The unconscionable delay was produced out of a strange combination of my procrastina- tion and overload.