Your friend Bill shows you an LP. It looks to be in pristine condition.
Bill has a piece of paper that was written by someone neither of you has met (Bill thinks it was the guy who used to live in his flat but moved away before Bill lived there, although he can't be sure). This piece of paper says that the LP was once scratched, but brilliantly restored.
You want to know if the paper's account is accurate, so you subject the LP to tests, but you can find no evidence to support the claim written on the paper (as well as several things which seem to contradict the paper's claim).
Bill, however, is under the impression that the guy who used to live in his flat was completely trustworthy, and since he also thinks that this guy wrote the paper, the claim written on it must be true. Bill also says that the things you found that contradict the paper's claim must simply be a result of your own fallibility.
Here's my challenge:
Who has the most reasonable position? You, or Bill?
Bill has a piece of paper that was written by someone neither of you has met (Bill thinks it was the guy who used to live in his flat but moved away before Bill lived there, although he can't be sure). This piece of paper says that the LP was once scratched, but brilliantly restored.
You want to know if the paper's account is accurate, so you subject the LP to tests, but you can find no evidence to support the claim written on the paper (as well as several things which seem to contradict the paper's claim).
Bill, however, is under the impression that the guy who used to live in his flat was completely trustworthy, and since he also thinks that this guy wrote the paper, the claim written on it must be true. Bill also says that the things you found that contradict the paper's claim must simply be a result of your own fallibility.
Here's my challenge:
Who has the most reasonable position? You, or Bill?