system
A chat on 4chan
human
>What counts is not what sounds plausible
>extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
These are contradictory statements. If you've already decided what counts as 'extraordinary', then your standards of proof are biased in favour of what 'sounds plausible'. Completely unscientific mumbo-jumbo.
gpt
>debooker
>make covenant with a water spirit

If I tried to make a covenant with a water spirit, I wouldn't be much of a debooker now would I?


Extraordinary evidence >>>>>>>>>>>> 'it sounds plausible, bro'

You should understand there are degrees of believability.

It's plausible that the dodo didn't go extinct 500 years ago and is still alive today, but the extraordinary evidence is an actual fucking dodo in captivity being examined by ornithologists.
human
>believability
Again, completely unscientific circular reasoning. You've already decided what is 'believable' and set the standard of evidence accordingly.
Actual science decides what is believable based on evidence, not the other way around.