Reply #103: No, re-read my post;

[The Doctor.]

"In this case, the most 'rational' contrary position is uncertainty."

It is rational to look at all of the conditions aligned to allow fraud, witness one or more anomalies consistent with fraud, and conclude that fraud occurred as 'coincidence' bears too high a level of improbability under the circumstances.

It is also rational to observe the above and remain uncertain.

It is not rational to observe the above and dismiss the likelyhood, let alone the possibility.


My high level of certainty is therefore rational.


The point that I've been making, I guess poorly, is that in many cases one can have a high level of certainty without absolute proof... which is what you appear to be looking for. There is no absolute proof that man is responsible for Global Warming, otherwise the Oil industry would not have the ability to fool so many people. There is a mountain of evidence behind AGW. That leaves only two rational positions on the issue; a high degree of certainty, and a degree of uncertainty.

You and I both know that uncertainty over AGW is alleviated through study. As one compiles and correlates all the available research, it becomes more evident that humans are responsible in the face of the highly improbable explanation that 'it's all just coincidental'.

The same goes for election fraud in Ohio. Once the vast scope of the fraud and suppression is taken into account, and the very precise manipulations and measures taken to prevent accurate counts, it becomes evident that it is more probable that fraud met or surpassed the threshold necessary to hand Bush the election.

It seems you agree that massive fraud did indeed occur. Therefore it is rational for you to be uncertain that fraud was responsible for Bush's 'victory'. It is not, however, rational to assume that it was not unless you have compelling evidence that demonstrates the scope of fraud only affected a few tens of thousands of votes or less. In this case, the evidence suggests that many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of votes were affected/switched/suppressed. Are you not familiar with the scope I'm talking about? Do you not believe that fraud could have had that far-reaching effect?