Because to dismiss it ALL is akin to saying "never".
No, I consider it akin to saying "not yet." The difference is that it's reasonable to make a conclusion based on a clear preponderance of evidence in hand, yet acknowledge that the landscape of the evidence can change at any time and warrant a change of conclusion.
It's not parsimonious to suppose that failure to explain by some number of candidate prosaic propositions equates necessarily to fantastic explanations. It's far more reasonable to suppose that unexplained data is due to undiscovered prosaic causes, not undiscovered farfetched causes. This is especially reasonable when a single candidate explanation (i.e., mistaken identification) accounts for a great number of the explicable sightings.
It's not at all irrational to dismiss farfetched causes that can be shown to explain none of the data falsifiably, and for which prima facie evidence of their existence cannot be supplied. In fact, not to dismiss it would be irrational.
|