Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
How does an ordinary person with a bunch of questions determine whose interests and motives seem to be prevailing?

Rational or Scientific Skepticism.

Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.

With a heavy reliance, in this case, on Critical Thinking:

... a type of reasonable, reflective thinking that is aimed at deciding what to believe or what to do. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false.

It seems to be the case on the "Pro" side the Bosnian discoverer and the Bosnian government have a strong interest in the thesis.  On the "Anti" side are disinterested specialists.  Given extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that evidence has not been provided to the satisfaction, or meets the objections of disinterested specialists, "Not Proven" seems to be the rational conclusion.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Aug 27th, 2012 at 11:37:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series