[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That’s just my point. Such a “no standard at all” DOES NOT EXCLUDE setting however high a standard may be necessary to avoid issuing the prize, regardless of whether there is any intention to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is your point, you've termed it badly. A standard presupposes some kind of vaguely objective system. Claiming that Hovind's complete lack of objectivity represents some kind of higher standard, which was the original claim I responded to, is obviously false. Claiming that Hovind's complete lack of objectivity allows him to refuse to award the prize is clearly true, but has nothing to do with whether he has a higher standard of proof than scientists in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

My terminology is correct for what I mean to say.

A careful investigator avoids jumping to conclusions. Though there certainly is the appearance of unfair play, it’s bad form to make sweeping statements using information from your “mind reading” skills. It’s better to base one’s case on hard facts. What we can say from the site is that the offer of reward has left an “out” such that, if confronted by the data of a serious researcher, the ante can always be raised to some higher standard not being met.

The offer’s ambiguity leaves access to all standards, high and low.