Do extrordinary events require extrordinary evidence?

[warpspeedpetey]

There is no contradiction. It does not even “seem” to contradict it. A claim pertaining to external reality should not be confused with a claim about a claim pertaining to external reality. Don’t you understand the difference between a claim and a meta-claim? I guess you do not.

You said…

This “contradiction” only appears in your delusions. I will explain it once, and only once.

No one says that only those claims should be accepted that can be verified empirically. If someone would make that claim, then he would commit a logical fallacy, since that claim cannot be verified empirically. But since no one says that, your “contradiction” is nothing but a huge red herring.

Do you understand this simple, logical line of thought?

Then you said

In a very good sense it is flawed. Because every claim needs the same kind of evidence - actual, real evidence. It is not necessary to subdivide claims into ordinary and extraordinary claims. We need to use the same criteria for all claims - real evidence.

Depending on the type of the claim, the evidence required is different.

1. Claims within an axiomatic system require a formal proof, resting on the axioms.
2. Claims about the external reality require actual, real, verifyable evidence. (Something that poor wsp is unable to comprehend.)

It is clear you are contradicting yourself. You also said that you would explain it once and only once. But this is twice now.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

On one side there is a claim on the other evidence. Both are “extra ordinary” outside the normal experience.

The word extraordinary still means extra ordinary, outside the normal experience, there is no semantic shift.

You already admitted there was a shift in definition 35 posts ago in post #100

Using the coelacanth example show me where you think I change the meaning.

Why? That’s a red herring. We are talking about ECREE. You already admitted the Fallacy. Done deal.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… you did appear to say you’re biased…

Feel free to post whatever statement you think I said I was biased with.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So then we must demonstrate our set our standards based on reason. I’ve shown problems with your set of standards by asking you…

Where did you do that? As far as I know the last post we had on the subject was settling the definition of “agnostic”, that I was using. When I said I was agnostic to any iteration of Russell’s Teapot. Which is a bit of a play on words because Dawkins attacked a group he calls Teapot Agnostics, in this case he was referring to religious agnostics. But I definitely don’t remember you demonstrating any problems in my position today. I have spent all day pointing out the logical contradictions and fallacies that the atheist position consists of in these matters. It is clearly broken. At this point shouldn’t you be more concerned that the way atheists think about epistemology is fatally flawed. It doesn’t matter how I justify belief, because no matter how I do it, the atheist position is still logically contradictory and fallacious.

 

[jonfawkes]

You already admitted there was a shift in definition 35 posts ago in post #100

Why? That’s a red herring. We are talking about ECREE. You already admitted the Fallacy. Done deal.

No actually I didn’t - I said there was a shift in the situation not a shift in definition. The coelacanth example demonstrates this shift in situation. The definition remains the same. Once a claim becomes verified it is no longer just a claim. The contextual situation changes.

 

[ManOnFire]

You’re playing semantics. And you need to be clear, as the three words you put together are not the same thing.

I hope time travel is eventually possible because I would find it very enjoyable to experience it.

I have a little faith (only in the sense of trust based on evidence of all past accomplishments) that scientists will one day be able to make it possible.

I do not currently believe it is possible because there is no verifiable evidence to suggest it so.

Time travel will never happen. How do I know? The first few thousand individuals to achieve time travel would change the past to benefit themselves, setting off a chain reaction that changes the future in such a way that our existence will not happen the same as it has up to this point. But we haven’t been changed. Therefore, time travel never will happen, because here we are, unchanged. Once those first travelers realize their power, they would compete with each other to appease their own selfish desires, going farther and farther back in time to outdo one another, until time reaches a beginning. At which time there will be only one man and woman, at which time time will begin again. It will be like chasing the beginning or ending of a circle. It’s a paradox. Selfish time travelers would take themselves back to a time before the invention of time travel, which is impossible. We exist untouched. That’s why time travel is impossible.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No actually I didn’t - I said there was a shift in the situation not a shift in definition.

Yes you did, post #100 here

The production of the “unbelievable” makes it believable. There is a shift with the introduction of new evidence.

See, you describe the shift, and then you actually state a shift. Instead of admitting words you actually said, you made up a red herring. The fact is you lost this argument a long time ago, by your own admission, wounded intellectual pride is not a reason for me to start accepting red herrings instead of the actual argument which is ECREE. See it in the title of the thread?

 

[jonfawkes]

Yes you did, post #100 here See, you describe the shift, and then you actually state a shift. Instead of admitting words you actually said, you made up a red herring. The fact is you lost this argument a long time ago, by your own admission, wounded intellectual pride is not a reason for me to start accepting red herrings instead of the actual argument which is ECREE. See it in the title of the thread?

It is a shift in situation not definition. Unbelievable still means unbelievable, extraordinary still means extraordinary.

If I say I have a red balloon, that is a claim. I can prove that by showing you the balloon. It it not just a claim but also a statement of fact. The situation has changed with the introduction of evidence, definitions remain the same.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is a shift in situation not definition. Unbelievable still means unbelievable, extraordinary still means extraordinary.

This is what you said

The production of the “unbelievable” makes it believable. There is a shift with the introduction of new evidence.

It contradicts what you are saying now.

If I say I…

This is another red herring, we are talking about the ECREE.

 

[jonfawkes]

This is what you said It contradicts what you are saying now.

This is another red herring, we are talking about the ECREE.

We can go back and forth as much as you like, but I didn’t say the definition changed. What once was unbelievable “the claim” is now believable because evidence that once was believed to be unbelievable is produced. The situation has changed not the definition of the words.

The coelacanth dinofish.com/

 

[honestquestions]

Originally Posted by honestquestions
"So then we must demonstrate our set our standards based on reason. I’ve shown problems with your set of standards by asking you…"

Where did you do that?

HMMM I don’t know, maybe immediately after the six dots where you cutoff my quote, in which I then pose a question to prove my point, which you’ve ignored three times now. Here it is again:

My Claim To You: There are four aliens watching you from another galaxy and you must pray to them or face eternal torment when you die here on earth. There is a book full of testimonials about the legitimacy of these divine four aliens.

What You Have Conceded: You are agnostic to my claim. You realize that the real truth of my claim is unknown or unknowable.

Question 1: Will you listen to me and pray to these four aliens, or not pray to these four aliens, thereby risking eternal torment after you die?

Questions 2 & 3: How did you come to your conclusion in determining whether or not you would pray to these four aliens? If you deny praying to them, is it because it seemed too incredible to believe, or because I lacked providing you with sufficient evidence to believe such a claim, given the obvious nature that anyone could provide testimonials for an infinite number of claims?

Bonus Question: Why do you believe in your God, but choose not to believe in the four aliens?

 

[honestquestions]

Time travel will never happen. How do I know? The first few thousand individuals to achieve time travel would…

:( :confused: No, I seriously do understand what you are saying. Good point. :)

 

[danserr]

Correct, playing this single number and winning on a given day would be improbable, and if you called me and claimed that you won the powerball, I wouldn’t believe you simply based on your phone call testimony unless you provided me with some great evidence.

Even if I were an honest person not given to lying? That sounds implausible. I mean take the “me winning” out of the equation, since this is confusing you. Just focus on that number being drawn. It is extraordinarily improbable, but you believe that that number really was drawn on nothing more than the media’s say-so. ie, you believe an extraordinarily improbable event, without extraordinary evidence. You admit later in the thread that we can believe something that comes from a reputable source. But not matter how reputable the source is, that odds that source is mistaken or lying will still be incredibly larger than the odds that that extraordinarily improbable event is true. Yet you believe the event anyway.

 

[honestquestions]

Even if I were an honest person not given to lying? That sounds implausible.

Correct, even if you were honest person not given to lying. Past evidence shows that it is much more likely for even the most honest friend to be willing to pull a funny, harmless prank than to actually win the lottery.

It is extraordinarily improbable, but you believe that that number really was drawn on nothing more than the media’s say-so.

No, I wouldn’t believe it. The first thing that would come to mind was that I am being pranked and this tv drawing is a previous recording. So I would not immediately think I won after watching it on tv. I would then call the lottery office and ask for the number while asking them a few times to verify the date, and then check their website with the latest set with the date. I would obviously have already confirmed that the number set did match my ticket with the same date. My last piece of evidence would be physically going to the lottery office to get my check, and cashing it and seeing some physical cash that is mine. One piece of evidence is modest, but multiple pieces pointing to the same conclusion is much better.

you believe an extraordinarily improbable event, without extraordinary evidence.

Just gave multiple pieces of evidence that are the only pieces that could potentially verify this claim.

You admit later in the thread that we can believe something that comes from a reputable source.

I said we could for natural things that we see and prove all the time. If something said even from a reputable source sounds funny or raises a red flag, then investigate it more to come to a more educated opinion on the claim. But if it’s highly improbable, then you need multiple pieces of hard evidence.

But not matter how reputable the source is, that odds that source is mistaken or lying will still be incredibly larger than the odds that that extraordinarily improbable event is true.

Each piece of evidence makes it less and less likely a mistake all the way down to eventually getting the check and cashing it. It’s like a murder scene where all you see is a victim and that’s all you know which most likely would leave this as a cold case, but then you find a gun a few feet from the body and testing it shows that it was fired recently and the bullet that matches the gun type is found in the body. Then you find the cellphone in the pocket of the victim with a set of text messages that shows what the person was doing right up to the murder, etc. Each piece of evidence narrows the gap and makes a more believable story.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We can go back and forth as much as you like, but I didn’t say the definition changed.

You absolutely did post #100

The production of the “unbelievable” makes it believable. There is a shift with the introduction of new evidence.

At this point I can only think that you are purposefully stating a falsehood to avoid admitting you were incorrect, or that you may have some further issue that prevents you from realizing what your statements were, or the context that they were said in. But as you continue to introduce arguments unrelated to the thread “red herrings”, or red “coelanths” as the case may be. it seems you are aware of your actions enough to know what you really said…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by honestquestions
"So then we must demonstrate our set our standards based on reason. I’ve shown problems with your set of standards by asking you…"

Asking someone a question doesn’t demonstrate a flaw in their position. It takes a little more than that. Further, the only position I have stated to you is that I am an agnostic regarding all known iterations of Russell’s Teapot. What more is there to say? That pretty much covers it all doesn’t it? As to my personal beliefs I feel no need to justify them. I haven’t brought them up. They aren’t germane to the thread, so why are you harping on them when I am obviously ignoring attempts to make them the topic of conversation? Are you not getting the hint?

 

[honestquestions]

Are you not getting the hint?

I’m getting a big hint that everyone knows you have been cornered by my questions of which you cannot answer.

the only position I have stated to you is that I am an agnostic regarding all known iterations of Russell’s Teapot. What more is there to say? That pretty much covers it all doesn’t it?

No because I ask what is the difference in Russell’s teapot, etc. testimonial evidence vs the testimonial evidence of Jesus?

I am obviously ignoring attempts to make them the topic of conversation

I guess anyone who isn’t interested in logic would also ignore it because it would trump their position.

For the record, my questions are open to anyone else.

 

[honestquestions]

For anyone else…

My Claim To You: I tell you that I have divine knowledge that there are four aliens watching you from another galaxy and you must pray to them or face eternal torment when you die here on earth. There is a book full of testimonials about the legitimacy of these divine four aliens.

What You Probably Agree To: You are agnostic to my claim. You realize that the real truth of my claim is unknown or unknowable.

Question 1: Will you listen to me and pray to these four aliens, or not pray to these four aliens, thereby risking eternal torment after you die?

Questions 2 & 3: How did you come to your conclusion in determining whether or not you would pray to these four aliens? If you deny praying to them, is it because it seemed too incredible to believe, or because I lacked providing you with sufficient evidence to believe such a claim, given the obvious nature that anyone could provide testimonials for an infinite number of claims?

Bonus Question: Why do you believe in your God, but choose not to believe in the four aliens?

 

[jonfawkes]

You absolutely did post #100

At this point I can only think that you are purposefully stating a falsehood to avoid admitting you were incorrect, or that you may have some further issue that prevents you from realizing what your statements were, or the context that they were said in. But as you continue to introduce arguments unrelated to the thread “red herrings”, or red “coelanths” as the case may be. it seems you are aware of your actions enough to know what you really said…

You aren’t reading what I wrote. The indroduction of evidence changes the situation not the definition, which is the fallacy of equivocation that you seem to see.

I have a wagon that is not red - I introduce red paint, the wagon is red. Red and not red still mean the same thing.

The coelacanth is an example where extraordinary evidence was presented for an extraordinary claim. It’s a real life example of the premise you seem to think is fallacious.
The situation changes. Not the definition.

 

[jonfawkes]

It is extraordinarily improbable,

It is not. it is governed by a set of odds determined by the game.