Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

[IWantGod]

Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No. Every claim requires adequate evidence. However, for irrelevant, mundane claims we are willing forego the process, because it simply does not matter. It is simpler to accept the irrelevant claims (or discard it), rather than spend the time and effort to demand sufficient evidence. For important, far reaching claims we demand the substantiation process, which either succeed of fails.

To demand a thorough evidential process for Jesus’ “divinity” (an important claim) is rational, while bypassing other claims of antiquity as ho-hum… who cares if Caesar actually said “Alea iacta est” before crossing the Rubicon? Most claims about antiquity are irrelevant.

 

[meltzerboy]

Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Perhaps not exactly what you are talking about, but in psychology, we know that if the consequence or outcome is extraordinary, we seem to have a motivational need or drive for the cause to be extraordinary. It is difficult for us to imagine that a mundane cause can result in an extraordinary result. That is one of the reasons why conspiracy theories abound, as, for example, in the case of the assassination of JFK. It is too discomforting to believe that a single, lone gunman can take down a POTUS.

In a like manner, if a claim is extraordinary, it would seem that the evidence for that claim should also be extraordinary to satisfy our motivational need for psychological consistency.

 

[MPat]

Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

The first problem with that is that it is not clear what counts as “extraordinary claims” and what counts as “extraordinary evidence”. In most cases we find that “extraordinary claims” end up meaning “claims I don’t like” and no evidence is ever found to be extraordinary. Thus it is just a “nice” expression of confirmation bias, an excuse to dismiss all evidence for claims one doesn’t like without need to do any investigation.

The right approach is to start by asking what evidence we can expect to find.

Perhaps not exactly what you are talking about, but in psychology, we know that if the consequence or outcome is extraordinary, we seem to have a motivational need or drive for the cause to be extraordinary. It is difficult for us to imagine that a mundane cause can result in an extraordinary result. That is one of the reasons why conspiracy theories abound, as, for example, in the case of the assassination of JFK. It is too discomforting to believe that a single, lone gunman can take down a POTUS.

In a like manner, if a claim is extraordinary, it would seem that the evidence for that claim should also be extraordinary to satisfy our motivational need for psychological consistency.

That might well be why claim “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is not instantly seen as ridiculous.

No. Every claim requires adequate evidence. However, for irrelevant, mundane claims we are willing forego the process, because it simply does not matter. It is simpler to accept the irrelevant claims (or discard it), rather than spend the time and effort to demand sufficient evidence. For important, far reaching claims we demand the substantiation process, which either succeed of fails.

To demand a thorough evidential process for Jesus’ “divinity” (an important claim) is rational, while bypassing other claims of antiquity as ho-hum… who cares if Caesar actually said “Alea iacta est” before crossing the Rubicon? Most claims about antiquity are irrelevant.

That simply means that for important claims you have to try to perform a thorough and impartial investigation, you can’t afford to just say “I don’t know and I don’t care.”.

That would be mostly true. The problem (for you) is that the moment you start looking at “importance”, “profit and loss”, you run into the Pascal’s Wager (the introduction to which actually does argue that we can’t afford to just say “I don’t know and I don’t care.” here). And you have just ruled out an objection “We have to ignore our interests and care about truth alone.”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That simply means that for important claims you have to try to perform a thorough and impartial investigation, you can’t afford to just say “I don’t know and I don’t care.”.

Yes, that is exactly what it means.

That would be mostly true.

Why just “mostly”? Why not always? Can you present an unimportant, mundane, everyday claim that should be investigated thoroughly?

The problem (for you) is that the moment you start looking at “importance”, “profit and loss”, you run into the Pascal’s Wager (the introduction to which actually does argue that we can’t afford to just say “I don’t know and I don’t care.” here).

No, that is not a problem at all. Pascal was a brilliant mathematician and a lousy philosopher. Pascal’s Wager is just an ill-conceived and incorrect attempt to become intellectually dishonest, and say: “you should pretend to believe what you don’t believe, so that you can brainwash yourself into believing it (presumably by endless repetition)”. Of course it does not pretend to be an argument for God.

And you have just ruled out an objection “We have to ignore our interests and care about truth alone.”.

If the “truth” is really “true” and not just a figment of your imagination, then it would play an important part in our life. If the claims of the Christianity could be shown to be “true”, they would be the most important claims we can ever encounter. So they deserve to be investigated. The trouble it that every attempt to verify them turns up to be negative. But this is another “dead horse” that we can leave alone in this thread.

Here we only talk about the generic principle expressed in the thread title.

 

[randomuser]

Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Yes and no. That’s a Carl Sagan quote, for those who don’t know. Proper attribution and proper context is everything here. Just sayin’…

 

[MPat]

Yes, that is exactly what it means.

Very good. So, since you have said that you need a thorough and impartial investigation for important claims, and since you also said that “Jesus is God.” is an important claim, we can conclude that, in your view, you should perform a thorough and impartial investigation of it.

Now, of course, in principle it could be that you are in the middle of such investigation, but your tone seems to indicate that you think you have finished it.

So, would you like to explain what you did in the investigation - and what did you do to make sure that this investigation was really thorough and impartial?

Presumably, that should explain what, in your view, is necessary for such investigation.

Why just “mostly”? Why not always? Can you present an unimportant, mundane, everyday claim that should be investigated thoroughly?

Make the promise to do an investigation - and you will get such a duty, even if the claim itself is not important.

No, that is not a problem at all. Pascal was a brilliant mathematician and a lousy philosopher. Pascal’s Wager is just an ill-conceived and incorrect attempt to become intellectually dishonest, and say: “you should pretend to believe what you don’t believe, so that you can brainwash yourself into believing it (presumably by endless repetition)”. Of course it does not pretend to be an argument for God.

Naturally, ad hominem directed to Pascal indicates that your argument isn’t really worth much. And indeed, for example, you do not show that there is something wrong with “brainwash[ing] yourself”, if it has been concluded that it is the right thing to do.

But if you do not want to discuss that in this thread, I am more interested in your investigation.

If the “truth” is really “true” and not just a figment of your imagination, then it would play an important part in our life. If the claims of the Christianity could be shown to be “true”, they would be the most important claims we can ever encounter. So they deserve to be investigated. The trouble it that every attempt to verify them turns up to be negative. But this is another “dead horse” that we can leave alone in this thread.

Here we only talk about the generic principle expressed in the thread title.

So, again, let’s hear about your investigation - and how you made sure it was thorough and impartial. Hopefully, that will clarify your position on the general principle (that is, how thorough and how impartial should that investigation be).

 

[tony12356]

Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Yes. As Vera_Ljuba noted “Every claim requires adequate evidence”.
The definition of extraordinary is something very unusual or remarkable.

So if a claim is extraordinary then it requires proportional evidence for that claim. Which means that evidence needs to be equally remarkable or unusual.

 

[MPat]

Yes. As Vera_Ljuba noted “Every claim requires adequate evidence”.

You do understand that “Vera_Ljuba” offered it as a competing principle, don’t you?

The definition of extraordinary is something very unusual or remarkable.

So, are you going to illustrate that by examples?

After all, “very unusual or remarkable” sounds suspiciously vague and subjective.

So if a claim is extraordinary then it requires proportional evidence for that claim. Which means that evidence needs to be equally remarkable or unusual.

Why?

That is, of course, “meltzerboy” has just given an explanation why you might think so:

Perhaps not exactly what you are talking about, but in psychology, we know that if the consequence or outcome is extraordinary, we seem to have a motivational need or drive for the cause to be extraordinary. It is difficult for us to imagine that a mundane cause can result in an extraordinary result. That is one of the reasons why conspiracy theories abound, as, for example, in the case of the assassination of JFK. It is too discomforting to believe that a single, lone gunman can take down a POTUS.

In a like manner, if a claim is extraordinary, it would seem that the evidence for that claim should also be extraordinary to satisfy our motivational need for psychological consistency.

But, naturally, I think you will want a different explanation, right?

And, of course, it would be nice to see an example. And an example where that “extraordinary evidence” has been actually found.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Very good. So, since you have said that you need a thorough and impartial investigation for important claims, and since you also said that “Jesus is God.” is an important claim, we can conclude that, in your view, you should perform a thorough and impartial investigation of it.

No, that is not my job, since I don’t make that claim. It is the church (or the Christians in general) who make that claim, so the onus is on THEM.

So, again, let’s hear about your investigation - and how you made sure it was thorough and impartial. Hopefully, that will clarify your position on the general principle (that is, how thorough and how impartial should that investigation be).

Yes, let’s do that. I am only interested in the general principles - in this thread. So, let’s get down to it.

There are three different types of claims. One type is about the external, objective reality. The second kind pertains to abstract claims. The third kind is a subjective claim.

They require different approaches. The abstract claims are simple. They are based upon some axioms and some rules of transformation. No problem there. Example: mathematics, geometry, logic. Take a claim, usually called a “theorem”. Using the rules of transformation and start from the axioms, you can either arrive at the claim (direct proof), or its negation (indirect proof).

The subjective claims are irrelevant. Whether you consider a picture beautiful, or not - is your business. There is no objective measurement of “beauty”, and there cannot be.

The “tricky” part is the claim about the objective, external reality. In that case there are also two kinds of claims. One is which does not affect us in any way. Claims of this kind would pertain to something outside the “light cone” or inside a “black hole”. Since from these environments there can be no information or action, the claims pertaining to them are irrelevant. You are free to accept or deny them.

The other one is which affects us, in some manner. And that is the type of claim where the apologist runs into trouble. If it affects us, it is measurable. If it is measurable, it can be verified or refuted. In other words, it becomes part of the scientific world. However, the claims of supernatural are contradicted by the actual experiments. The apologists are unwilling to accept the result, and they start the usual “evasions”, like:

• You are not supposed to test God.
• You cannot treat God as a vending machine.
• You need to give God an “escape clause” by saying “if it be thy will”.

And all sorts of variants of these.

So the problem is yours. Give us some objective, repeatable verification method, so we can test your claims, independently. That is the point: independently from you. You might not like the obvious “distrust”, but this distrust is “catholic”. Any claim pertaining to the external, objective reality falls into this category. The religious claims do not “suffer” from a stricter standard, but do not “enjoy” a more lenient standard either.

 

[Bradski]

Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

It means that for you to believe in an ordinary claim with no real implications (I live in Sydney), you’d require very little evidence. Possibly just my say so. But if I said I had a pet dragon, you’d require a great deal more than me just saying it.

So sufficient evidence is required. Which will be a great deal more for extraordinary claims than it would be for ordinary ones.

 

[Lion_IRC]

There’s nothing extraordinary about the claim that an all-powerful being can do things we find extraordinary.

Likewise, I don’t find dark matter or dark energy extraordinary. So why would I demand “extraordinary” evidence for them?

What? I’m gonna demand to see virtual particles with my own eyes or touch them with my hand before I will believe?

The fact that a skeptic finds something “extraordinary” doesn’t automatically make it so.

Neither do skeptics (atheists) get to call the shots when it comes to the persuasive burden of proof. I find their belief that God isn’t real quite extraordinary. What now?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There’s nothing extraordinary about the claim that an all-powerful being can do things we find extraordinary.

The extraordinary claim is this alleged being’s existence. And the big problem is that attribute “all-powerful” is not just an empty claim, it is undefined.

What can an “all-powerful being” do? First answer: “anything and everything”. That used to be the answer for a long time. Then people started to realize that logically incoherent actions are nonsensical. So the claim changed: it is now “anything and everything that is not logically incoherent”. But then the question of “can God commit evil acts”? After all there is nothing illogical about committing evil acts. Oops! Now God (this allegedly all-powerful being) can only perform acts, which are not contradicted by his nature. Bad news… since now we have to find out what God’s nature would be? Well, of course, one of his attributes is that he is “all-powerful”… and now we reached a nifty little circular definition.

As Dogbert was wont to say: “It is not circular reasoning… I prefer to say that there are no loose ends”. Hilarious. I suggest that you read my post directly above. Post #10.

 

[PluniaZ]

Claims about what happened 13 billion years ago, and over the course of the past 13 billion years before anyone was around to witness them, strike me as extraordinary claims.

How much certainty can we really derive about such an expansive time period, based on observations that have been recorded almost exclusively over the past 100 years or so?

 

[Rhubarb]

Claims about what happened 13 billion years ago, and over the course of the past 13 billion years before anyone was around to witness them, strike me as extraordinary claims.

How much certainty can we really derive about such an expansive time period, based on observations that have been recorded almost exclusively over the past 100 years or so?

Quite a bit, if we assume that physics and math follow predictable rules.

Which it turns out, they do.

Oddly enough we do have a method of directly observing the past. Something two hundred thousand light-years away will appear to us as the object was two hundred thousand years ago.

 

[meltzerboy]

The extraordinary claim is this alleged being’s existence. And the big problem is that attribute “all-powerful” is not just an empty claim, it is undefined.

What can an “all-powerful being” do? First answer: “anything and everything”. That used to be the answer for a long time. Then people started to realize that logically incoherent actions are nonsensical. So the claim changed: it is now “anything and everything that is not logically incoherent”. But then the question of “can God commit evil acts”? After all there is nothing illogical about committing evil acts. Oops! Now God (this allegedly all-powerful being) can only perform acts, which are not contradicted by his nature. Bad news… since now we have to find out what God’s nature would be? Well, of course, one of his attributes is that he is “all-powerful”… and now we reached a nifty little circular definition.

As Dogbert was wont to say: “It is not circular reasoning… I prefer to say that there are no loose ends”. Hilarious. I suggest that you read my post directly above. Post #10.

You omitted the issue of whether an all-powerful Being can act at all since action is a form of change and change means imperfection. Therefore, G-d must be extra-temporal. Just trying to help out a little, not that you need my help.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Why does change = imperfection?

When God created the Earth He changed the nature of existence.
Was He mistaken in NOT having made this change sooner?
Was reality flawed by virtue of an absent Earth?

 

[IWantGod]

You omitted the issue of whether an all-powerful Being can act at all since action is a form of change and change means imperfection. Therefore, G-d must be extra-temporal. Just trying to help out a little, not that you need my help.

God is eternally creating. Everything that God is or does is fully actual, not potentially actual. God does not move from a state of deciding to acting. God’s decision is **simultaneous **with his act which is itself **simultaneous **with his existence. God has never not created. God does what God is always and forever without change.

 

[meltzerboy]

Why does change = imperfection?

When God created the Earth He changed the nature of existence.
Was He mistaken in NOT having made this change sooner?
Was reality flawed by virtue of an absent Earth?

The act of Creation itself may suggest that the Creator changed something about Himself, that is, He did something that He had not done before. That may mean, philosophically speaking, that He was not perfect unto Himself before He created the universe. The argument of change-as-imperfection is not one that I originated, but it is something to consider among theists as well as atheists. Of course, theists argue that G-d lives in an eternal present beyond the trappings of time and space, both of which He, again perhaps paradoxically, created.

 

[MPat]

No, that is not my job, since I don’t make that claim. It is the church (or the Christians in general) who make that claim, so the onus is on THEM.

So, it is not just that you demand “extraordinary” evidence, you think you do not have to lift a finger to get it?

What a convenient principle for lazy people…

Of course, the obvious problem is that, if you want to apply that principle consistently (unfortunately, not a very likely case), now I get to demand that you demonstrate me that this principle is correct. And, naturally, now I won’t have to lift a finger. By the way, do I still have to read what you’ll write? Or does that count as work too?

Now, of course, if you want to find out the truth, it is your responsibility to do the investigation.

But, of course, if you are not interested in truth… Do you have a plan what you’d say to God after death in case He does exist? “There was not enough evidence.” (Russell’s plan) won’t do (as you haven’t looked for it). Are you going to say “You didn’t do enough and don’t deserve my company.” instead?

There are three different types of claims. One type is about the external, objective reality. The second kind pertains to abstract claims. The third kind is a subjective claim.

And let me guess - somehow, you will not want to assign the previous principle (that the one who makes the claim gets to do all the work) and this principle (about classification of claims) to any of those groups.

It means that for you to believe in an ordinary claim with no real implications (I live in Sydney), you’d require very little evidence. Possibly just my say so. But if I said I had a pet dragon, you’d require a great deal more than me just saying it.

Actually, the claim about living in Sydney has real implications - I kinda remember you claiming that it means you know English and, therefore, if you do not understand some English sentence, it means that it is meaningless.

On the other hand, I do not see any important implications of the claim about pet dragon.

Thus, given your reasoning, shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t we demand evidence (and lots of it) for the claim that you live in Sydney, while accepting existence of pet dragon without question?

So sufficient evidence is required. Which will be a great deal more for extraordinary claims than it would be for ordinary ones.

Why?

In fact, this claim has real implications, thus, given your explanation, I get to declare that it is extraordinary. Let’s see that extraordinary evidence supporting it.

If a claim is extraordinary…it would makes sense that the evidence to explain or prove or verify it would need to be stronger than average, IMO.

You don’t think so?

No. Now what? Any reasoning stronger than “it would makes sense”?