Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

[MPat]

So I’ve been thinking about this, and it struck me that something was different between 2a and 2b.

Well, your analogy was not very good, but I did try to use it…

And I realized that your substitution of “describe the experiment” for the whole process of “finding that light had a constant velocity” is what is different.

No, the difference is that “Some people” are not basing their claim on anything at all, while Michelson and Morley based theirs on the experiment they described. Thus the analogy breaks down. If you are not content with my way of dealing with it, offer a better analogy.

Now, what you are trying to do is say that “obtaining extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim” is itself necessarily an extraordinary event. It may be an extraordinary event (e.g. if Michelson and Morley said their findings were based on “aliens told us”) but it is not necessarily so. Because nothing about what Michelson and Morley did (setting up mirrors, shining lights, measuring interference patterns, drawing conclusions) broke any ordinary rules; it wasn’t their experiment that was extraordinary, it was the result. The empirical result was extraordinary in that it was extraordinary evidence.

Ah, yes, by “described the experiment” I did not mean just the method, but the results as well. The full description (or “paper”) being correct did violate “rules” as they were understood previously. Or are you going to claim otherwise?

Of course they didn’t. The reviewer’s job isn’t reproduction, it’s making sure that Michelson and Morley weren’t crazy or just making stuff up. They do this by making sure that their experiment would actually able to test what they say it is testing,asking questions about the methods used, requesting additional controls/data, making sure that their experimental description is detailed enough, and double checking the math.

That is good and true, but inconsistent with “Extraordinary [etc.]”. For accepting that the authors are not “just making stuff up” would have to include testing the “extraordinary claim”.

Extraordinary claim: “Gypsy Rose, a well known psychic can predict the winning numbers on Powerball, and also the names of the winners”.

The difference is that the third claim is simply impossible, not just unlikely. Savvy?

So, are you going to lash out about other atheists who offered different explanations?

But that’s fine - we can deal with any explanation you can bring.

Saying that “extraordinary claim” is “impossible” has several problems:

1. How do you know it is “impossible”?
   1.a) The claim could be impossible by being self-contradicting, but your example is not self-contradicting.
   1.b) The claim could contradict the evidence we have, but then, what is the relationship with that evidence and “extraordinary evidence”? Do they intersect?
2. If the claim is indeed “impossible”, why would any evidence at all make you accept it?

That article is 13,257 words, far longer than any word definition.

I did not say it was a definition. But it does explain what is meant by “miracle” (and many other things). Things are more complex than you want them to be.

If you want to obfuscate the word and claim that optical illusions are miraculous then I won’t rock your boat.

“can be miraculous”. Also, I gave a special definition for “optical illusions” I had in mind.

The first hypothesis is that local weather caused an optical illusion, and you yourself said “maybe light rays were curved or multiplied”.

Yet you now reverse your position and ordain by fiat that both hypotheses are false.

And what if optical illusion was caused not by “local weather” but directly by God? You act as if that was somehow impossible, but give no explanation.

The second hypothesis is that the Sun really did physically dance around million of miles of space, and you yourself cited an EWTN article which reports an eye witness saying "the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun "danced ".

That’s how people describe apparent movement unless they are prompted to be extra precise.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Saying that “extraordinary claim” is “impossible” has several problems:

1. How do you know it is “impossible”?
   1.a) The claim could be impossible by being self-contradicting, but your example is not self-contradicting.
   1.b) The claim could contradict the evidence we have, but then, what is the relationship with that evidence and “extraordinary evidence”? Do they intersect?
2. If the claim is indeed “impossible”, why would any evidence at all make you accept it?

Are we going to play semantic games now? The word “impossible” means more than just being logically impossible. It is used when the probability of the event is simply too low to take it seriously. It is logically possible that all the air molecules in your room just “happen” to create a vacuum in your side of the room. But all the time in the world is too short to expect it to happen.

Just like the prediction made by Gypsy Rose to come true is “impossible” to manifest itself. It is NOT logically impossible. And if Gypsy Rose’s prediction WOUD come true, then we must accept it. But no sane person would bet on it, and no sane person would base her life on it.

Maybe you did not read the whole thread. In the first answer to the OP I already said that the “principle” is incorrect. Theoretically, every claim needs to be substantiated. But for mundane, everyday claims we forego the process, because it is not expedient. However, the “extraordinary claims”, like a purported resurrection or walking on water, or feeding a crowd with one loaf of bread and a piece of fish, we can justly demand real evidence, not just some hearsay. And you cannot provide it… or can you?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I love playing the atheist to atheists

So let’s look at what you’ve done here. You’ve asked why we have to use philosophical terms in a philosophy forum.

So who decides when it’s permissible to use the colloquial vs philosophical? And who decides when it’s prohibited from using the both/and?

You’ve admitted to not reading other people’s positions

Can you please repeat what you’re referencing?

and you’ve refused to address the argument presented to you, instead inserting your own definitions.

Well, it falls under the definition of extraordinary that I propose.

You’re not “playing the atheist” by doing those things. And the lack of intellectual charity required to do those things means you’re not even “playing the catholic.” You are just playing a run-of-the-mill internet troll.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Ah, yes, by “described the experiment” I did not mean just the method, but the results as well. The full description (or “paper”) being correct did violate “rules” as they were understood previously. Or are you going to claim otherwise?

Only insofar as it actually concluded the extraordinary claim. But since it did so by actually presenting extraordinary evidence we are no longer in the recursive “extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence…” trap you are trying to construct.

 

[PRmerger]

So let’s look at what you’ve done here. You’ve asked why we have to use philosophical terms in a philosophy forum.

Wait…whuttttt???

“Extraordinary” is a philosophical term?

Really?

And even if I grant this absurdity for the sake of discussion, what do you think would happen if I decided to do a search of all the posts you’ve done in a philosophy forum where you’ve used a “philosophical” term in a colloquial manner?

Game on?

Do you dare me to do this and post all the times you’ve done exactly what you’re objecting to?

Is this another example of a double standard embraced by atheists?

 

[MPat]

Are we going to play semantic games now? The word “impossible” means more than just being logically impossible. It is used when the probability of the event is simply too low to take it seriously. It is logically possible that all the air molecules in your room just “happen” to create a vacuum in your side of the room. But all the time in the world is too short to expect it to happen.

The difference is that the third claim is simply impossible, not just unlikely. Savvy?

Maybe you did not read the whole thread. In the first answer to the OP I already said that the “principle” is incorrect. Theoretically, every claim needs to be substantiated. But for mundane, everyday claims we forego the process, because it is not expedient. However, the “extraordinary claims”, like a purported resurrection or walking on water, or feeding a crowd with one loaf of bread and a piece of fish, we can justly demand real evidence, not just some hearsay. And you cannot provide it… or can you?

So, you end up saying that “extraordinary” in “extraordinary claims” means:

1. “Impossible” (whatever that means)
2. “Very very very very unlikely” (as “unlikely” is not good enough - and again, whatever that means)
3. “Important” (whatever that means)

In none of those cases you explain how one can actually check if the claim is extraordinary - that “objective, repeatable verification method” you kept demanding previously:

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”.

So, where is your “objective, repeatable verification method” (for finding out if a claim is “extraordinary”)? Or is it only something you demand from others, when you do not like the claims being made, but have no evidence?

Only insofar as it actually concluded the extraordinary claim. But since it did so by actually presenting extraordinary evidence we are no longer in the recursive “extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence…” trap you are trying to construct.

No, the result of the experiment was also “extraordinary”. Or do you want to claim it was ordinary, something scientists at that time did expect?

And the method, given the result, is also “extraordinary”. For the sloppy research would be the “ordinary” way to get unexpected result.

And thus yes, each claim that we got a piece of “extraordinary evidence” is inevitably an “extraordinary claim” itself.

After all, this cannot be evidence that could have been found if the “rules” were “followed” (true, real). And that’s how you define the “extraordinary claim”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So, you end up saying that “extraordinary” in “extraordinary claims” means:

1. “Impossible” (whatever that means)
2. “Very very very very unlikely” (as “unlikely” is not good enough - and again, whatever that means)
3. “Important” (whatever that means)

In none of those cases you explain how one can actually check if the claim is extraordinary - that “objective, repeatable verification method” you kept demanding previously:

If you don’t know what those terms mean - after having given copious examples, then it is your problem, not mine.

So, where is your “objective, repeatable verification method” (for finding out if a claim is “extraordinary”)? Or is it only something you demand from others, when you do not like the claims being made, but have no evidence?

I see you are one of those who does not understand the difference between a “metaphysical” claim and an “epistemological” claim.

 

[MPat]

If you don’t know what those terms mean - after having given copious examples, then it is your problem, not mine.

Oh, of course I know what those terms mean.

“Extraordinary claim”, “impossible”, “very very very very unlikely” and the like are all euphemisms for “claim I do not like” - I have noted that in the beginning of this thread.

If you didn’t like that explanation, you could have offered some different precise and formal, testable meaning, some evidence that it is indeed compatible with the use of “Extraordinary [etc.]”. And yet, we see that you can’t give them any precise meaning.

Since you have no answer, all that is left for you is to proclaim that “it’s obvious” and “you are stupid” in one way or another.

Of course, there could be a different way - saying that you are not sure and trying out various formulations (in other words, actually “doing” Philosophy). That would have been interesting. But, alas, it looks that that is not going to happen…

I see you are one of those who does not understand the difference between a “metaphysical” claim and an “epistemological” claim.

The difference being that you can offer very weak support for “metaphysical” claim, but no support whatsoever for the “epistemological” claim?

For yes, that seems to be the regularity here: you can’t answer any of my questions of the type “How do you know that?”.

It is extra funny, given that the whole thread is supposed to be an opportunity for you to support an “epistemological” claim.

Of course, your “epistemological” claims also tend to be self-undermining, and that’s why you have little alternative to using special pleading fallacy here (not counting actually admitting that and abandoning the self-undermining principle), claiming that “epistemological” claims do not need to be supported in any way.

Of course, inability of advocates of “Extraordinary [etc.]” to give it any reasonable meaning, to show that it is not self-undermining, is in itself evidence (although weak) that it is not a reasonable principle and that atheism based on it is unlikely to be reasonable either.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, of course I know what those terms mean.

“Extraordinary claim”, “impossible”, “very very very very unlikely” and the like are all euphemisms for “claim I do not like” - I have noted that in the beginning of this thread.

Yes. I liked it then and I like it now.