Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

[PRmerger]

Extraordinary in what sense? I see lots of ordinary people interacting with ordinary objects (e.g. planes, lightning, falling glass) in ordinary ways (being close to them.) The only thing that even crosses into the realm of “unusual” is that people aren’t usually so close to those things. But unusual isn’t the same thing as extraordinary when extraordinary is applied to religious claims. “Extraordinary claims” in this sense means that a claim requires us to reject common and everyday rules and expectations.

So for example, none of those clips requires that we invent an entire separate category of being to explain them (i.e. the supernatural) or invent wholly new physical rules to account for the event. They are ordinary in the sense that they obey all the rules and expectations we rely on in everyday life. All that’s required to believe the video is to believe that the ordinary things and events came together in ordinary, if uncommon, ways.

Now if one of the videos had a close encounter with a dinosaur, that would *really *be extraordinary. We would have to change a lot of expectations and rules in order to believe there was an actual dinosaur. In that case, we would require a higher evidentiary bar than the mere existence of a single video.

It’s like the silly “winning the lottery” example people trot out when they think they can philosophize about statistics without understanding it. Sure, winning the lottery as an individual is a very unlikely event. But it is an ordinary event. We don’t need to reformulate our understanding of statistics to explain how someone could win. We’re not asserting that probability doesn’t apply to the winner anymore.

All of the above, irrelevant.

Can you think of an extraordinary event that has occurred?

How do you know it occurred?

Most likely: you saw it on youtube.

#prettyordinary

 

[Bradski]

No, he is saying that someone who doesn’t believe in God would hold such beliefs if that “someone” was consistent.

But, of course, atheists are not consistent.

We saw so in this very thread. For example:

So, you keep saying that we do not (cannot, should not) decide what to believe because of incentives - and that we should decide what to believe lest we “look foolish” - as if that was not an incentive.

Of course, it is possible to take back one of those claims and keep consistency, but I you haven’t done so.

You made the same mistake earlier and I couldn’t be bothered correcting you. But now you’ve repeated it…

We are talking about incentives to BELIEVE. Which is not possible. Accepting an extraordinary claim on heresay will make you look foolish. And this seems to be the point that you having difficulty grasping: Looking foolish is NOT THE INCENTIVE TO BELIEVE.

It is an incentive to look for evidence, which might then LEAD to belief.

So if I tell you about my dragon, looking foolish when you tell your mates that there are dragons in Australia will NOT change your belief. But prompted by your friends’ ridicule, further investigation will.

Evidence is required for belief (but not faith). The more more mundane the evidence, the easier it is to believe. The corollary confirms the OP.

 

[PRmerger]

Accepting an extraordinary claim on heresay will make you look foolish.

Really.

So if your wife came home and told you about a bizarre event that happened to her you wouldn’t accept this?

Or, rather, accepting this on her testimony would make you foolish?

 

[Bradski]

Really.

So if your wife came home and told you about a bizarre event that happened to her you wouldn’t accept this?

Or, rather, accepting this on her testimony would make you foolish?

If she said her friend apparently had a pet dragon, I would be discussing this with the kids to work out the best course of action.

 

[PRmerger]

If she said her friend apparently had a pet dragon, I would be discussing this with the kids to work out the best course of action.

Nope.

She said [fill in the blank with some extraordinary event].

You don’t believe her?

Are you a fool?



(Please try to think in the abstract here, ok? Insert whatever extraordinary event in the brackets which fits the context.)

 

[MPat]

But unusual isn’t the same thing as extraordinary when extraordinary is applied to religious claims.

Just “religious claims”?

While it does seem to be a “Freudian slip”, perhaps it is a bit too strong - in general “extraordinary claim” is any claim the one talking about it doesn’t like. Although, naturally, atheists do not like any religious claims.

“Extraordinary claims” in this sense means that a claim requires us to reject common and everyday rules and expectations.

Then any claim that an experiment gave an unexpected result is “extraordinary”.

So, the claim result of Michelson-Morley experiment measured constant speed of light is “extraordinary claim”. What kind of evidence would you demand for it?

Paper in a journal? But that is just a claimed witness report. We have those for miracles.

Repeated experiment? But it only adds one more extraordinary claim. Also, it is not like we have just one reported miracle.

For that matter, we have other “extraordinary claims” which some people are happy to reject - supposedly, because they need more evidence. There is the claim that people have landed on the Moon, the claim that Holocaust happened, the claim that Katyn massacre happened… And yes, “common and everyday rules and expectations” do tell them that people do not fly to Moon every day.

You made the same mistake earlier and I couldn’t be bothered correcting you.

Really?

Feel free to be bothered next time.

We are talking about incentives to BELIEVE. Which is not possible. Accepting an extraordinary claim on heresay will make you look foolish. And this seems to be the point that you having difficulty grasping: Looking foolish is NOT THE INCENTIVE TO BELIEVE.
It is an incentive to look for evidence, which might then LEAD to belief.
So if I tell you about my dragon, looking foolish when you tell your mates that there are dragons in Australia will NOT change your belief. But prompted by your friends’ ridicule, further investigation will.
Evidence is required for belief (but not faith). The more more mundane the evidence, the easier it is to believe. The corollary confirms the OP.

So, you have found a way to modify your position to avoid the self-contradiction I noted. Good.

But let’s see if it can still do the job of the original explanation:

I really thought that I couldn’t have made this any simpler.

The implications are meaningful as far as I am concerned that I live in Sydney. But not for you. Not in the situation that we find ourselves. I’m some random dude on a forum with whom you are having a discussion. Whether I am in Sydney or Havana or Glasgow has zero implications as far as our interactions are concerned. If you accept my assurance that I live here and it turned out I didn’t, you might think I was a little weird claiming it. Or maybe you’d assume that I used to live there when I first joined the forum and have now moved. Either way, it’s not going to affect you in the slightest.

On the other hand, if I mentioned that I had a pet dragon and you were talking to the guys in the bar one night and said: ‘Hey, you’ll never guess - apparently there are dragons in Australia’, then at the very least you are going to appear extremely naive. To accept that there are indeed supernatural fire breathing creatures in existence would have a significant impact on the way you view the world. So you would want a hell of a lot more than just my say-so.

Just my assurance that I live in Sydney is sufficient evidence for you to accept it. It is nowhere near sufficient for the existence of supernatural creatures.

You were explaining how the “real implications” indicate which claims are “extraordinary”. And now those “real implications” can’t do anything to make one disbelieve the claim, they can only get one to do more investigating.

So, when would one actually use “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” here?

And what further evidence is there to be found concerning pet dragons?

Or will the “real implications” just get the “belief threshold” to rise?

If she said her friend apparently had a pet dragon, I would be discussing this with the kids to work out the best course of action.

Um, to find the best way to prompt her to do a thorough investigation?

Remember: your account tells us that evidence automatically and infallibly causes belief - you have nothing to support problems caused by insanity yet (not to mention low intelligence or bad will).

For that matter, can you explain why we are not persuaded? After all, by your own account you only have to give good evidence, and we will be persuaded. And yet you talk as if our failure to accept your views was not all your fault.

 

[PRmerger]

While it does seem to be a “Freudian slip”, perhaps it is a bit too strong - in general “extraordinary claim” is any claim the one talking about it doesn’t like.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

She said [fill in the blank with some extraordinary event].

There is no such thing as “one size fits all”. There is no [fill in the blank with some extraordinary event]. Maybe that the other party strongly asserts that a flying saucer landed in the back yard, and little green men came out. No matter how reliable that witness might have been other times, the testimony is insufficient. It is much more likely that witness is joking, or went insane.

 

[Bradski]

You were explaining how the “real implications” indicate which claims are “extraordinary”. 3And now those “real implications” can’t do anything to make one disbelieve the claim, they can only get one to do more investigating.

So, when would one actually use “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” here?

And what further evidence is there to be found concerning pet dragons?

Or will the “real implications” just get the “belief threshold” to rise?

Um, to find the best way to prompt her to do a thorough investigation?

Remember: your account tells us that evidence automatically and infallibly causes belief…

Your first sentence is correct. If the implications are inconsequential, there is no problem in accepting something on minimal evidence. But if the implications are important to you, then it prompts further investigation.

So if the claim is extraordinary, simply accepting, for example, someone’s say so would not be enough.

As regards further evidence for dragons, that is for you to decide. Maybe if your spouse told you she’d seen one that would be better evidence than a man in a pub or on a forum.

And the evidence doesn’t automatically cause belief. It has to be credible as far as you are concerned. Your threshold of credibility will be different to anyone else. It’s certainly lower than mine…

 

[PRmerger]

So if the claim is extraordinary, simply accepting, for example, someone’s say so would not be enough.

Well, yes and no.

If it’s your wife, then you would accept what she says regarding her extraordinary claim.

I’m 100% certain of that.

You believe this based on FAITH and TRUST.

However, if it’s, say, someone on the internet, then you would ask for sufficient evidence to convince you.

Not extraordinary.

Just sufficient.

 

[neophyte]

Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

That’s the Special Pleading Fallacy.

 

[Bradski]

Well, yes and no.

If it’s your wife, then you would accept what she says regarding her extraordinary claim.

I’m 100% certain of that.

You believe this based on FAITH and TRUST.

If I have already told you that I wouldn’t believe my wife in all circumstances, then that’s an end to it. Accept it and move on. Find another line of discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

If I have already told you that I wouldn’t believe my wife in all circumstances, then that’s an end to it.

ALL circumstances?

Who mentioned anything about ALL circumstances?

All we need is that you’ve acknowledged that there’s even a SINGLE circumstance…and our point has been made.

So thank you.



Clearly, you believe some things based on FAITH ALONE.

With NOT A WHIT of evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

If I have already told you that I wouldn’t believe my wife in all circumstances, then that’s an end to it. Accept it and move on. Find another line of discussion.

ALL circumstances?

Who mentioned anything about ALL circumstances?

All we need is that you’ve acknowledged that there’s even a SINGLE circumstance…and our point has been made.

So thank you.



Clearly, you believe some things based on FAITH ALONE.

With NOT A WHIT of evidence.

And just for a clarification:

There are some EXTRAORDINARY claims that may be believed, reasonably, and justifiably, without any evidence whatsoever.

You believe it because you believe the person who told you.

 

[inocente]

In this thread it does not really matter that much if belief really should or should not be motivated by incentives.

What matters is this: atheists are inconsistent about having beliefs motivated by incentives.

When it suits them (arguing for “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”), they point to incentives (for example, opinion of “guys in bar”). When it does not suit them (answering Pascal’s Wager) they claim that incentives do not matter.

For example:

I think It matters a lot if a Christian is only motivated by desire of reward or fear of punishment, because it means she is only thinking of herself.

But the OP isn’t about who is making a claim, it’s about the type of evidence needed to support a claim. As I posted before, take the Miracle of the Sun. Witnesses reported the Sun swirling around the sky and advancing on the Earth.

Take two potential explanations. The first is local weather causing an optical illusion. The second is the Sun really did physically dance around million of miles of space. The gravitational effects should have destroyed the solar system, yet didn’t, and everyone outside Fátima should have seen it, but none did. So on three counts that’s an extraordinary claim, and would need extraordinary evidence, since even if there were a million witnesses inside Fátima, the first explanation is still far more credible.

 

[inocente]

Interestingly, law enforcement officials seem to think that people’s behavior DOES change when they believe they are (or are not) being watched - by CCTV cameras, speed detection cameras, red light cameras, visible police presence, etc etc. And the use of unmarked police vehicles and undercover cops further proves the point. Deterrence works.

Yes, and an early piece of research was to place an honesty box next to a coffee machine to pay for the coffee. First week, a picture of flowers was put over the honesty box. Next week, a picture of a pair of eyes. The pictures were alternated each week. Conclusively showed that people are more honest when the photo of the eyes is there.

Follow-up research showed a mirror works just as well. Being watched by myself still makes me more honest! But the entire thing is unconscious. Once you know you’re not really being watched, it loses potency. I think what we’re discussing here is trying to get someone to believe something by consciously introducing incentives and/or coercion.

A law which isn’t enforced with punishment when transgressed can hardly qualify as a law. So if you remove the incentive to obey the law, you reduce “the law” to nothing more than a subjective opinion. And then there goes your pious objection about why we ‘ought’ to believe a certain thing irrespective of reward/punishment.

Atheism, and its implied lack of afterlife punishment/reward, ironically strikes me as a complete refutation of the idea that we ‘ought’ to be able to be “good without God” because, when you take away the objective Higher Umpire/Arbiter of such ‘ought’ questions, what you’re left with is nothing else but selfish genes and self-interest.

Seems off-topic, as the thread is about extraordinary claims, but I think it’s not true. I just referred to Sartre on another thread, and his ethics are utterly atheistic yet they give no leeway as to what is right and what is wrong. I mean you kind of have to end up in the fetal position crying that you’ll try harder in future once you realize what he’s saying. Proper grown-up stuff. He has no time for pretty baa lambs.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Then any claim that an experiment gave an unexpected result is “extraordinary”.

For some definitions of unexpected, yes. That is the whole point of science, yes. To be very careful about how evidence is collected, how strong the evidence is, and exactly what that evidence is telling us. Now of course not all discoveries are going to overrule the “ordinary rules.” There are “actually extraordinary” results that would demand extraordinary amounts of evidence to believe because of how many rules they break. But there are also “unexpected” results that simply arose from misunderstandings or inaccurate initial estimates that don’t take as much evidence to believe.

Just “religious claims”?

While it does seem to be a “Freudian slip”, perhaps it is a bit too strong - in general “extraordinary claim” is any claim the one talking about it doesn’t like. Although, naturally, atheists do not like any religious claims.

There’s no “liking” involved. When someone dies, do you think it is an ordinary thing for them to come back to life? Do the ordinary biological and chemical laws result in spontaneous resurrections pretty regularly?

 

[MPat]

Your first sentence is correct. If the implications are inconsequential, there is no problem in accepting something on minimal evidence. But if the implications are important to you, then it prompts further investigation.

So, how do you define “implications” and “important to you”?

Given the example, “implications” seem to mean “consequences of accepting the claim” and “important to you” seems to mean “significantly unpleasant”.

Is that correct?

So if the claim is extraordinary, simply accepting, for example, someone’s say so would not be enough.

So, “someone’s say” is not “extraordinary evidence”. So, what is?

Also, we will soon see if you will follow this principle yourself…

As regards further evidence for dragons, that is for you to decide. Maybe if your spouse told you she’d seen one that would be better evidence than a man in a pub or on a forum.

That does not answer the question.

You claimed that someone who believed that there are pet dragons in Australia would be prompted to perform the investigation by ridicule, and that this investigation would lead him to change his mind. So, what further evidence would you expect to be found by this investigation?

And the evidence doesn’t automatically cause belief. It has to be credible as far as you are concerned. Your threshold of credibility will be different to anyone else.

So, you are saying that there is a “weighted sum” of evidence - with weights (“credibility”) being subjective - and once it gets above “credibility threshold”, it is automatically accepted, without any interference of will.

Then, are those weights and threshold changeable? By other evidence, by “implications” (“consequences”)? Do they depend on the claim, or are they “global”?

Your threshold of credibility will be different to anyone else. It’s certainly lower than mine…

It would be interesting to know what makes you think so.

If it is true, it would also make your work easier, wouldn’t it?

If I have already told you that I wouldn’t believe my wife in all circumstances, then that’s an end to it. Accept it and move on. Find another line of discussion.

And this outrage is not supported by your position.

After all, “PRmerger” is just refusing to accept your claim without additional evidence. You made a claim with real implications (you already pointed them out - dropping a line of discussion). Thus, by your own reasoning, he should not accept it without “extraordinary evidence” (and, as you noted, your “say so” is not such evidence).

Furthermore, if your reasoning about the “efficacy” of evidence is correct, he just can’t change his mind unless he gets more evidence. Thus, it is all your fault - why didn’t you give him more evidence?

As you can see, living as if your account of evidence is correct is not so easy.

Yes, it might look fun if you apply it inconsistently, hypocritically, but it is not very fun if you have to apply it to your own claims.

I think It matters a lot if a Christian is only motivated by desire of reward or fear of punishment, because it means she is only thinking of herself.

But the OP isn’t about who is making a claim, it’s about the type of evidence needed to support a claim. As I posted before, take the Miracle of the Sun. Witnesses reported the Sun swirling around the sky and advancing on the Earth.

Take two potential explanations. The first is local weather causing an optical illusion. The second is the Sun really did physically dance around million of miles of space. The gravitational effects should have destroyed the solar system, yet didn’t, and everyone outside Fátima should have seen it, but none did. So on three counts that’s an extraordinary claim, and would need extraordinary evidence, since even if there were a million witnesses inside Fátima, the first explanation is still far more credible.

OK, it looks like I have to modify my position. I said that the first step should be to check what evidence can we expect. It looks like there has to be a previous step: checking what the claim actually is.

For I do not know who is making the claim you are citing here.

For example, looking at ewtn.com/fatima/sixth-apparition-of-our-lady.asp I do not see anyone claim that it was necessarily Sun itself that moved. Everyone says that Sun was seen to move, appeared to move. No one claims the mechanism how that happened (maybe light rays were curved or multiplied, maybe something happened directly in the retinas or ocular nerve, maybe something else happened).

For some definitions of unexpected, yes. That is the whole point of science, yes. To be very careful about how evidence is collected, how strong the evidence is, and exactly what that evidence is telling us. Now of course not all discoveries are going to overrule the “ordinary rules.” There are “actually extraordinary” results that would demand extraordinary amounts of evidence to believe because of how many rules they break. But there are also “unexpected” results that simply arose from misunderstandings or inaccurate initial estimates that don’t take as much evidence to believe.

That does not answer my question.

So, again: what kind of evidence would you demand for the “extraordinary claim” that result of Michelson-Morley experiment measured constant speed of light?

There’s no “liking” involved.

Any evidence for that…?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That does not answer my question.

So, again: what kind of evidence would you demand for the “extraordinary claim” that result of Michelson-Morley experiment measured constant speed of light?

Why is that an extraordinary claim? People at the time suspected that the speed of light might not be constant, so because they did not know, they made an experiment specifically designed to test that theory. The result of that experiment was extraordinary evidence in the sense that because the experiment was specifically designed to test the theory, it had controls in place to avoid possible confounding effects that would lead to the wrong conclusion. Of course, even after the initial experiment, it was repeated many times, by many different people before it was fully accepted. I’m quite confident in that particular result, since I have literally tested it myself albeit in a less-than-fully-rigorous way.

smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/theres-easy-and-tasty-way-measure-speed-light-home-180952245/

 

[PRmerger]

After all, “PRmerger” is just refusing to accept your claim without additional evidence. You made a claim with real implications (you already pointed them out - dropping a line of discussion). Thus, by your own reasoning, he should not accept it without “extraordinary evidence” (and, as you noted, your “say so” is not such evidence).

Furthermore, if your reasoning about the “efficacy” of evidence is correct, he just can’t change his mind unless he gets more evidence. Thus, it is all your fault - why didn’t you give him more evidence?