Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

[PRmerger]

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.

Would you have accepted it if you hadn’t tested it yourself?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So…it sounds like you’re saying that it’s perfectly reasonable to suspend your belief in “well established rules” in the face of evidence for such.

Yes?

Yes. As the title says: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You seem to think that extraordinary evidence is impossible to obtain, but I have not been arguing that at all. I described clearly what I meant by “extraordinary evidence” and that it can exist.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is circular reasoning.

“That’s extraordinary therefore I won’t believe it, because I know it doesn’t exist”.

Huh? It wasn’t any sort of reasoning at all. I was talking about the meaning of a term. The word “extraordinary” applies more accurately to situation that asserts the existence of some heretofore unknown object than it does to the unusual behavior of known objects.

But set that aside. If you disagree about the term “extraordinary”, I’m happy to capitulate on that point. In such I case I agree with you that “extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence”, given your definition of the term.

Nevertheless, I would assert that claims about the existence of heretofore unknown entities (gods, UFOs, fairies, angels, etc.) require an extraordinary amount of evidence. Would you agree with THAT claim?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes.

Excellent.

So we, as rational creatures, are permitted to suspend our belief in “well established” rules in the face of evidence which contravenes these rules.

As the title says: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You seem to think that extraordinary evidence is impossible to obtain,

Nope. Never said that.

I just don’t believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

All claims require sufficient evidence.

In fact, sometimes the only evidence is, “Because she said it happened. And I believe her”.

but I have not been arguing that at all. I described clearly what I meant by “extraordinary evidence” and that it can exist.

Fair enough.

I am agnostic about whether “extraordinary evidence exists”.

 

[PRmerger]

Huh? It wasn’t any sort of reasoning at all. I was talking about the meaning of a term. The word “extraordinary” applies more accurately to situation that asserts the existence of some heretofore unknown object than it does to the unusual behavior of known objects.

But set that aside. If you disagree about the term “extraordinary”, I’m happy to capitulate on that point. In such I case I agree with you that “extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence”, given your definition of the term.

Nevertheless, I would assert that claims about the existence of heretofore unknown entities (gods, UFOs, fairies, angels, etc.) require an extraordinary amount of evidence. Would you agree with THAT claim?

Nope.

Claims about heretofore unknown entities require sufficient amount of evidence.

Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Would you have accepted it if you hadn’t tested it yourself?

Yes. The claim isn’t that extraordinary if you’re familiar with why people expected that light might not have a constant velocity.

Specifically, that expectation came from a line of reasoning very similar to religious proofs of God. The thought was that because all the other kind of waves we knew about (e.g. sound) could only through some medium (e.g. sound through air) that all waves must travel through some medium. Now that vaguely-metaphysical rationale for the medium-requirement falls significantly short of being called a “rule” that light broke.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. The claim isn’t that extraordinary if you’re familiar with why people expected that light might not have a constant velocity.

Ok.

But if there was an extraordinary claim you wouldn’t believe it unless you had tested it yourself?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Ok.

But if there was an extraordinary claim you wouldn’t believe it unless you had tested it yourself?

Depends on how extraordinary. If, for example, this kind of thruster gets some traction in the scientific community, I wouldn’t believe that it actually works unless I could test one myself, or visit the lab of someone who is testing one.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Nope.

Claims about heretofore unknown entities require sufficient amount of evidence.

Would “My brother told me, and he’s a pretty reliable guy” count as sufficient? Say, for the Thor example, or (if you like) for the claim that an angel appeared to someone.

 

[PRmerger]

Would “My brother told me, and he’s a pretty reliable guy” count as sufficient? Say, for the Thor example, or (if you like) for the claim that an angel appeared to someone.

No.

But it would be sufficient if he said, “You would not believe this…I was sitting at a baseball game, way up in the bleacher section and a foul ball fell into my lap. I wasn’t really even trying to catch it. In fact, my hand was in my popcorn bag! I gave the ball to the kid next to me”.

That’s extraordinary.

And all I would need is his word that it happened.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No.

But it would be sufficient if he said, “You would not believe this…I was sitting at a baseball game, way up in the bleacher section and a foul ball fell into my lap. I wasn’t really even trying to catch it. In fact, my hand was in my popcorn bag! I gave the ball to the kid next to me”.

That’s extraordinary.

And all I would need is his word that it happened.

I agree.

Hence my theory that we disagree about semantics, not about actual standards of evidence.

 

[MPat]

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.

No. It was known what the speed of light was. It was thought that this speed was achieved in the frame of reference associated with Ether. There were some guesses about Ether.

But, as the paper - en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether - says, this experiment ruled out the last of those guesses.

Thus the claim that that paper describes the experiment correctly fits your definition of “extraordinary claim”.

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.

The claim is not “speed of light is constant”. The claim is, effectively, “The paper describes the experiment well enough.”.

And until the claim is accepted, we do not get all those “it had controls in place”!

After all, atheists are not impressed by St. Luke saying he “diligently attained to all things from the beginning”.

Of course, even after the initial experiment, it was repeated many times, by many different people before it was fully accepted.

Repeating the experiment does not add more evidence - it adds more “extraordinary claims”.

So, it only makes things worse!

That’s the problem: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” leads you to a dead end, where there is no way to confirm “extraordinary claims”.

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/

Another “extraordinary claim”.

By the way, while it is a nice experiment, I’m afraid that it is not sufficiently precise to really find out that speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. It can only measure speed of light assuming that it is constant.

Just a FYI: I’m a “she”. Not a “he”.

Sorry…

You are asking questions and then answering them yourself in the same post (as per the ones above).

Yes, that’s what asking to confirm something looks like. I see that you neither confirmed nor denied anything…

Others have been answered already (is credibility subjective).

The question was not “Is it subjective?”. The questions were “Is it changeable?” and “Does it depend on the claim?”.

There is a difference.

Others are nonsensical (what evidence is there for dragons).

No, the question was “What is the ‘new’ evidence concerning existence of dragons?” or “What ‘new’ evidence shows that dragons do not exist?”.

Misreading the question that much is rather impressive.

And if you can’t answer the ones that you haven’t (what is extraordinary evidence…what evidence would I require) then you should take no further part in this discussion.

First, I’m afraid that you do not have authority to give such orders.

Second, yes, I know that you would prefer not to have to argue with precision, especially if this precision hurts your claims, but that’s what you have to do here.

So, you do have to try to define “extraordinary claims” and “extraordinary evidence” with perfect precision. It is OK to fail and try again, but it is not OK to refuse to do so under pretence that “Everyone should know it.”.

If my wife said she’d seen a dragon in the local pub or something equally bizarre, then I wouldn’t believe her. That is not an extraordinary claim. SHE would be the one making such a claim. I am not making a claim. I am stating a fact. It’s not a position where I could be wrong. It’s not a position where further evidence would make me change my mind. Even if there was a dragon in the pub, I would not believe her if she told me that. Short of me making a statutory declaration, then you will accept that and move on. Otherwise you can say that I am lying. One or the other, thanks.

Because, and heaven knows this seems monstrously difficult for you to accept, the dragon in the pub is an exceptionally extraordinary claim. And I am at a loss to understand how anyone could accept it at face value, just on the say so of even someone you trusted implicitly. Because what, in your honest opinion be the more likely: That a supernatural fire breathing dragon was having a beer at the local or that the person who insisted that they’d seen it was having a psychotic episode.

And you might think on the implications of your position if you disagree with the above. I can see your kids calling you in a panic saying that mum had told them that she was seeing dragons everywhere. ‘Hey, don’t worry’, sez you. ‘She’s been seeing them for months. Why do you think it’s a problem? Don’t you believe her…?’

You keep arguing for “It is a good idea for ‘Bradski’ to refuse to believe his wife if she told him she saw a dragon.”.

But (again!) that is not what has been questioned here!

The proposition that has been questioned was closer to “‘Bradski’ would refuse to believe his wife if she told him she saw a dragon.”. That is a very different claim.

Yes, you could get the second claim from the first with “‘Bradski’ always does whatever is a good idea.”.

But you haven’t even made such a claim. So no, we are not going to just grant it to you. Especially when you show anger incompatible with your views.

 

[Bradski]

This is a subjective question after all, so we shouldn’t expect a one-size-fits-all answer.

But after 100 posts, it seems apparent that some people will accept the most extraordinary claims that have quite personal implications based on a very limited amount of evidence.

Warning: Expect those people to completely miss the point of the question yet again and bring up examples such as believing pilots can fly, bridges will stand and spouses remain faithful.

I’ll leave you guys to it…thanks for playing.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . That’s the problem: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” leads you to a dead end, where there is no way to confirm “extraordinary claims”. . .

I think I agree with this, but I also don’t.

Something extraordinary is likely to be not well understood. It would be difficult to come up with an adequate operational definition which defines an independent variable to be measured and the dependent variables that we can manipulate. In other words it would be difficult to understand it in ordinary terms and to validate it using ordinary means. A one of a kind result, such as a miracle, would likely be lumped into the “random” category as being merely a manifestation of the noise that is observed in nature.

Since this is a Catholic Forum, how about we talk about how we know God. To do so, some would have to step outside the box that contains their understanding of and approach to existence:

John 10:14-16 - “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

One way to look at what some see as the extraordinary claims of Christianity, is through the contemplation of knowledge. What is it to know something, anything?
I think it self-evident that the Ground of existence is not merely infinitesimally small bits of matter that determine the properties of nature, but rather, Divine knowledge, infinite Compassion giving rise to and filling all times and all space, eternal perfect relationally - Love, our Source and our destiny, the uncaused Cause, God.
Within the dialogue that exists between the First and Second Persons that is the Triune Godhead, the Father gives all to the Son, who returns His love, an eternal ontological Breath.

Through the quote from John, we come to understand how we, the sheep are brought into that Divine dialogue that is love.
It is because of Divine knowledge that we exist at all, and it is through that same knowledge that we come to know Christ and the Father.
In fact, it is through our participation in God’s compassion, that we come to know ourselves.
We can read all the sacred literature, including those of other cultures, and while what we learn may be deeper than what can be understood using empirical means, even though it may all be correct, it is not true knowledge of God, nor of ourselves.

There is but one Shepard, one Gate through which we must pass.
The extraordinary evidence is the voice of our Shepard who calls us to what is to this mundane world, the extraordinary reality of eternal glory to be found in communion with God.
We will all hear it and respond in accordance to our free will.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Especially when you show anger incompatible with your views.

The fact that you (many of you) try to accuse us of “anger” when there is simple disagreement, clearly shows that you are delusional (“bless your heart”). So why should we be surprised that you do not understand what “ordinary” versus “extraordinary” claims are? The examples brought up by PR are ridiculous, “bless her heart”.

But there is one thing that both she and you got right. The evidence does not need to be called “extraordinary”. It just must be sufficient. The claim that a three days old corpse suddenly came back to life, IS extraordinary. The evidence would be simple: “present the corpse before it came back to life, and then present the living person”. You may realize the word: “present” or “show”. Not just say that someone heard that it happened a few hundred years ago.

The claim that you found a dollar bill on the street (which I marked and left there) is ordinary. The claim that you found a Madison-portrait (a 5000 dollar bill) is extraordinary. Especially since it has been out of circulation for a very long time. But the evidence would be simple, and ordinary - in both cases: “show that bill”.

PR has another ludicrous proposition (“bless her heart”). She said that one should believe if their spouse asserted something “extraordinary” just because of “trust”. Nonsense. If someone, whom I would trust with my life, would assert that a flying saucer landed in their back yard, I would definitely NOT believe it. Because the possibility that they just try to pull my leg, or they went crazy or simply mistaken - is much more likely than that the claim is true.

Of course the evidence would be quite simple. Let’s go and check out that back yard. The “trust” in this case would be stupidity, or gullibility. Let’s see the actual evidence. Of course for mundane, everyday claims we can forego the presentation of the evidence. It is simply irrelevant. It is not worth it.

But you don’t get it. Bless your heart!

 

[IWantGod]

The fact that you (many of you) try to accuse us of “anger” when there is simple disagreement, clearly shows that you are delusional (“bless your heart”). So why should we be surprised that you do not understand what “ordinary” versus “extraordinary” claims are? The examples brought up by PR are ridiculous, “bless her heart”.

But there is one thing that both she and you got right. The evidence does not need to be called “extraordinary”. It just must be sufficient. The claim that a three days old corpse suddenly came back to life, IS extraordinary.

No more extraordinary than having a mind and a will that is reducible to blind natural processes. I think what you should say is that i have never seen that happen before and so i need evidence, otherwise what is the standard by which we define ordinary or extraordinary?

 

[inocente]

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).

The article you cite does make the claim “the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws—the sun “danced” according to the typical expression of the people”. After all it is called the Miracle of the Sun, not the Optical Illusion of the Sun.

But I wasn’t trying to make any point about how many out of the tens of thousands present actually thought the Sun was physically dancing around and how many thought it was an illusion. Instead, compare the hypotheticals. We can all agree that the ‘optical illusion’ claim would be credible simply if reported by a large enough number of witnesses. Whereas if the claim was made that something “outside all cosmic laws” happened, witness accounts alone wouldn’t cut it - it wouldn’t be credible without extraordinary evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

Depends on how extraordinary. If, for example, this kind of thruster gets some traction in the scientific community, I wouldn’t believe that it actually works unless I could test one myself, or visit the lab of someone who is testing one.

Why?

But it does sound like for some things you do trust in the testimony of others.

Are we agreed on this?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No. It was known what the speed of light was. It was thought that this speed was achieved in the frame of reference associated with Ether. There were some guesses about Ether.

Right. It was thought without evidence or rigorous testing. The thinking was based on vaguely metaphysical reasoning that is not very different from the reasoning people use in “proofs of God.”

But, as the paper - en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether - says, this experiment ruled out the last of those guesses.

Thus the claim that that paper describes the experiment correctly fits your definition of “extraordinary claim”.

You’re right that it ruled out guesses, not laws. But it hardly fits my definition of extraordinary claim. The only part of that claim that might be extraordinary would be that the Luminiferous Ether did not exist, not that the scientists correctly executed the experiment.

The claim is not “speed of light is constant”. The claim is, effectively, “The paper describes the experiment well enough.”.

And until the claim is accepted, we do not get all those “it had controls in place”!

After all, atheists are not impressed by St. Luke saying he “diligently attained to all things from the beginning”.

Not according to the definition of extraordinary that I clearly laid out. Scientists correctly carry out experiments regularly; we do not need to change any rules to explain how scientists can correctly execute and interpret experiments. The only sense in which the experiment is extraordinary is that it far exceeds the quality of evidence that we get from “everyday” experience and reasoning due to the presence of controls. Of course you’re right that simply saying “we took care of everything” isn’t enough, but I’m sure that you understand that this is different than what the the scientists actually did (i.e. explicitly describing how they took care of everything in such a way that you could reproduce their experiment.)

Repeating the experiment does not add more evidence - it adds more “extraordinary claims”.

So, it only makes things worse!

That’s the problem: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” leads you to a dead end, where there is no way to confirm “extraordinary claims”.

Only according to your own confused definition of extraordinary. As I’ve been saying, the very careful measurements taken by scientists are extraordinary evidence. The thing to do afterwards is to decide whether or not their experiment has any flaws (if it does you propose an improved experiment) and decide whether or not you think the scientists actually did the experiment they described (if you think they did not, you do the experiment yourself.)

Another “extraordinary claim”.

By the way, while it is a nice experiment, I’m afraid that it is not sufficiently precise to really find out that speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. It can only measure speed of light assuming that it is constant.

The loss of rigor I described comes from its inability to measure the speed of light in different frames of reference simultaneously.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Why?

But it does sound like for some things you do trust in the testimony of others.

Are we agreed on this?

1. Because of the number and kind of rules it breaks.
2. Of course.