Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

[Vera_Ljuba]

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?

The evidence is there. It is called neuroscience. It is supported by innumerable tests. Just because you don’t understand it, it is not an extraordinary claim. Compare it the usual claim of theists: “The soul - which is an undefined, unmeasurable something, has been created by an unknowable being, who used unknowable means”.

On the other hand here is an example of a truly extraordinary claim. There was a group of scientists, who claimed to have discovered cold fusion. Their claim was not born out by the tests, so it was discarded.

And you STILL don’t know what is an “extraordinary” claim? Bless your heart!

 

[IWantGod]

The evidence is there. It is called neuroscience. It is supported by innumerable tests.

Lol! Neuroscience doesn’t explain how blind physical processes can transform into a conscious self directing will. You are being misleading. If that’s your philosophical positron then say so.

Just because you don’t understand it, it is not an extraordinary claim. Compare it the usual claim of theists: "The soul - which is an undefined,

According to who?

unmeasurable something, has been created by an unknowable being, who used unknowable means".

So in other words you don’t understand it.

You don’t understand how someone could rise from the dead, so you require evidence.

 

[STT]

Lol! Neuroscience doesn’t explain how blind physical processes can transform into a conscious self directing will. You are being misleading. If that’s your philosophical positron then say so.

According to who?

So in other words you don’t understand it.

You don’t understand how someone could rise from the dead, so you require evidence.

There is correlation between the brain activity and consciousness. This is well accepted scientific fact. You can even stimulate brain and cause hallucination. Please read the following article for more detail.

 

[IWantGod]

There is correlation between the brain activity and consciousness.l.

Yes.

This is well accepted scientific fact. l.

I agree

You can even stimulate brain and cause hallucination…

Yes that’s true

Please read the following article for more detail.

It doesn’t explain in anyway shape or form how blind natural processes can transform into a conscious self-directing will. It never will, because science is a study of blind natural processes.

 

[MPat]

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”).

“Accuse”? Anger is not a crime.

And yes, we can see when you and “Bradski”, um, aren’t very happy with us.

Normally, it would make sense: you think we do not just accept your claims out of stupidity or bad will.

And that’s the point: “Bradski’s” account of evidence does not actually let him to explain rejecting his claims by stupidity or bad will.

You, on the other hand, did plan ahead, wisely taking into account that you will want to say we are stupid, and avoided saying something that would sabotage all that, um, “fun”.

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.

You seem to think that “Optical illusion” cannot be miraculous. Why?

Instead, compare the hypotheticals.

Why? They are both false. It does not matter what we will do with them. We might as well flip the coin.

Right. It was thought without evidence or rigorous testing.

Is that supposed to matter? Your definition does not demand any evidence for “common and everyday rules and expectations”.

Not according to the definition of extraordinary that I clearly laid out.

The definition:

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

I do not see how the claim “The paper of Michelson and Morley describes their experiment well enough.” does not fit that. If they described the experiment correctly, all relevant expectations of previous physicists have to be rejected.

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.

Only if you throw out “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” and take “Just use common sense.”. Which, in my view, is a very good idea (if done explicitly), but obviously counts as giving up.

After all, any principle will work great, if you can just use something else when it doesn’t.

If you do not want to give up, don’t just use common sense here. Use the principle you defend - inflexibly. If it really is a good principle, everything will be fine. And you are free to tinker with it as much as you want.

So far you need “extraordinary evidence” to prove that Michelson and Morley were not lying, mistaken or hallucinating.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

“Accuse”? Anger is not a crime.

Of course not a “crime”. Knowingly misrepresenting someone else’s stance not a “crime” either, it is simply bad manners. But IF you (in general) do NOT understand that there is no “anger” involved at all, then you (in general) are - ahem… - irrational. (Bless your heart!)

And yes, we can see when you and “Bradski”, um, aren’t very happy with us.

I cannot speak for Brad, but I am not “unhappy”. I would be happier if we could find some common platform, on which we could build a conversation, but maybe that will be possible in the future. But as long you consider our different opinion to be a sign of “anger”, that is impossible.

 

[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.

Is this because it’s unlikely (but also ordinary)?

Sure, winning the lottery as an individual is a very unlikely event. But it is an ordinary event.

 

[inocente]

You seem to think that “Optical illusion” cannot be miraculous. Why?

Yikes. Here’s the OED definition. Notice the requirement that a miracle is not explicable by natural means.

Miracle - An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

Why? They are both false. It does not matter what we will do with them. We might as well flip the coin.

Sorry, I thought this is a philosophy forum.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Is this because it’s unlikely (but also ordinary)?

It is not ordinary. It violates the law of conservation of momentum.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Is that supposed to matter? Your definition does not demand any evidence for “common and everyday rules and expectations”.

The fact that the rules and expectations are experienced and validated everyday is evidence. But it is not extraordinary evidence, since it lacks any controls to protect against biases.

I do not see how the claim “The paper of Michelson and Morley describes their experiment well enough.” does not fit that. If they described the experiment correctly, all relevant expectations of previous physicists have to be rejected.

As I said, it does not. As an example, there’s nothing particularly extraordinary about people believing that they could board an alien space ship following the Hale-Bopp comet by killing themselves. But it would be extraordinary to claim that people could actually board an alien space ship following the Hale-Bopp comet by killing themselves.

So similarly, there is nothing extraordinary about the claim that scientists correctly did science. Now you are correct, though, that people can reasonably doubt Michelson and Morley (e.g. suspect fraud, flaws in the experiment, etc.) The scientific process has mechanisms in place to prevent those flaws, but they still could happen. The expectation in science is that if you have doubts about scientific results, you will collect evidence yourself. That’s why science required Michelson and Morley to describe exactly how they conducted their experiment. So what actually happened? The scientists that doubted recreated and confirmed the experiment.

Only if you throw out “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” and take “Just use common sense.”. Which, in my view, is a very good idea (if done explicitly), but obviously counts as giving up.

The whole story of science is that relying on common sense gets you Posiedon causing earthquakes and Luminiferous Aether transmitting light; a demand for evidence gets you a Global Positioning System that requires Michelson and Morley to be correct.

So far you need “extraordinary evidence” to prove that Michelson and Morley were not lying, mistaken or hallucinating.

You mean like the evidence from the experiment I conducted myself? Or the evidence from the other scientists who corroborated their results? Or the evidence from all the modern products that rely on the validity of their results?

 

[PRmerger]

It is not ordinary. It violates the law of conservation of momentum.

Methinks you have some rather arbitrary definitions as to what constitutes “ordinary” and “unlikely” and “extraordinary”.

 

[MPat]

Of course not a “crime”. Knowingly misrepresenting someone else’s stance not a “crime” either, it is simply bad manners. But IF you (in general) do NOT understand that there is no “anger” involved at all, then you (in general) are - ahem… - irrational. (Bless your heart!)

I cannot speak for Brad, but I am not “unhappy”. I would be happier if we could find some common platform, on which we could build a conversation, but maybe that will be possible in the future. But as long you consider our different opinion to be a sign of “anger”, that is impossible.

No, different opinion is not a sign of anger.

But, for example, when someone actually changes the signature to point out that insults directed to others will be marked with “(Bless your heart!)”, lest anyone misses any of them, it is a pretty clear sign of anger or trolling. I choose anger, as that makes you look better.

Yikes. Here’s the OED definition. Notice the requirement that a miracle is not explicable by natural means.

Miracle - An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

So, what makes you think that an “optical illusion” cannot be “not explicable by natural means”?

Of course, I should point out that here by “optical illusion” I mean any apparent visual perception.

We can also have a natural illusion that was predicted, but could not be predicted in any natural way. Still a miracle.

Also, something like “Catholic Encyclopedia” newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm would seem to be a better source for definition of miracles.

Sorry, I thought this is a philosophy forum.

It is a Philosophy forum, not a Sophistry forum. Starting with two false hypotheses and pretending to forget that they are both false is not a “valid move”.

The fact that the rules and expectations are experienced and validated everyday is evidence. But it is not extraordinary evidence, since it lacks any controls to protect against biases.

I was not asking “Are ‘rules and expectations’ often supported by evidence?”. I was pointing out that you did not explicitly make that a mandatory requirement. So, would you prefer to update your definition of “extraordinary claim”?

But you should be careful - if you want to refer to any evidence in a definition of “extraordinary claim”, you will have to explain what is the relationship between that evidence and “extraordinary evidence”.

For there is a danger of “Extraordinary claims etc.” becoming just a confusing version of “Don’t accept claims clearly contradicted by evidence.”.

As I said, it does not. As an example, there’s nothing particularly extraordinary about people believing that they could board an alien space ship following the Hale-Bopp comet by killing themselves. But it would be extraordinary to claim that people could actually board an alien space ship following the Hale-Bopp comet by killing themselves.

Wrong analogy. Look at those claims:

1-a. “Michelson and Morley described the experiment.”
1-b. “Some people claim to be able to board an alien ship.”
2-a. “Michelson and Morley described the experiment correctly.”
2-b. “Some people correctly claim to be able to board an alien ship.”
3-a. “Michelson and Morley found that [etc.].”
3-b. “Some people are able to board an alien ship.”

You claim that 1-b is not extraordinary, but 3-b is, and thus 1-a is not extraordinary.

But I was not talking about 1-a. I was talking about 2-a. And I’m pretty sure you will not want to say that 2-b is not extraordinary (after all, from it 3-b follows).

So, once again - I do not see how the claim “Michelson and Morley described the experiment correctly.” is not extraordinary by your definition.

So similarly, there is nothing extraordinary about the claim that scientists correctly did science. Now you are correct, though, that people can reasonably doubt Michelson and Morley (e.g. suspect fraud, flaws in the experiment, etc.) The scientific process has mechanisms in place to prevent those flaws, but they still could happen. The expectation in science is that if you have doubts about scientific results, you will collect evidence yourself. That’s why science required Michelson and Morley to describe exactly how they conducted their experiment. So what actually happened? The scientists that doubted recreated and confirmed the experiment.

And, of course, you again argue for the proposition 3-a without using your principle, as if it was 3-a that was in question.

No, it is not in question. It is precisely because it and 2-a are not in question that I chose them.

It is your version of “Extraordinary claims etc.” that is in question. Demonstrate that it does not sabotage 2-a.

The whole story of science is that relying on common sense gets you Posiedon causing earthquakes and Luminiferous Aether transmitting light; a demand for evidence gets you a Global Positioning System that requires Michelson and Morley to be correct.

In that case, do not apply common sense.

You mean like the evidence from the experiment I conducted myself? Or the evidence from the other scientists who corroborated their results? Or the evidence from all the modern products that rely on the validity of their results?

The evidence available to whoever were reviewers of the paper (probably editors of the journal). And it is extremely unlikely that they repeated the experiment before publication (for example, the journal is mostly concerned with geology).

Of course, it is up to you to define what “extraordinary evidence” is.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Methinks you have some rather arbitrary definitions as to what constitutes “ordinary” and “unlikely” and “extraordinary”.

I suppose it might look that way to someone with no background in science. But I think that I have made it fairly clear that the relevant difference is that the only expectations violated by the M&M experiment were vaguely metaphysical ones. The law of conservation of momentum is actually established as a law via experimentation and everyday experience.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But, for example, when someone actually changes the signature to point out that insults directed to others will be marked with “(Bless your heart!)”, lest anyone misses any of them, it is a pretty clear sign of anger or trolling. I choose anger, as that makes you look better.

You don’t need to try to make me “look better”. Besides, to call someone “irrational” is NOT an insult.

I have my reasons to change my signature from times to time. If you are interested in my motives, you can always ask.

Considering some responses it is obvious that some posters have no idea what “ordinary” and “extraordinary” claims are, and why “unlikely” is NOT a synonym for “extraordinary”. You could spend your time by educating them. If you know the difference, of course. Just in case, here are a few specimens.

Ordinary claim: “Mr. X won a prize on Powerball”.
Unlikely claim: “Miss. Z won the Jackpot on Powerball”
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?

 

[inocente]

So, what makes you think that an “optical illusion” cannot be “not explicable by natural means”?

Of course, I should point out that here by “optical illusion” I mean any apparent visual perception.

We can also have a natural illusion that was predicted, but could not be predicted in any natural way. Still a miracle.

Also, something like “Catholic Encyclopedia” newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm would seem to be a better source for definition of miracles.

That article is 13,257 words, far longer than any word definition. If you want to obfuscate the word and claim that optical illusions are miraculous then I won’t rock your boat.

It is a Philosophy forum, not a Sophistry forum. Starting with two false hypotheses and pretending to forget that they are both false is not a “valid move”.

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

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 ".

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

I’m not seeing any consistency in your position. I joined the thread to discuss the OP. How about you stop playing debating games?

 

[PRmerger]

I suppose it might look that way to someone with no background in science. But I think that I have made it fairly clear that the relevant difference is that the only expectations violated by the M&M experiment were vaguely metaphysical ones. The law of conservation of momentum is actually established as a law via experimentation and everyday experience.

I think all you’re saying is that if something violates an established law is that it’s extraordinary?

But that you’re open to believing in things that violate established laws, provided there’s evidence?

Yes?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I think all you’re saying is that if something violates an established law is that it’s extraordinary?

But that you’re open to believing in things that violate established laws, provided there’s evidence?

Yes?

The “laws” are not imposed by fiat. They are the best, current explanations of the observed phenomena. They are always provisional. That is science - the willingness to consider new evidence, if and when it becomes necessary - due to new observations.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I was not asking “Are ‘rules and expectations’ often supported by evidence?”. I was pointing out that you did not explicitly make that a mandatory requirement. So, would you prefer to update your definition of “extraordinary claim”?

But you should be careful - if you want to refer to any evidence in a definition of “extraordinary claim”, you will have to explain what is the relationship between that evidence and “extraordinary evidence”.

For there is a danger of “Extraordinary claims etc.” becoming just a confusing version of “Don’t accept claims clearly contradicted by evidence.”.

Wrong analogy. Look at those claims:

1-a. “Michelson and Morley described the experiment.”
1-b. “Some people claim to be able to board an alien ship.”
2-a. “Michelson and Morley described the experiment correctly.”
2-b. “Some people correctly claim to be able to board an alien ship.”
3-a. “Michelson and Morley found that [etc.].”
3-b. “Some people are able to board an alien ship.”

You claim that 1-b is not extraordinary, but 3-b is, and thus 1-a is not extraordinary.

So I’ve been thinking about this, and it struck me that something was different between 2a and 2b. 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. That is, the correct comparison should be this:

1-a. “Michelson and Morley found that [etc.].”
1-b. “Some people claim to be able to board an alien ship.”
2-a. “Michelson and Morley correctly found that [etc.].”
2-b. “Some people correctly claim to be able to board an alien ship.”
3-a. “It is the case that [etc.].”
3-b. “It is the case that those people are able to board an alien ship.”

And so now the difference is clear.

3-a and 3-b are extraordinary claims. 2-a is equivalent to saying “Michelson and Morley obtained extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim” while 2-b is not.

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.

The evidence available to whoever were reviewers of the paper (probably editors of the journal). And it is extremely unlikely that they repeated the experiment before publication (for example, the journal is mostly concerned with geology).

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.

After review, the job of reproduction falls to people who are still skeptical.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I think all you’re saying is that if something violates an established law is that it’s extraordinary?

But that you’re open to believing in things that violate established laws, provided there’s evidence?

Yes?

Quite right.

 

[Bradski]

Quite right.

But JK, there is so much evidence for the resurrection! Five hundred people saw the risen Christ. Well, ok, if you want to be picky, someone said that He was seen by 500. But what if there is no direct evidence? Surely someone saying that someone said that something happened is evidence enough?

And here is evidence that the Virgin Mary appeared just down the road from me. We all thought it was just a fence post, but we have direct, first person, eyewitness accounts that it happened. Why would these people lie?
smh.com.au/news/National/No-rest-in-the-quest-for-Coogees-holy-rail/2005/02/04/1107476802796.html

So there. An extraordinary event and simple, everyday, ordinary evidence given by simple (ahem) everyday, ordinary people to prove that it actually happened.