Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

Sure. There is evidence. The weakest kind of ordinary evidence. Uncontrolled. Unreviewed. Unverified. Non-empirical. But we are dealing with an extraordinary claim. In order to achieve extraordinary evidence, we need all those things.

 

[PRmerger]

But JK, there is so much evidence for the resurrection!

Scratch an atheist…

(Just to be clear: there’s sufficient evidence, not “so much”).

 

[PRmerger]

Quite right.

 

[Bradski]

Sure. There is evidence. The weakest kind of ordinary evidence. Uncontrolled. Unreviewed. Unverified. Non-empirical. But we are dealing with an extraordinary claim. In order to achieve extraordinary evidence, we need all those things.

Indeed we do, JK. Indeed we do.

By the way, I checked it out myself (well, it was on the coastal walk I take to a decent pub in that area). It was just a piece of wood. So much for eyewitness testimony (ordinary evidence) for an extraordinary claim (a fence post was transformed into the mother of Jesus).

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. There is evidence. The weakest kind of ordinary evidence. Uncontrolled. Unreviewed. Unverified. Non-empirical. But we are dealing with an extraordinary claim.

I am heartened to see that you, at least, acknowledge that there is indeed evidence for the resurrection.

In order to achieve extraordinary evidence, we need all those things.

You’re making a claim here. Can you offer some controlled, reviewed, empirical data that shows that for extraordinary claims you must have controlled, reviewed, verified, empirical evidence?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You’re making a claim here. Can you offer some controlled, reviewed, empirical data that shows that for extraordinary claims you must have controlled, reviewed, verified, empirical evidence?

If you can show that I am making an extraordinary claim.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I am heartened to see that you, at least, acknowledge that there is indeed evidence for the resurrection.

Yes. There is. In the same sense that the homeless man with the sandwich board is evidence that the end is near.

 

[PRmerger]

If you can show that I am making an extraordinary claim.

So I should just take your word for this?

Even though there’s not a single study that supports your claim, I’m supposed to believe it…on faith alone?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. There is. In the same sense that the homeless man with the sandwich board is evidence that the end is near.

What evidence do you think this homeless man has?

 

[Bradski]

What evidence do you think this homeless man has?

Someone he greatly trusts told him. Is that not good enough or do you need more information before you believe him?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So I should just take your word for this?

Even though there’s not a single study that supports your claim, I’m supposed to believe it…on faith alone?

The evidence is the success of the approach. The very medium we are using to communicate would not exist if the approach was invalid.

 

[PRmerger]

Someone he greatly trusts told him. Is that not good enough or do you need more information before you believe him?

Why, yes, yes I do. I’d like 4 independent accounts of witnesses to this guy being told that the world is going to end soon.

And then people willing to die for this, under extreme torture, without recanting and saying that they totally made up this myth.

Can you do that for me, please?

 

[PRmerger]

The evidence is the success of the approach. The very medium we are using to communicate would not exist if the approach was invalid.

I don’t understand…are you saying that it’s perfectly legit to believe what someone says, just because they say it?

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t understand…are you saying that it’s perfectly legit to believe what someone says, just because they say it?

I thought he was addressing the validity of empirically derived facts.

The trouble with empiricism is that it only can tell us what things do.

It’s good for determining conduction and resistance capacities of materials. It is useful for testing and comparing electronic devices.

It tells us nothing of the nature of the creativity involved in discovery and invention, nothing about the nature of knowledge itself. In this case we might hear something having to do with the brain, completely missing the question.
Empirically we can understand human behaviour in terms of the meaning people give it.
Empiricism does not allow for the appreciation of what is beautiful or true; all it can address is opinion, what people say.

So, those with only that tool in their armamentarium in the pursuit of truth, will find themselves empty handed when it comes to what is extraordinary.
One-of events, which generally are the most important in our lives, our unique individual existence as a clear example, cannot be studied empirically and those who do, are unable to distinguish the truth from delusion, if they consider it at all.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought he was addressing the validity of empirically derived facts.

Ah. I see, then.

The evidence is the success of the approach. The very medium we are using to communicate would not exist if the approach was invalid.

So we can then evaluate the truth of Christianity by its success?

Christianity seems pretty successful. Billions and billions of people have embraced it.

Its fruits include: the scientific method, hospitals, the university system, art, charity, kindness, Mother Teresa, St. Augustine, St. Edith Stein, John Paul II, Mendelian genetics, Pachelbel, Bach…

So…

 

[Bradski]

Why, yes, yes I do. I’d like 4 independent accounts of witnesses to this guy being told that the world is going to end soon.

And then people willing to die for this, under extreme torture, without recanting and saying that they totally made up this myth.

Can you do that for me, please?

So you are saying that sufficient evidence for you to believe such an extraordinary claim as the sandwhich guy is making is just another 4 people saying yes, he has been told this, and someone who believes in it strongly enough to die for it.

I tell the guy to recant this nonsense or I will beat him to death and he says ‘Never!’ So that fact with his four mates looking on telling you that he has received this information independently from each of them is enough ‘evidence’ as you have specifically requested for you to believe that the world is going to end soon.

Something tells me that you will now ask for more information and vary what is required. Because all you have at the moment is some inconsequential information from 4 random people and a mentally unstable person with a sandwhich board.

Let’s face it. The only people who take what these guys say at face value are themselves mentally unstable. And you really should put a little more thought into your belief that things are true because people die for them.

 

[PRmerger]

So you are saying that sufficient evidence for you to believe such an extraordinary claim as the sandwhich guy is making is just another 4 people saying yes, he has been told this, and someone who believes in it strongly enough to die for it.

I tell the guy to recant this nonsense or I will beat him to death and he says ‘Never!’ So that fact with his four mates looking on telling you that he has received this information independently from each of them is enough ‘evidence’ as you have specifically requested for you to believe that the world is going to end soon.

Something tells me that you will now ask for more information and vary what is required. Because all you have at the moment is some inconsequential information from 4 random people and a mentally unstable person with a sandwhich board.

Let’s face it. The only people who take what these guys say at face value are themselves mentally unstable. And you really should put a little more thought into your belief that things are true because people die for them.

So it sounds like, no, you don’t have the evidence for that.

So, as someone once said: what has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

This, is a myth:

Someone he greatly trusts told him

Please stop making stuff up, Bradski.:tsktsk:

 

[Bradski]

So it sounds like, no, you don’t have the evidence for that.

What a nonsensical answer. You were asked what evidence would be sufficient, you have been given a hypothetical scenario in which exactly that evidence would be produced and now you say there’s no evidence…

Well, gee. Were you expecting some proof of the end of world? In a situation where it is proposed that you could be given EXACTLY the evidence you asked for, you fillibuster.

You have painted yourself into a corner and now you want to claim there is no paint.

 

[PRmerger]

What a nonsensical answer. You were asked what evidence would be sufficient, you have been given a hypothetical scenario in which exactly that evidence would be produced and now you say there’s no evidence…

There’s no evidence for your claim, regardless of whether it’s a hypothetical or not.

So I refuse to believe that this homeless man has been told that the world is ending by “someone he greatly trusts”.

I can summarily dismiss that…since what’s been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

(I love playing the atheist to atheists )

 

[o_mlly]

Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

I think so. The claim of sainthood is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence.

Miracles (by definition) are extraordinary. Currently, 2 are required in the “Cause for Canonization” process.
*
The scientific commission must determine by accepted scientific criteria that there is no natural explanation for the alleged miracle. While miracles could be of any type, those almost exclusively proposed for Causes are medical. These must be well-documented, both as regards the disease and the treatment, and as regard the healing and its persistence.*
ewtn.com/johnpaul2/cause/process.asp