Larger claims require large evidence?

[JuanFlorencio]

Some people do put great effort into determining who a potential partner “really is” before marrying them. Some don’t. But I don’t think the act of choosing a partner is intended to be rational, and it certainly isn’t scientific. In science, all claims are accepted as provisional at best, but marriage is usually intended to be a lifelong contractual agreement.

Chew that over for a second. We know for a fact that people change over the course of their lives. We know that at least half of marriages end in divorce. We know that human motives–and those of spouses–are notoriously difficult to unravel. In spite of this, marriage remains popular. I think it remains popular because it is so irrational, as if to say, “I love you so much I’m willing to suspend my rationality to do something that is almost certainly a bad idea.” It’s irrational, but very flattering.

Ok, then in your case it is all about the acceptance of scientific claims which have great practical implications. And, if I have understood you correctly, even with the “evidences” you will accept those claims only provisionally. That is to say, as a consequence of those claims you will adopt certain practices, but fearfully and only to some extent; or perhaps you will wait for some time to see what happens. If it was you who made the scientific claim based on a set of evidences, you will say it is only provisional and will recommend not to adopt any new practice based on such claim (even though it has important practical implications). Is it?

What would be an extraordinary scientific claim?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think it’s fair to say that any claim requires evidence sufficient to prove its truth or falsehood. That might be extraordinary, or it might be very ordinary.

Yes, Lily, the evidence would need to be sufficient; otherwise the claim would not be supported. Without any further definition “ordinary” or “extraordinary” would depend on how each one of us value it.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yes, Lily, the evidence would need to be sufficient; otherwise the claim would not be supported. Without any further definition “ordinary” or “extraordinary” would depend on how each one of us value it.

I think “extraordinary” is simply anything that is outside the “ordinary.” We have Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, not because they are extraordinary people in terms of virtue, etc., though of course they might be, but because they are not the ordinary minister of Holy Communion.

I have a Maine Coon cat who can say about fifteen words and phrases. He says, “Right here,” “Here I am,” “Me,” “Mom,” “Now,” and various other things. Cats don’t usually speak English, so to me, that is an extraordinary claim, and I think most people would need to hear him talking to really believe it. I had a hard time believing it myself when I first heard it.

Most people take “extraordinary” to mean some big, huge happening, but it is really just anything that is out of the ordinary.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think “extraordinary” is simply anything that is outside the “ordinary.” We have Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, not because they are extraordinary people in terms of virtue, etc., though of course they might be, but because they are not the ordinary minister of Holy Communion.

I have a Maine Coon cat who can say about fifteen words and phrases. He says, “Right here,” “Here I am,” “Me,” “Mom,” “Now,” and various other things. Cats don’t usually speak English, so to me, that is an extraordinary claim, and I think most people would need to hear him talking to really believe it. I had a hard time believing it myself when I first heard it.

Most people take “extraordinary” to mean some big, huge happening, but it is really just anything that is out of the ordinary.

Oh!.. That was an extraordinary example, and an extraordinary claim!

And as you suggested before, it will require an ordinary evidence: I just need to see it and hear it.

I think tough, that OreOracle will remind me that it has no important practical implications to my life.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I can’t stand that phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Of course they don’t.

If I say I’m the daughter of “Joe Smith from Chicago” all I would need to prove it is a DNA test.

If I say I’m the daughter of "Pablo PIcasso, the painter, all I would need is to prove it is a DNA test.

One ordinary claim, one extraordinary, and each requires the same degree of evidence. It is not the size of the claim, but its complexity. Complex claims often require more evidence.

Edit: I am not the daughter of anyone famous. Far from it.

The first claim regarding Joe Smith has no impact on me and small impacts on only a few others. So the evidence required is small, just the dna test.

The second claim depends has several implications that increase the required evidence. I suppose if you wanted royalties or leverage the game yourself the implications of the claim alter the requirements. What’s the chain of custody of both samples? Does your birthday match fall within a plausible timeframe? Was your mother (in this hypothetical) and Picasso in the same area with as plausible time of condition?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think “extraordinary” is simply anything that is outside the “ordinary.” We have Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, not because they are extraordinary people in terms of virtue, etc., though of course they might be, but because they are not the ordinary minister of Holy Communion.

But wait a moment: Let’s suppose I had offered 1000 million dollars to anyone with a cat that can say some words and phrases. I would not regard seeing your cat and hearing it as enough evidence. The importance of the practical implications would be huge to me, and I don’t know for the moment which additional evidence would I require; but I am sure that if I was in that situation I would manage to invent something!

 

[Oreoracle]

Ok, then in your case it is all about the acceptance of scientific claims which have great practical implications. And, if I have understood you correctly, even with the “evidences” you will accept those claims only provisionally. That is to say, as a consequence of those claims you will adopt certain practices, but fearfully and only to some extent; or perhaps you will wait for some time to see what happens.

I would say that’s more or less my position, yes.

What would be an extraordinary scientific claim?

Suppose someone claimed that having even a modest amount of rice in one’s diet dramatically increases the risk of cancer. This would be an extraordinary claim, especially for China. One of the most powerful economies in the world would be put at risk if the claim is taken seriously.

Contrast that with, say, my decision to not buy a certain brand of peanut butter after the brand issued a recall due to contamination. I would tentatively accept (that is, behave as if it were true) that that brand of peanut butter is dangerous with much less evidence because it is only a small inconvenience to use a different brand.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I would say that’s more or less my position, yes.

Suppose someone claimed that having even a modest amount of rice in one’s diet dramatically increases the risk of cancer. This would be an extraordinary claim, especially for China. One of the most powerful economies in the world would be put at risk if the claim is taken seriously.

Contrast that with, say, my decision to not buy a certain brand of peanut butter after the brand issued a recall due to contamination. I would tentatively accept (that is, behave as if it were true) that that brand of peanut butter is dangerous with much less evidence because it is only a small inconvenience to use a different brand.

Well, if the claim about the effects of rice was scientific, the Chinese economy would be equally at risk if the claim is not taken seriously.

But I think I understand what you say: Something which would lead you to make important changes in your life will be postponed till… I don’t know what; and if it implies insignificant changes you will act accordingly right away.

 

[Oreoracle]

But I think I understand what you say: Something which would lead you to make important changes in your life will be postponed till… I don’t know what; and if it implies insignificant changes you will act accordingly right away.

In the example I gave, that is the case. But in general, inaction may not be the safest route. Consider the climate change debate. The reforms that would reduce our carbon output and emphasize cleaner technologies are minor inconveniences in the short-term and promising investments in the long-term. Even if climate change had sparse evidence to support it, attempting to solve the (possibly non-existent) problem anyway has few drawbacks if the environmentalists are wrong, but not doing anything would be disastrous if the deniers are wrong.

I do believe the evidence for climate change is adequate just to be clear, but hopefully this example got my point across.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

In the example I gave, that is the case. But in general, inaction may not be the safest route. Consider the climate change debate. The reforms that would reduce our carbon output and emphasize cleaner technologies are minor inconveniences in the short-term and promising investments in the long-term. Even if climate change had sparse evidence to support it, attempting to solve the (possibly non-existent) problem anyway has few drawbacks if the environmentalists are wrong, but not doing anything would be disastrous if the deniers are wrong.

I do believe the evidence for climate change is adequate just to be clear, but hopefully this example got my point across.

I think it does, Oreoracle! Thank you. It is not easy to say with words, but I think the examples you have provided seem enough to me to have a better idea of how you think.

 

[inocente]

Does the magnitude of the claim or its implications affect the "strength "and amount of evidence required to accept the claim?

With regards to evidence provided by believers to nonbelievers, could this be why there is a disconnect about what is enough evidence? For example, if your at the supermarket, have no preference and a stranger comments that Brand A made them sick, you might buy Brand B. The evidence is pretty flimsy and he could have been sick for any other reason but the affects of choosing Brand B is negligible.

OTOH, someone selling a house says that it is in good condition. But regardless you still get an inspection, check for permits, the title investigated and insured, and use an escrow company to handle the transfer. There is virtually no evidence they can provide that would prevent you from doing this. The implications are huge and can last decades.

It seems the originator of the saying is Laplace - "“We are so far from knowing all the agents of nature and their diverse modes of action that it would not be philosophical to deny phenomena solely because they are inexplicable in the actual state of our knowledge. But we ought to examine them with an attention all the more scrupulous as it appears more difficult to admit them”.

This is then paraphrased by “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” or Sagan’s “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

So it doesn’t seem to be about the perceived likelihood - it’s improbable that someone is related to a famous person, but lots of people make that claim so I don’t find it strange or extraordinary. Whereas I do find it strange if someone claims that the Moon is made of cheese, or there are fairies in the woods, or that I’ve won the Nigerian lottery, or that the universe began in the big bang singularity, so then I feel a need for stronger evidence.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It seems the originator of the saying is Laplace - "“We are so far from knowing all the agents of nature and their diverse modes of action that it would not be philosophical to deny phenomena solely because they are inexplicable in the actual state of our knowledge. But we ought to examine them with an attention all the more scrupulous as it appears more difficult to admit them”.

This is then paraphrased by “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” or Sagan’s “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

So it doesn’t seem to be about the perceived likelihood - it’s improbable that someone is related to a famous person, but lots of people make that claim so I don’t find it strange or extraordinary. Whereas I do find it strange if someone claims that the Moon is made of cheese, or there are fairies in the woods, or that I’ve won the Nigerian lottery, or that the universe began in the big bang singularity, so then I feel a need for stronger evidence.

Famous people have a lot of “not famous” relatives, nothing extraordinary about that. However, people have claimed to have walked on the moon and said it was not made of cheese. If someone claims I won the Nigerian lottery, I would find that extraordinary as I don’t play and aware of the scams, etc. I reject Sagan’s quote as too generalized.

A very credible woman I know, an elementary school teacher, once told me she saw a fairy. She had no evidence but her word. I don’t believe she was lying as she has never been known to lie. However, I do think she was “seeing things” wrong.

 

[neophyte]

Does the magnitude of the claim or its implications affect the "strength "and amount of evidence required to accept the claim?

To subjectively accept the claim, yes.

But to objectively prove the claim to the same degree of certainty? Absolutely not! Otherwise you’d be engaging in a special pleading.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

To subjectively accept the claim, yes.

But to objectively prove the claim to the same degree of certainty? Absolutely not! Otherwise you’d be engaging in a special pleading.

But it wouldn’t be prudent to demand greater certainty in line with the implications of the claim?

 

[Bradski]

I can’t stand that phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Of course they don’t.

If I say I’m the daughter of “Joe Smith from Chicago” all I would need to prove it is a DNA test.

If I say I’m the daughter of "Pablo PIcasso, the painter, all I would need is to prove it is a DNA test.

The first claim is ordinary. You are the daughter of some guy in Chicago. No big deal. I’m not interested in Joe or where he lives. The information has zero impact on me. I would accept it without question because I wouldn’t consider that you would have any reason to lie to me. There is zero benefit to you in doing so.

The second claim is not ordinary. You are claiming tho be the daughter of one of the most famous painters that has ever lived. With art work worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This does have an impact on me. I would be fascinated to hear any stories that you had about him. I would say to other people: Hey, you’ll never guess who I met yesterday’. It’s a dinner table anecdote as soon as anyone mentions modern painting.

Would I just take your word for it? Well, there would be some doubt in my mind that you were simply claiming it to gain attention. If accepted, the claim may certainly open some doors for you. So for it to be generally accepted as true would require more evidence than you simply saying it was so.

Nobody expects a DNA test for your claim re Joe. But depending on the reason you were claiming to be Picasso’s daughter, you might well require one.

Here’s another claim: there was a carpenter that lived in Nazareth and his mother’s name was Mary. Big deal. No problem in accepting that.

Another: There was someone who lived in Nazereth called Jesus who was the Son of God. Believe that and you’ll have eternal life. Whoa! Back the truck up, buddy. That’s a huge claim. What evidence do you have?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The first claim is ordinary. You are the daughter of some guy in Chicago. No big deal. I’m not interested in Joe or where he lives. The information has zero impact on me. I would accept it without question because I wouldn’t consider that you would have any reason to lie to me. There is zero benefit to you in doing so.

The second claim is not ordinary. You are claiming tho be the daughter of one of the most famous painters that has ever lived. With art work worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This does have an impact on me. I would be fascinated to hear any stories that you had about him. I would say to other people: Hey, you’ll never guess who I met yesterday’. It’s a dinner table anecdote as soon as anyone mentions modern painting.

Would I just take your word for it? Well, there would be some doubt in my mind that you were simply claiming it to gain attention. If accepted, the claim may certainly open some doors for you. So for it to be generally accepted as true would require more evidence than you simply saying it was so.

Nobody expects a DNA test for your claim re Joe. But depending on the reason you were claiming to be Picasso’s daughter, you might well require one.

Here’s another claim: there was a carpenter that lived in Nazareth and his mother’s name was Mary. Big deal. No problem in accepting that.

Another: There was someone who lived in Nazereth called Jesus who was the Son of God. Believe that and you’ll have eternal life. Whoa! Back the truck up, buddy. That’s a huge claim. What evidence do you have?

He was raised from the dead, but that is another thread.

 

[Oreoracle]

He was raised from the dead, but that is another thread.

To paraphrase what Hitchens once argued: I’ll grant you all of the miracles, but that doesn’t prove your claims. Perhaps Jesus was just a sorcerer, how could you tell? Are you so adept in the ways of magic that you can look at his work and tell it’s coming directly from God?

Furthermore, if Satan presented himself to you now in the guise of Jesus and performed some magic tricks for you, how would you know he’s not the real deal?

 

[inocente]

Famous people have a lot of “not famous” relatives, nothing extraordinary about that. However, people have claimed to have walked on the moon and said it was not made of cheese. If someone claims I won the Nigerian lottery, I would find that extraordinary as I don’t play and aware of the scams, etc. I reject Sagan’s quote as too generalized.

A very credible woman I know, an elementary school teacher, once told me she saw a fairy. She had no evidence but her word. I don’t believe she was lying as she has never been known to lie. However, I do think she was “seeing things” wrong.

To me, a fairy is the tiny Disney Tinker Bell, but there are many other species. In medieval times fairies were larger and stole babies to replace them with changelings. Do you know what species she saw? (I too would not accept that she actually saw one, just interested in how she managed to know it was a fairy).

 

[inocente]

The first claim is ordinary. You are the daughter of some guy in Chicago. No big deal. I’m not interested in Joe or where he lives. The information has zero impact on me. I would accept it without question because I wouldn’t consider that you would have any reason to lie to me. There is zero benefit to you in doing so.

The second claim is not ordinary. You are claiming tho be the daughter of one of the most famous painters that has ever lived. With art work worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This does have an impact on me. I would be fascinated to hear any stories that you had about him. I would say to other people: Hey, you’ll never guess who I met yesterday’. It’s a dinner table anecdote as soon as anyone mentions modern painting.

Would I just take your word for it? Well, there would be some doubt in my mind that you were simply claiming it to gain attention. If accepted, the claim may certainly open some doors for you. So for it to be generally accepted as true would require more evidence than you simply saying it was so.

Nobody expects a DNA test for your claim re Joe. But depending on the reason you were claiming to be Picasso’s daughter, you might well require one.

Here’s another claim: there was a carpenter that lived in Nazareth and his mother’s name was Mary. Big deal. No problem in accepting that.

Another: There was someone who lived in Nazereth called Jesus who was the Son of God. Believe that and you’ll have eternal life. Whoa! Back the truck up, buddy. That’s a huge claim. What evidence do you have?

I know a highly educated atheist who believes in heaven. I know atheists/agnostics who believe in ghosts and/or alien visitations, and knew two who believe in angels.

It seems that people differ in which claims they find strange or extraordinary. You need more evidence than others for one thing, and perhaps less than others for another. I think we all just have to accept that about each other - unless of course you claim to possess a method by which all claims of all types can be judged totally objectively, in which case please let’s hear it.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

To me, a fairy is the tiny Disney Tinker Bell, but there are many other species. In medieval times fairies were larger and stole babies to replace them with changelings. Do you know what species she saw? (I too would not accept that she actually saw one, just interested in how she managed to know it was a fairy).

I’m sorry, I don’t really remember, but I think the fairy was tiny. She’s a very imaginative, creative person. I didn’t think she was lying. I just thought her imagination was working overtime. Then, I don’t know much about fairies, large or small.