My Challenge to “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”

[Tyrion]

Actually, I do have them in my pocket…

Excellent. Now PROVE it.

 

[Ion]

Excellent. Now PROVE it.

O no, you have to prove it I don’t have them…

 

[Edmundus1581]

O no, you have to prove it I don’t have them…

I believe you.

Now you’ve got a witness!

 

[Ion]

I better go and write my will…

 

[Tyrion]

O no, you have to prove it I don’t have them…

Yes, I met people like that. Some were joking, others were actually serious. The joke is not funny. The serious assertion (“you can’t prove that God does not exist”) does have a name for it in my vocabulary, but unfortunately the honest expression of one’s opinion is not allowed around here. So I do the next best thing, I put those “humanoids” on ignore. Good-bye.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Ummm gentlemen, the philosophical discussion is being derailed here…

Here’s a suggestion, tell me what you think. Instead of the belief that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, which I think is bumpkis, perhaps the rule should be reformulated as: “specified claims require specified evidence”.

To me this makes much more sense, in that any specific claim x will require evidence specific to that claim to be substantiated. Thus, if we claim Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, we need evidence that addresses this point specifically, whether it is “ordinary” or not.

 

[Tyrion]

Ummm gentlemen, the philosophical discussion is being derailed here…

Here’s a suggestion, tell me what you think. Instead of the belief that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, which I think is bumpkis, perhaps the rule should be reformulated as: “specified claims require specified evidence”.

To me this makes much more sense, in that any specific claim x will require evidence specific to that claim to be substantiated. Thus, if we claim Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, we need evidence that addresses this point specifically, whether it is “ordinary” or not.

Very good suggestion. The problem is the good old “epistemology”. How do we gain knowledge about the different aspects of “reality”? How do we decide if a certain claim is “true” or not. It is obvious that different types of claims need to substantiated in a different manner.

There are several basic aspects to be considered.

1. Claims about the physical reality.
2. Claims of abstract sciences.
3. Claims of historical nature (claims about past events).
4. Claims which fall “beyond” the observable universe. (These could be claims of paranormal nature, or claims pertaining the to religions, or maybe “new-age” type of claims).

Category 1) is simple (in principle, though not necessarily in practice). If a claim can be verified, and the verification process is successful, then the evidence is sufficient.

Category 2) is also simple. Take the axioms, the rules of inference and see if you can “reach” the suggested the claim. If the answer is yes, you have proved the claim (not just substantiated).

Category 3) is not so simple. If that claim pertains to an event which left “marks” on reality (for example a volcano erupted) then no problem. If it did not leave any observable clues then one needs to rely on testimony, if there is one. The evaluation of testimonies is problematic. The more testimonies remain, from different, opposing sides, and the more those testimonies corroborate each other, the more reliable the testimony MIGHT be. Also one needs to evaluate the authors of those testimonies. How reliable are they, based upon other writings. But let’s face it: one piece of physical evidence will beat one million testimonies.

Category 4) is a huge mess. There has never been (to my knowledge) an epistemological method offered to decide the veracity of the claims in this category. The problem has been brought up many times, and no one was able to offer an objective, repeatable epistemological method. Generally the proponents go back to “Category 3)”. Of course, it is already problematic, but in a compounded fashion. After all the proponents assert that their “claims” pertain to the present, not just to the past. So to refer to ancient texts, of unknown authors, and the like make their claims highly dubious and thus: unacceptable. Or they offer the word of some so-called “authority”. Never mind that the “authority” cannot substantiate those claims either. All they can do is use the “age-honored” brow-beating of a lousy parent: “Because I said so!!!”. No wonder they do not earn any respect, outside their own circle.

Of course in these boards, the categories 1), 2) and 3) are of little importance. It would be nice to see some headway to be made in category 4), but since no one could offer a proper epistemological method (despite the high quality of the thinkers who already tried) it is very unlikely that the present collection of the people (who are simple laymen) will make a useful suggestion.

 

[Love4All]

Naturalism is a mere dogma for which there is little or no justification whatsoever.

While I am not a naturalist, nonetheless I think this is too much. I’m going to start up a new thread called “Justification for Naturalism.” I wanted to give you a heads up so that you could participate if you wanted to, since I am using this sentence of yours as the seed.

 

[D_Martin]

When it comes to the supernatural, it’s not a question of accepting or rejecting an extraordinary claim. It’s a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe. By rejecting the extraordinary claim of the supernatural, skeptics implicitly accept the extraordinary claim that all seemingly credible witnesses are lying or mistaken. Either way, the truth is extraordinary. Therefore, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural. You’re simply substituting one extraordinary claim for another.

I suppose you could argue, “One claim is more extraordinary than the other claim.” However, that’s a subjective judgment that depends on your worldview. If you’re a committed materialist, just about any natural explanation—no matter how unlikely or preposterous it might seem given the facts and circumstances of the case—will seem less extraordinary *to you *than a supernatural explanation. On the other hand, if you’re open-minded about the possibility of supernatural events, it’s easier to accept a supernatural explanation for some cases than to believe that all these people are lying or mistaken.

Why isn’t “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”, a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural? Isn’t it true one must experience something to know it, and know that it is? Or is the problem more, the hearer doesn’t believe or trust the messenger, and it is quite possible the messenger can’t prove what he says is true, and doesn’t even have evidence that he has been sent by who the message says the message is from?

1Cor:2:4: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Though we speak to each other in the faith in edification, knowledge and wisdom (hopefully) of the Lord our God. Those who do not know, do not know, because they have not experienced the Lord our God, in the Name of Jesus Christ. It just don’t make any sense to them. Once one encounters the extraordinary Truth that the Lord is with him, that is the extraordinary proof that one knows. In some circles its expressed, “you know that you know that you know”.

 

[Ion]

Joking a little bit with a little insight in the problem doesn’t hurt anybody.
Let’s see about the Miracle Of Fatima, which was foretold and thousands of people were there; some people say they think there was a case of mass isteria; can you prove them there was not a case of mass isteria? does it have sense to prove it?
How do they think in the case of a supernatural event? Do it again…What they want is to push the things in an repetable observable phenomena, which they can analyse, and then eventually “discover” a new natural law. No supernatural, anyway. They do not want to be convinced.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Very good suggestion. The problem is the good old “epistemology”. How do we gain knowledge about the different aspects of “reality”? How do we decide if a certain claim is “true” or not. It is obvious that different types of claims need to substantiated in a different manner.

There are several basic aspects to be considered.

1. Claims about the physical reality.
2. Claims of abstract sciences.
3. Claims of historical nature (claims about past events).
4. Claims which fall “beyond” the observable universe. (These could be claims of paranormal nature, or claims pertaining the to religions, or maybe “new-age” type of claims).

Category 1) is simple (in principle, though not necessarily in practice). If a claim can be verified, and the verification process is successful, then the evidence is sufficient.

Category 2) is also simple. Take the axioms, the rules of inference and see if you can “reach” the suggested the claim. If the answer is yes, you have proved the claim (not just substantiated).

Category 3) is not so simple. If that claim pertains to an event which left “marks” on reality (for example a volcano erupted) then no problem. If it did not leave any observable clues then one needs to rely on testimony, if there is one. The evaluation of testimonies is problematic. The more testimonies remain, from different, opposing sides, and the more those testimonies corroborate each other, the more reliable the testimony MIGHT be. Also one needs to evaluate the authors of those testimonies. How reliable are they, based upon other writings. But let’s face it: one piece of physical evidence will beat one million testimonies.

Category 4) is a huge mess. There has never been (to my knowledge) an epistemological method offered to decide the veracity of the claims in this category. The problem has been brought up many times, and no one was able to offer an objective, repeatable epistemological method. Generally the proponents go back to “Category 3)”. Of course, it is already problematic, but in a compounded fashion. After all the proponents assert that their “claims” pertain to the present, not just to the past. So to refer to ancient texts, of unknown authors, and the like make their claims highly dubious and thus: unacceptable. Or they offer the word of some so-called “authority”. Never mind that the “authority” cannot substantiate those claims either. All they can do is use the “age-honored” brow-beating of a lousy parent: “Because I said so!!!”. No wonder they do not earn any respect, outside their own circle.

Of course in these boards, the categories 1), 2) and 3) are of little importance. It would be nice to see some headway to be made in category 4), but since no one could offer a proper epistemological method (despite the high quality of the thinkers who already tried) it is very unlikely that the present collection of the people (who are simple laymen) will make a useful suggestion.

Good summation, Tyrion.

However, I’d be a little cautious before calling category (4) a huge mess, because it can sometimes be a culmination of the three aforementioned categories. For instance, the Resurrection of Christ is based on all three categories in a sense. (1) Claims made by people who say they saw the Risen Lord and which could be verified (at the time). (2) A logical argument (I guess it could be put in modus ponens form) based on prior accepted truths, such as an understanding of God, how He would treat His Messiah, etc. (3) An historical claim.

 

[Ion]

Good summation, Tyrion.

However, I’d be a little cautious before calling category (4) a huge mess, because it can sometimes be a culmination of the three aforementioned categories. For instance, the Resurrection of Christ is based on all three categories in a sense. (1) Claims made by people who say they saw the Risen Lord and which could be verified (at the time). (2) A logical argument (I guess it could be put in modus ponens form) based on prior accepted truths, such as an understanding of God, how He would treat His Messiah, etc. (3) An historical claim.

What about prophecies?

 

[ericc]

Throughout history, millions of people have claimed to have supernatural experiences (ghosts, hauntings, angels, demons, miracles, near-death experiences, profound mystical or religious experiences, etc.)

The problem with history is that… it is history. You do not have a time machine to go back to test, measure, record the event. Those requiring evidence are not willing to accept the eyewitness account of the people present there. The eyewitnesses may in fact include skeptics that require extraordinary proof were in fact mightily proven beyond doubt and became believers. (Thomas comes to mind) And they wrote about these accounts. The next new batch of skeptics simply refuses to accept the verdict of the eyewitnesses and demand “extraordinary proof” again. The cycle goes on.

Secondly, the type of proof skeptics demand is a scientific setting, a room or lab that they have set up with all their fancy instruments. The problem with supernatural events is that they appear in all sorts of places where scientific setups were inconveniently not in place. Even if they are at the right place at the right time, it is doubtful whether existing technology can analyse the supernatural event. So they have another escape clause. My instrument picked up nothing. But you saw/heard/felt/smelt/sensed it! I might be hallucinating. The chemicals in my brain can cause all those sensations. Must be something I ate this morning.

Thirdly, do all skeptics believe each other? Even if one skeptic happen to have a supernatural experience, guess what, other skeptics will not accept that skeptic’s claims. The skeptic that experienced the event now becomes “the other side”.

Fourthly, skeptics tend to look for explanations other than supernatural. With such bias, no experiment conducted will be objective because the findings are geared towards non-supernatural explanations. If one saw it, it is hallucination. If many saw it, it is mass hallucination. Maybe something, some chemicals in the air. Never will God or other deity will be part of the hypothesis. It seems to me, scientific people with so-call inquisitive mind suddenly has a mental block to ALL possible explanations. Therefore, a fair conclusion is that the scientific method can not be used honestly. When faced with no other explanation, their glib answer is “we are not able to explain it with current available methods/technology/knowledge” and still leave the spiritual explanation out cold. Therefore it seems a mighty waste of time to conduct any further research on this topic.

However, there is one possible situation where scientific method can be tried. Exorcisms. However, I doubt the Church will permit it. Perhaps other denominations may get easier approval to record an exorcism to be setup by an approved person(s) of the skeptic world.

 

[Edmundus1581]

The problem with history is that… it is history. You do not have a time machine to go back to test, measure, record the event. Those requiring evidence are not willing to accept the eyewitness account of the people present there. The eyewitnesses may in fact include skeptics that require extraordinary proof were in fact mightily proven beyond doubt and became believers.

All very good, especially the first para I selected!

 

[Tyrion]

Good summation, Tyrion.

However, I’d be a little cautious before calling category (4) a huge mess, because it can sometimes be a culmination of the three aforementioned categories. For instance, the Resurrection of Christ is based on all three categories in a sense. (1) Claims made by people who say they saw the Risen Lord and which could be verified (at the time). (2) A logical argument (I guess it could be put in modus ponens form) based on prior accepted truths, such as an understanding of God, how He would treat His Messiah, etc. (3) An historical claim.

It is not so simple.

1. Claims made by certain people who claimed that some other people were eye-witnesses, and their claim cannot be verified today.
2. No logical argument exists with some mutually accepted axioms - which do not exist.
3. The historical claim is just another variant of the first one…

None of those are objective epistemological methods. An epistemological method cannot rely on a-priori acceptance of a “claim”. It cannot rely on accepting the word of some “authority”. (Mind you, one can rely on the word of some authority, but that is not an epistemological method, it is an epistemological shortcut! And it is contingent upon the ability of that authority to substantiate the claim - without referring to some other authority. The “buck” must stop somewhere. )

But why go back to the past? There are claims today. For exemple: “at the time of conception everyone is assigned a guardian angel”. Or: “there are certain problems which are caused by demons, and they can be cured by exorcism”. Or: “every human has an immortal soul”. And stuff like that. How can a skeptic ascertain the veracity of those claims? Is there an independent, objective method which can separate the “wheat” from the “chaff”?

I am not about to place any special restrictions on it. The very same restrictions apply, which I demand from every other claim: “I can perform some actions, and the veracity of the claim will become obvious, even if I originally doubted the claim”. This is a universal requirement, applicable to ALL claims, not just the claims about the supernatural. Can’t go fairer than that. I will not be blaimed for using an unfair, special measuring “rod” for the claims about the supernatural.

 

[jonathan_hili]

What about prophecies?

I guess prophecies would be a subset of category (1) since they would need empirical verification. However, there is always the question of interpreting them properly. Still, I’d say many of the biblical prophecies that point to Christ are astounding, not so much like an arrow hitting a target, but more in their wisdom and fulfillment.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Oh, I agree, Tyrion, it’s definitely not simple! However, I think the claims of religion (and not just Christianity, other historical religions too) do have a basis in empirical verification. So, I’ll treat each of your points:

1. Claims made by certain people who claimed that some other people were eye-witnesses, and their claim cannot be verified today.

I agree, they cannot be verified today, so they become historical claims. However, at the time they could be verified and were not historical claims. For example, if you lived in Palestine during the first century, you could question witnesses who claimed to see Christ risen from the dead, you could ask about details regarding the crucifixion, you could check if the tomb was empty, you could ask people about supposed miracles Jesus performed, etc. What I’m saying is that the New Testament texts come out of this environment, not out of thin air or some kind of fabricated mythology. It’s quite obvious that Paul is writing letters to real people, that Mark is addressing real needs of a community, etc. Sure, there is theology involved, but these people believed it to the point of death. When Paul says he saw the risen Lord, he is an eye-witness. When Mark and Luke record things about the apostles’ testimony, they seem to be deriving these from eye-witness accounts.

Can they be verified today? No empirically in the way of experiment, but then neither can any historical claim.

1. No logical argument exists with some mutually accepted axioms - which do not exist.

If you could logically deduce the existence of God (say, from the Ontological Argument) and then certain characteristics of God from this, I think you develop a framework from which religious claims can be made, or at least create a conceptual environment in which religious claims are not necessarily foreign.

1. The historical claim is just another variant of the first one…

Agreed!

None of those are objective epistemological methods. An epistemological method cannot rely on a-priori acceptance of a “claim”. It cannot rely on accepting the word of some “authority”. (Mind you, one can rely on the word of some authority, but that is not an epistemological method, it is an epistemological shortcut! And it is contingent upon the ability of that authority to substantiate the claim - without referring to some other authority. The “buck” must stop somewhere. )

Ummm I think all epistemological methods rely on a-priori or prior claims. For instance, even simple empiricism: “I see an apple”, requires a conceptual framework based on prior (though not a-priori) understandings to make sense of the data from our senses, I think Kant showed that. Our cultural upbringing, linguistic and ideological, is often an authority of some sort that we have to rely on to make sense of the world.

For example: “at the time of conception everyone is assigned a guardian angel”. Or: “there are certain problems which are caused by demons, and they can be cured by exorcism”. Or: “every human has an immortal soul”. And stuff like that. How can a skeptic ascertain the veracity of those claims? Is there an independent, objective method which can separate the “wheat” from the “chaff”?

Again, I agree. I’m not saying that all religious claims are of the same verifiable or evidential degree, or even kind. I think once one accepts an authority as legitimate, the claims the authority makes can be relied upon. However - and I can only speak for Christianity - examples like the ones cited above are not tenets of the faith: you don’t have to believe them to be a faithful Catholic/Christian.

 

[CandideWest]

When I ask skeptics why they don’t believe in the supernatural, they often say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I argue that skeptics also make an extraordinary claim without proof.

In my view the statement should be that “claims require a sufficient balance of evidence to be considered true”.

This is the reason that some claims require an increased level of evidence to be believed.

If you say you have a dollar in your pocket I’ll believe you based on your statement because it is common enough situation in the population that there is no contrary evidence in general circulation. So I have your statement as evidence of it being true, nothing as evidence it is false so the balance is in favour of it being true.

If you say that you have a planet in your pocket then I have your statement that it is true as evidence in favour and the laws of physics and loads of astronomical observation as evidence against. So I’m afraid your word no longer stands up as adequate evidence.

This is why people’s claims of being able to fly or bend spoons with the power of their mind, or teleport, or see through walls, etc etc. require higher levels of evidence, because there is evidence from observation and the laws of physics that these things are not possible.

Throughout history, millions of people have claimed to have supernatural experiences (ghosts, hauntings, angels, demons, miracles, near-death experiences, profound mystical or religious experiences, etc.) Even if 95 percent of them can be easily attributed to hoaxers seeking money or attention, believers with overly active imaginations, or ignorant people misinterpreting natural phenomena, there remain thousands of investigated, documented cased where the witness meets most or all of the following criteria…

Sure, I’ve actually personally investigated some of these claims. At one point I even travelled to South Africa to investigate a pair of claims which met all of your criteria (I had a holiday while I was there). Alas I have never in any of these found any evidence of anything supernatural going on, but have uncovered a couple examples of deliberate deception.

Is it POSSIBLE that in the cases where other people claim extraordinary things happen that I was just unlucky that nothing happened for me? Yes.

Do I have a balance of evidence to believe this to be the case? No.

What you are really picking between here is believing in a whole bunch of supernatural explanations and a whole bunch of natural explanations. “Extraordinary” doesn’t really come into it either way, extraordinary (and entirely natural) things happen every day, they offer no evidence for supernatural events.

 

[Edmundus1581]

CandideWest:
A very well written reply. I think that I don’t agree, but your argument is strong.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Thirdly, do all skeptics believe each other?

Skeptics can believe each other. In general a skeptic isn’t some one that is incapable of belief, but is slow to believe or requires more corroborating evidence to believe. Now if the person in question is a radical skeptic (she takes the philosophical position that knowledge is impossible) then the the answer to your question may be “no.”

Even if one skeptic happen to have a supernatural experience, guess what, other skeptics will not accept that skeptic’s claims. The skeptic that experienced the event now becomes “the other side”

If that skeptic experienced a supernatural experience and concluded the event was supernatural then it would seem that she would then have a proposition that may not be evaluated by others as true. Those that don’t evaluate it as true aren’t necessarily philosophical skeptics.

For example:When I was a child our next-door neighbor made the claim that God had instructed her to cast a demon out of our house. We received this claim as an explanation as to why she went into our house (we were in the yard planting flowers so the door was unlocked), locked the door, and was pacing back and forth in the upper level of the house shouting in tongues. My parents identify as Christians, don’t identify as skeptics, yet they don’t evaluate her claim on having received a message from God as true.