My Challenge to “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”

[tonyrey]

Your argument wouldn’t have much effect

Same result!

as you point out - on those who don’t care about others.

Certainly, as I’m only stating my view. I’m not trying to move anyone. I’ve even started a thread discussing this before

.
Though this seems to be a long way around discussing the question I had asked. Did you have a precise meaning for the word “natural”? If not, that’s fine.

My point is that the discussion about “Extraordinary Claims” needs to be based on a precise definition of “natural”, i.e. “ordinary”. In other words, what is the criterion of “ordinary”? How does one determine what is extraordinary? Statistically?

 

[Tyrion]

Sure, but that’s going to be the case with practically any argument, and we are speaking about human conception here.

Not true. Only for those instances when an opinion is presented. A proposition: “this rock weighs 100 pounds” is objective. On the other hand: “this rock is heavy” is a subjective assessment.

Well, omnipotence is usually understood as “having the ability to do all possible things”, and omniscience as you said.

As such they are undefined, since it is never establshed just what is “possible” - in this context. And so is the collection of those attributes, which are considered part of the GCB.

It doesn’t follow that God doesn’t have “free will” because He cannot do evil.

Several posters suggested that God should modify people so they would not be willing to perform evil acts. The general response was that if someone is unable to perform evil, then he/she/it is a robot.

God is “the Good” and this is part of His being.

Says who? In my vocabulary allowing evil is itself evil. So the last adjective I would apply to God is “good”. The best, most beneficial assessment is that God is totally, completely indifferent.

There is a general concensus among the believers. They suggest that committing an act by humans and committing the same act by God MUST be viewed differently. Humans get no excuse, while God is given all the excuses. The goddess of Justice (Justitia) is depicted with a blindfold, indicating that she only cares about the acts, and disregards the perpetrator. This kind of “whitewashing God” by the believers is unacceptable, and getting pretty boring.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is a general concensus among the believers. They suggest that committing an act by humans and committing the same act by God MUST be viewed differently. Humans get no excuse, while God is given all the excuses. The goddess of Justice (Justitia) is depicted with a blindfold, indicating that she only cares about the acts, and disregards the perpetrator. This kind of “whitewashing God” by the believers is unacceptable, and getting pretty boring.

Not quite true. Most thoughtful believers would claim that moral expectations that apply to humans do not apply to God because God has different responsibilities vis a vis human beings. God creates human beings. Human beings do not create other human beings. Human beings cannot repair severe injuries or bring other human beings back from the dead so responsibilities towards each other as humans are substantially different than those God would bear towards humans.

I understand you might claim this to be a case of special pleading but it is not, since you would have to demonstrate God’s moral position to be essentially the same as that of the typical human being, which clearly it is not.

I do not bear the same responsibility towards safeguarding national security as the president does because the authority we carry to do so is not the same. A state has rights to incarcerate or punish criminals that an ordinary citizen does not. Likewise, God as the Creator, Sustainer and Governor of all creation could very well have authority over life and death that ordinary humans do not. It is not special pleading unless the two cases (God and man) are identical, which they are not.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Same result!

That’s fine. My only desired result here is to express my view. Altering some one else’s view isn’t my goal.

My point is that the discussion about “Extraordinary Claims” needs to be based on a precise definition of “natural”, i.e. “ordinary”. In other words, what is the criterion of “ordinary”? How does one determine what is extraordinary? Statistically?

It’s not a phrase I use. But it is a phrase that I can understand in terms of network knowledge models. Unfortunately I’m not sure how esoteric (or exoteric) that such a model is. So I think more explanation is needed for my view to be understood here. (For now let’s ignore the difference between “knowledge” and “beliefs” and treat them as the same thing).

I’ve draw a simple over-generalized knowledge map to illustrate what I’m talking about. It can be found here.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BG9qfkmCQAA_2tl.jpg:large

This represents some of the knowledge that some one has on various objects. In this diagram the names in the round shapes are objects, and in the diamond borders are around a relationship between the objects. Some of the propositions that are represented in this map include “Cars consume gasoline” (in the case of a fossil fueled powered transport) or “Cars consume electricity” (electric cars or hybrids) or “phones have batteries.” Now let’s say you come across a person who’s beliefs are represented by this model. If you told the person “There’s a vehicle that runs on propane” that information isn’t part of their knowledge map. But assuming the person also knows other information about propane (not represented in the map) such as it being inflammable, available from places that sell other fuels, and so on the proposition that “There’s a vehicle that runs on propane” doesn’t require much changes to their knowledge map.

Now let’s take a look at a general knowledge map about computer printers. Available here.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BG9t7v8CcAA6UfV.jpg:large
In speaking to some one last week I mentioned that various gears and pulleys that I needed for a project were out of stock. So instead of waiting on them to become available I printed out what I needed. I had told some one that I printed what I needed out and showed the person the solid objects. As far as this person know printers could only produce paper documents, not solid objects. This proposition “Some printers produce solid objects” required a significant amount of new connects to be made on her knowledge map before she could understand or believe me. So I showed here the printer that I used. , the solid objects that I printed out, let her see the printer in action via a video I recorded, and let her look through one of the catalogs of objects that you could download and print out, and answered other questions she had on what what could and could not be done. By the end of our conversation her knowledge map on printers had been significantly changed.

If I have sufficiently describe knowledge map models (and I’m sure some one will let me know if I didn’t) I think I can now address your previous question. I’ll save you the effort of scrolling and will paste your question again.

My point is that the discussion about “Extraordinary Claims” needs to be based on a precise definition of “natural”, i.e. “ordinary”. In other words, what is the criterion of “ordinary”? How does one determine what is extraordinary? Statistically?

I think the “extraordinary claims” in this statement may be analogous to claims that have little to know overlap with some one’s knowledge map. Keeping in mind that for the sake of this model knowledge and belief’s are indistinguishable. So propositions for which that person has been convinced would also be part of their map, but they may not be a part of the knowledge map of the audience being addressed (ex: Mormon’s “know” Joseph Smith was God’s profit while non-Mormons, who may be aware of Mormons’ position, don’t have this as a part of their knowledge map). Claims that have significant overlap with with one’s knowledge map and no significant disagreement may be what are thought of as “ordinary claims.”

Since one’s knowledge/belief are a factor here there’s subjectiveness in the statement. If you found a society that had been cut off from the rest of modern technology and told them you arrived on their island by flying in the belly of a great metal air ship that ferried people, to them that would be an extraordinary claim; some additional information may be needed for them to add it to their knowledge map. If they assured you that some ailment you had was easily treatable by licking the back of a specific frog that lived on the island then some additional (reassuring) information may be needed before you added that information to your knowledge map (perhaps through research, or from licking the toad).

 

[tonyrey]

That’s fine. My only desired result here is to express my view. Altering some one else’s view isn’t my goal.

It’s not a phrase I use. But it is a phrase that I can understand in terms of network knowledge models. Unfortunately I’m not sure how esoteric (or exoteric) that such a model is. So I think more explanation is needed for my view to be understood here. (For now let’s ignore the difference between “knowledge” and “beliefs” and treat them as the same thing).

I’ve draw a simple over-generalized knowledge map to illustrate what I’m talking about. It can be found here.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BG9qfkmCQAA_2tl.jpg:large

This represents some of the knowledge that some one has on various objects. In this diagram the names in the round shapes are objects, and in the diamond borders are around a relationship between the objects. Some of the propositions that are represented in this map include “Cars consume gasoline” (in the case of a fossil fueled powered transport) or “Cars consume electricity” (electric cars or hybrids) or “phones have batteries.” Now let’s say you come across a person who’s beliefs are represented by this model. If you told the person “There’s a vehicle that runs on propane” that information isn’t part of their knowledge map. But assuming the person also knows other information about propane (not represented in the map) such as it being inflammable, available from places that sell other fuels, and so on the proposition that “There’s a vehicle that runs on propane” doesn’t require much changes to their knowledge map.

Now let’s take a look at a general knowledge map about computer printers. Available here.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BG9t7v8CcAA6UfV.jpg:large
In speaking to some one last week I mentioned that various gears and pulleys that I needed for a project were out of stock. So instead of waiting on them to become available I printed out what I needed. I had told some one that I printed what I needed out and showed the person the solid objects. As far as this person know printers could only produce paper documents, not solid objects. This proposition “Some printers produce solid objects” required a significant amount of new connects to be made on her knowledge map before she could understand or believe me. So I showed here the printer that I used. , the solid objects that I printed out, let her see the printer in action via a video I recorded, and let her look through one of the catalogs of objects that you could download and print out, and answered other questions she had on what what could and could not be done. By the end of our conversation her knowledge map on printers had been significantly changed.

If I have sufficiently describe knowledge map models (and I’m sure some one will let me know if I didn’t) I think I can now address your previous question. I’ll save you the effort of scrolling and will paste your question again.

I think the “extraordinary claims” in this statement may be analogous to claims that have little to know overlap with some one’s knowledge map. Keeping in mind that for the sake of this model knowledge and belief’s are indistinguishable. So propositions for which that person has been convinced would also be part of their map, but they may not be a part of the knowledge map of the audience being addressed (ex: Mormon’s “know” Joseph Smith was God’s profit while non-Mormons, who may be aware of Mormons’ position, don’t have this as a part of their knowledge map). Claims that have significant overlap with with one’s knowledge map and no significant disagreement may be what are thought of as “ordinary claims.”

Since one’s knowledge/belief are a factor here there’s subjectiveness in the statement. If you found a society that had been cut off from the rest of modern technology and told them you arrived on their island by flying in the belly of a great metal air ship that ferried people, to them that would be an extraordinary claim; some additional information may be needed for them to add it to their knowledge map. If they assured you that some ailment you had was easily treatable by licking the back of a specific frog that lived on the island then some additional (reassuring) information may be needed before you added that information to your knowledge map (perhaps through research, or from licking the toad).

Many thanks for your detailed analysis of “extraordinary claims” which concludes that
they have little to no overlap with some one’s knowledge map - which is inevitably subjective. There is only one form of knowledge which is infallible and subjective…

It is knowledge of our thoughts and decisions. If we don’t know what we are thinking we can hardly claim to know anything else. That would be the most extraordinary claim of all - and it doesn’t require any proof whatsoever!

 

[jonathan_hili]

Not true. Only for those instances when an opinion is presented. A proposition: “this rock weighs 100 pounds” is objective. On the other hand: “this rock is heavy” is a subjective assessment.

I mean that the standard is based upon an agreed opinion. For example, an agreed opinion on what omniscience is. In your example above, there is an agreed opinion on what a “pound” is, that is, how much of a unit of weight it is. If I said, a pound is 450 grams, and you said a pound is 455 grams, then we have a difference of opinion on the standard.

As such they are undefined, since it is never establshed just what is “possible” - in this context. And so is the collection of those attributes, which are considered part of the GCB.

I mean, is this really an issue. Practically everyone can understand what is meant by “the possible”. Essentially, it means being able to actualise that which isn’t in itself a contradiction. See, if we can agree on what a pound weighs, how can we not agree on what “possible” means? If we are going to restrict ourselves so that we can’t come to agreement upon these kind of terms, you might as well throw out all of philosophy.

Several posters suggested that God should modify people so they would not be willing to perform evil acts. The general response was that if someone is unable to perform evil, then he/she/it is a robot.

And they wouldn’t be wrong because fundamentally human beings do not have “the Good” as part of their nature, so it would be an imposition that robs us of our nature in a sense. But this isn’t the case with God.

As an analogy, consider animals that don’t have free will. Not having free will is part of their nature. To impose free will upon them would be to subvert their nature in some way.

Says who? In my vocabulary allowing evil is itself evil. So the last adjective I would apply to God is “good”. The best, most beneficial assessment is that God is totally, completely indifferent.

Perhaps, but there are lots of instances of “allowing evil” that would not themselves constitute acts of evil. For example, it is an evil for someone to burn their body and harm it, yet a parent might justifiably let his or her five year old burn himself with matches for a greater good (that he learns about the risks of playing with fire). I don’t see how the action on the part of the parent here is evil. Similarly, merely allowing evil isn’t of itself always evil. It might be in some circumstances but they need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Many thanks for your detailed analysis of “extraordinary claims” which concludes that
they have little to no overlap with some one’s knowledge map - which is inevitably subjective. There is only one form of knowledge which is infallible and subjective…

Cool, so it sounds like I’ve successfully describe my understanding/interpretation of “extraordinary claims” and “extraordinary evidence.” I never touched on the word “require” though.

I think the word “require” is being used to express a contingency. Some one making a claim is generally not obligated to provide evidence for that claim. I think what is being expressed is that “my belief of your claim is contingent on information being provided that I can adopt into my knowledge map” (note: the claims that form that information may also require other information).

Whether or not effort is take to provide the person with additional information may depend on other factors. A primary factor may be “Do I care if my audience believes me.” Some times the answer to that is “no.” I present the claim here that “I live in the Metro Atlanta area of Georgia, USA.” If some one in these forums doesn’t believe that I’m totally fine with that (apathetic) and will let their disbelief continue without making any effort to convince him/her. If I make the claim that “My neighbor broke into my house” to a court of law chances are I’ve got additional motivations that may move me to provide more information and evidence.

On a related topic convincing some one that a piece of knowledge is incorrect which has been held to be true for many years may be difficult if the entities for that knowledge form a lot of relationships. Showing the person a flaw in their understanding of something may destroy one arc (node) on their knowledge map. But if the other nodes are untouched the person might not be swayed. If a significant number of the relationships that the person has mapped out in their mind are impacted then the person may start to go through a paradigm shift; a single magic bullet argument may not be enough.

There’s some metaphor people use in which knowledge seems to be composed of layers on a tower, and if you get rid of the foundation of that tower everything else will fall. While the tower metaphor is certainly useful at times I think that knowledge maps make a better metaphor; instead of a foundation you have areas of belief that are held in place by the ties they have to other information. There are multiple relationships that would need to be modified or destroyed to remove or alter the belief.

BTW: another name for knowledge maps is semantic net[work].

 

[tonyrey]

Cool, so it sounds like I’ve successfully describe my understanding/interpretation of “extraordinary claims” and “extraordinary evidence.” I never touched on the word “require” though.

I think the word “require” is being used to express a contingency. Some one making a claim is generally not obligated to provide evidence for that claim. I think what is being expressed is that “my belief of your claim is contingent on information being provided that I can adopt into my knowledge map” (note: the claims that form that information may also require other information).

Whether or not effort is take to provide the person with additional information may depend on other factors. A primary factor may be “Do I care if my audience believes me.” Some times the answer to that is “no.” I present the claim here that “I live in the Metro Atlanta area of Georgia, USA.” If some one in these forums doesn’t believe that I’m totally fine with that (apathetic) and will let their disbelief continue without making any effort to convince him/her. If I make the claim that “My neighbor broke into my house” to a court of law chances are I’ve got additional motivations that may move me to provide more information and evidence.

On a related topic convincing some one that a piece of knowledge is incorrect which has been held to be true for many years may be difficult if the entities for that knowledge form a lot of relationships. Showing the person a flaw in their understanding of something may destroy one arc (node) on their knowledge map. But if the other nodes are untouched the person might not be swayed. If a significant number of the relationships that the person has mapped out in their mind are impacted then the person may start to go through a paradigm shift; a single magic bullet argument may not be enough.

There’s some metaphor people use in which knowledge seems to be composed of layers on a tower, and if you get rid of the foundation of that tower everything else will fall. While the tower metaphor is certainly useful at times I think that knowledge maps make a better metaphor; instead of a foundation you have areas of belief that are held in place by the ties they have to other information. There are multiple relationships that would need to be modified or destroyed to remove or alter the belief.

BTW: another name for knowledge maps is semantic net[work].

I agree with your excellent analysis of knowledge which applies not only to things but also to persons - and that is where the main problem exists. You have pointed out that “we know some things and have a rather large volume of unanswered questions”. There are so many it is presumptuous to claim to know the limits of human potential. Time and time again men, women and children have accomplished feats that were considered impossible beforehand. If we restrict ourselves to what is “ordinary” - in the sense of what has happened until now - we shall have an unbalanced view of reality.