RE: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
October 26, 2015 at 8:25 am
(This post was last modified: October 26, 2015 at 8:27 am by paulpablo.)
I understand where you're coming from but I've come to a different conclusion based on your examples and thoughts.
I'd say all claims require the same evidence and that extraordinary claims are extraordinary because they have less evidence backing them up to begin with.
Seeing a high school friend in the mall vs seeing a dead president in the mall.
Everyone here I expect will already have evidence, lot's of it, that you can see your high school friend in the mall, it's possible, logical, plausible, practical and happens all the time. That evidence is there already.
but if you wanted evidence to present to a court of law about it you would need more evidence to supply beyond that it could happen and you would need to prove that it did happen.
On the other hand a dead president coming back to life and hanging out at the mall, that has no evidence backing it up that it actually is plausible, possible, logical or practical. In fact an entire history of medical records is evidence that it would be illogical for it to happen.
So if you were going to prove that it happened you would first have to prove it could happen, which involves going against all medical records as proof that it's unlikely to happen. Then even if you proved it could happen you would have to prove it did happen.
Both claims require the same amount of evidence but it's just one already has a lot of evidence to begin with.
So I can see your point in a way, but most mundane things already have extraordinary evidence backing them up as to why they could happen, that is what makes them mundane in the first place.
I'd say all claims require the same evidence and that extraordinary claims are extraordinary because they have less evidence backing them up to begin with.
Seeing a high school friend in the mall vs seeing a dead president in the mall.
Everyone here I expect will already have evidence, lot's of it, that you can see your high school friend in the mall, it's possible, logical, plausible, practical and happens all the time. That evidence is there already.
but if you wanted evidence to present to a court of law about it you would need more evidence to supply beyond that it could happen and you would need to prove that it did happen.
On the other hand a dead president coming back to life and hanging out at the mall, that has no evidence backing it up that it actually is plausible, possible, logical or practical. In fact an entire history of medical records is evidence that it would be illogical for it to happen.
So if you were going to prove that it happened you would first have to prove it could happen, which involves going against all medical records as proof that it's unlikely to happen. Then even if you proved it could happen you would have to prove it did happen.
Both claims require the same amount of evidence but it's just one already has a lot of evidence to begin with.
So I can see your point in a way, but most mundane things already have extraordinary evidence backing them up as to why they could happen, that is what makes them mundane in the first place.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
