Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

I made some videos about scepticism which may help to get the point across.

http://youtu.be/cX7mdUh9yUE

http://youtu.be/lOrP9nb-yrk

A hypothetical example is never an anecdote, because an anecdote always implies that the described content actually happened.

So even if someone used a hypothetical example as their whole argument (and I haven't seen anyone doing this, by the way) it still wouldn't be an anecdote.

You telling someone else down the pub that some atheists used an example as their whole argument would be an anecdote. You're then saying that particular event did happen, just as you describe it.

The main difference between an anecdote and an example is that whether or not the example actually happened as described, or will happen as described, is not important. It's the point it is trying to convey that is important. With an anecdote, all that matters is whether it is true or not. An anecdote can be used as an example: at this point, the truth of the anecdote as a whole is no longer important.

Anecdotes: The floor gave way and I fell through, breaking both my legs. My friend Jimmy had already walked on the floor, but it didn't break for him. (The only important factor here is whether these events actually happened as described.)

Examples: A floor will generally have a maximum weight it can support. There is a wooden floor, and two people walk onto it. Max, who weighs less than this maximum walks onto the floor, and it supports him just fine. Jimmy, who weighs more than this maximum, walks onto the floor and it gives way. (Whether or not these examples actually happened is not important, it's the point they are illustrating that is important.)

Anecdote as an example: I walked on a floor and it gave way. I found out later that the maximum weight the floor could support was 50kg, and I weigh 60kg. (It's now not important whether this personal story actually happened or not in order to make the point.)

The fact that you haven't given a single example to us to help illustrate your point is what makes this discussion so difficult. When someone is trying to make an argument and can't or won't produce any examples, I have to doubt if they really know what point they are making themselves; or wonder if they are dishonestly trying to slip a point in that they can't back up. I don't like to think this of people, which is why I always ask for examples.

I think we've done this topic to death by now, as I pointed out the titular phrase is not a scientific principle, it's an informal rule of thumb. If you personally will accept a series of anecdotes as sufficient evidence for a highly unusual claim, then I'm afraid that just makes you gullible. The thing is, I don't actually think you would do this, regarding most topics. Since you won't give any examples, it looks like a precursor to an agenda, to which you're willing to stretch the truth about how you'd really handle situations unrelated to the agenda.

But even if you would employ low evidence standards in everyday life, that's no reason for science to follow suit since you've not demonstrated it's actually a good idea.

---

I think you are quibbling of minutia, but that this not the point, and the discussion isn't about anecdotes or made up stuff so I'll digress.  You are still assuming a low standard of evidence on my part I notice, and the discussion as intended wasn't about the standard or quality of evidence, but about objectivity and reason (I'm not asserting anything about the standard of evidence and even gave ways to test if your standards are too low or too high).

I didn't give many examples although there was one in the first posts, and I did answer questions later (I also gave examples from personal experience in engineering).  I did give logic and reason, which for the most part, I don't think has been addressed. Not one person to my recollection has pointed out a problem with what I described.   I also think it is important to point out, that science isn't the only method for truth.  I think that the principle I ascribed applies equally well to the philosophy of science, but it is a category error to compare every claim to science.  I'm not talking about only science here, but discovering the truth about reality (of which science is one method).

You say it causes you difficulty to not have an example, however I don't think you understand that any example is going to be the same as those provided for EC-EE, however the reasons for the conclusion is different. It is illogical to say that the same reasons produce a different result based on your subjective knowledge or belief.  It is more accurate, to say that either reasons are unstated or assumed, or that the evidence is insufficient reason for both claims. It's not reasonable for me to hmake the same assumptions as you.  And if the reasons are insufficient, but something is unstated, then it would be the time to provide additional evidence.  The nature of reality is that things are true or false, whether you believe or understand them or not.  EC-EE is a philosophical claim and thus requires a philosophical answer.   Your anecdotes or examples (whether fiction or not) do not show it to be reasonable.  And I still do not understand what extraordinary evidence is or why sufficient evidence would become nonsufficient.