Regarding the old (and tired) Humean argument of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", while it sound like common sense, it is actually demonstrably false.
While the actual argument in the article does not have to do with what we are discussing, some have brought it up the evidence argument. WLC commenting on Stephen Law's argument where his primary premise was "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence":
I have yet to hear a good rebuttal of this.
While the actual argument in the article does not have to do with what we are discussing, some have brought it up the evidence argument. WLC commenting on Stephen Law's argument where his primary premise was "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence":
Quote:Probability theorists studying what sort of evidence it would take to establish a highly improbable event came to realize that if you just weigh the improbability of the event against the reliability of the testimony, we’d have to be sceptical of many commonly accepted claims. Rather what’s crucial is the probability that we should have the evidence we do if the extraordinary event had not occurred. This can easily offset any improbability of the event itself.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/stephen-l...z4H2pq2SLR
I have yet to hear a good rebuttal of this.