Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[Faith No More]

This is just another example of a theist trying to dismiss something that they use on a daily basis(just like naturalism), because it ultimately clashes with their beliefs. That's the only reason to dismiss the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But why is a Christian talking about evidence anyway? They've already admitted that the evidence is lacking by making faith a core tenet of their beliefs. Shouldn't roadrunner being trying to convince us to set aside the need for evidence in the first place?

[Minimalist]

He's smart enough to know a lost cause when he sees it.

[Exian]

Your girlfriend seeing an old friend at the mall and there being eye witnesses is equal in evidence to your girlfriend seeing a dead president at the mall and having eye witnesses. That is, untill you write the latter in a 2,000 year old book; then it becomes even more believable!!! Not only are there eye witnesses, but it says there are eye witnesses in a fucking book! Two evidences! In fact, I refuse to believe your girlfriend saw an old friend at the mall until I see it in a really old book.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think the OP is correct as far as it goes with respect to research studies that touch on anything considered paranormal that challenges the materialist paradigm. The goal posts are constantly moved on researchers in those areas. The most current work in psi is more scrupulous than any other field and yet the critics continually demand more safeguards against bias when the results are significant.

[Esquilax]

I think the OP is correct as far as it goes with respect to research studies that touch on anything  considered paranormal that challenges the materialist paradigm. The goal posts are constantly moved on researchers in those areas. The most current work in psi is more scrupulous than any other field and yet the critics continually demand more safeguards against bias when the results are significant.

Do you have any examples? I don't think I've ever seen a study like that where the results were replicatable and not better explained by other variables.

[Anomalocaris]

"Para" part of paranormal makes it extraordinary. So shut the fuck up.

[Angrboda]

I think the OP is correct as far as it goes with respect to research studies that touch on anything  considered paranormal that challenges the materialist paradigm. The goal posts are constantly moved on researchers in those areas.

The OP and this have a specific statistical quantization that, admittedly is still subjective, but not arbitrary.  In designing studies of a hypothesis, you want to avoid two types of result.  The first, a type I error, occurs when our threshold for judging the hypothesis true is too low and we erroneously conclude that it is true when in fact we have a false positive.  The second, type II errors, are when we reject a hypothesis as false due to a false negative result to our study.

The extraordinary evidence requirement speaks to type I errors.  In most studies, there is a chance that the hypothesis could have been validated by sheer chance alone, rather than because the hypothesis is true.  We try to minimize this chance in ordinary studies, but it's always a risk that if the significance is set too low, false positives will occur.  Thus, setting a higher standard of significance is a way to guard against false positives.  In ordinary hypotheses, the consequences of a false positive typically aren't that important as the scope of application of the results is narrow.  However, where the consequences are greater, it is only prudent to demand a higher standard as the consequences of a false positive are greater.  (It's also legitimate to demand a higher standard where the mechanism of action is either implausible or completely absent.  That applies specifically to paranormal studies.)

So no, demanding extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims isn't fuzzy and ill-defined.  It has a perfectly sensible explanation based on the statistics of testing hypotheses.

The most current work in psi is more scrupulous than any other field and yet the critics continually demand more safeguards against bias when the results are significant.

Removing potential sources of bias is not changing the statistical significance required. The two aren't related, and the reason that more stringent studies are demanded is that all too often when controls in a psi experiment are strengthened, the effect disappears. It's called replication, and it's standard in any other field. That the results so frequently evaporate upon replication is highly suspicious.

[Losty]

Can you give an example of an extraordinary claim not related to your religion that you think we should now accept with this new standard, and on what evidence?

I think you missed it in the OP, it was something about his wife shopping at the mall.

[Losty]

The only thing we accept without evidence are things we already know to be true (like the sun shining at noon example from vorlon in post 2), and things we don't actually care about (like our coworker seeing a bunny on the way to work this morning). No we don't ask for evidence on either because we already know the sun shines at noon, and we don't actually give any fucks if our coworker really saw the bunny or just made it up.

[Esquilax]

The only thing we accept without evidence are things we already know to be true (like the sun shining at noon example from vorlon in post 2), and things we don't actually care about (like our coworker seeing a bunny on the way to work this morning). No we don't ask for evidence on either because we already know the sun shines at noon, and we don't actually give any fucks if our coworker really saw the bunny or just made it up.

Asking what we accept misses the point anyway: the question should be about what it's rationally justified to believe. People aren't required to believe anything, and I can just feel the response to your point about things we don't care about in the back of my mind, this "well then I don't care about god, so nyeh heh heh!"