Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[Edwardo Piet]

All claims require evidence, some just require a lot more evidence than others. Supernatural claims are in that category since there has never ever been any evidence of them and they are highly complex and unfalsifiable claims.

Unfalsifiable claims require a whole new level of evidence. And if such evidence cannot be found it doesn't mean give up on the high standard of evidence and settle for unscientific bullshit evidence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Science is supposed to be objective. The minute you say that one set of data requires more or less scrutiny than another you inject more subjectivity into the results. Nevertheless the most recent psi studies are very robust something ever critics have acknowledged. The early posts might have been true 20 years ago. Today its a different story.

[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.

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!"

The funny thing is, I don't give any fucks about god either. It's why I just smile and nod at theists who bug me in person.

Janet saw a bunny, cool beans
Jenny heard god in her thoughts, cool beans

If Janet asks me, "do you believe in the bunny? Do you love it?" And then begins to make extraordinary claims about her road crossing bunny, then I will ask for evidence.

So you're right, it can be about what's rationally justified, but I really think it also has to do with the importance of the thing (or whether we care about it).
Most people don't take the time to varify things that don't matter regardless of whether or not it's rationally justified to believe it.

It's why I think theism is so weird. I placed so much value on my beliefs and yet prided myself in never validating it's truth but just accepting it. In any other context that would make no sense.

[Angrboda]

The mice are getting smarter.

[downbeatplumb]

Science is supposed to be objective. The minute you say that one set of data requires more or less scrutiny than another you inject more subjectivity into the results. Nevertheless the most recent psi studies are very robust something ever critics have acknowledged. The early posts might have been true 20 years ago. Today its a different story.

The more outlandish the claim of course the more evidence is required scientifically to verify it.
Say you observe a troop of apes and they act pretty much as apes would, using sticks to extract termites and rocks to crack nuts.
Then imagine you observe a troop of apes and one of them emerges holding what looks like a fully formed slingshot, but one made from things apes could deal with, it looks like the ape made the sling shot. You will need to look into this a lot further to prove the claim that the ape made the sling shot, you would need to discount all possible alternatives because it is an extraordinary claim.

[downbeatplumb]

Science is supposed to be objective. The minute you say that one set of data requires more or less scrutiny than another you inject more subjectivity into the results. Nevertheless the most recent psi studies are very robust something ever critics have acknowledged. The early posts might have been true 20 years ago. Today its a different story.

Whats with all this PSI stuff? I've seen scanners, are you trying that on us?

[Cato]

No evidence; therefore, mental masturbation. I think the OP is an admission of zero evidence. Fucking hilarious.

[downbeatplumb]

No evidence; therefore, mental masturbation. I think the OP is an admission of zero evidence. Fucking hilarious.

It seems that they want us to lower our standards of what would constitute evidence. As I have seen zero evidence for the god they are arguing for anyway I don't see the point is this argument.

[Jenny A]

Science is supposed to be objective. The minute you say that one set of data requires more or less scrutiny than another you inject more subjectivity into the results. Nevertheless the most recent psi studies are very robust something ever critics have acknowledged. The early posts might have been true 20 years ago. Today its a different story.

The more outlandish the claim of course the more evidence is required scientifically to verify it.
Say you observe a troop of apes and they act pretty much as apes would, using sticks to extract termites and rocks to crack nuts.
Then imagine you observe a troop of apes and one of them emerges holding what looks like a fully formed slingshot, but one made from things apes could deal with, it looks like the ape made the sling shot. You will need to look into this a lot further to prove the claim that the ape made the sling shot, you would need to discount all possible alternatives because it is an extraordinary claim.

^This^

What this really comes down to is that claims which are contrary to well evidenced long established norms require more evidence to overcome the burden of all that evidence which it contradicts.  We know that people don't rise from the dead.  Therefore a claim that one man (or men since Jesus raised one too) requires enough evidence to overcome the fact that we know from thousands of years of experience that people don't do that.

[Edwardo Piet]

Naturalism is the most consistently long established norm of all. So any supernatural claims require extremely extraordinary evidence indeed.

I don't bother asking for evidence anymore though since science is where the evidence is at and supernaturalism is outside of science. Gods by definition cannot be tested, and if they can then they're not supernatural and hence not gods.

I've said it before: Naturalism pretty much has supernaturalism in a strangehold.