Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[robvalue]

"Supported reason contrary" sounds just like the argument from ignorance to me.

You don't have to demonstrate a claim is actually false to justify not yet believing it is true. And when the evidence is insufficient, a lack of belief is the logical conclusion.

In the case of an extraordinary claim being made with little or no evidence being produced, that is evidence (not proof) that the person making the claim has no logical reason to believe it themselves either.

[bennyboy]

"Supported reason contrary" sounds just like the argument from ignorance to me.

You don't have to demonstrate a claim is actually false to justify not yet believing it is true. And when the evidence is insufficient, a lack of belief is the logical conclusion.

In the case of an extraordinary claim being made with little or no evidence being produced, that is evidence (not proof) that the person making the claim has no logical reason to believe it themselves either.

That's right.  Somebody makes a claim, you say, "Show me the proof."  They say, "What's this proof stuff?  I know it in my heart of hearts, that's my proof."

And then you walk away, hoping the sound of their voice won't follow you too far.

[robvalue]

Yeah. The alternative is to believe everything you hear that can't instantly be proved wrong. The fact that people generally don't do this means they understand what scepticism is, but are unable or unwilling to apply it to their pet woo.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm sorry, I let this thread become neglected by myself some .  I was somewhat waiting to see if some more would address the principles in the OP, rather than jump to conclusions about the evidence. (which I didn't talk about)   I think that it's interesting, that in a discussion about fair and cosnsitant standards of evidence, there where so many who only focused on the outcome, and what may need to be considered.   A number of others jumped to assumptions about lowering evidence, and what is evidence, which where not mentioned by myself at all.

There was a few post which I felt where good, in regards to the subject.   One of which I replied, stated that I misunderstand the quote that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  I admit, that I am not really aware of the original context, so this is entirely possible, and I was mostly referring to the manner I have seen it used (and I believe has largely been reflected here in this thread).  The way this poster presented it, I think we where for the most part in agreement, and that extraordinary evidence only means sufficient evidence, and that it is the audience who can decide if the claim is extraordinary and not allow the assumptions of the one making the claim.   

Others have alluded, that non-extraordinary claims, already have already been demonstrated, and therefore require less evidence.  I agree with this to an extent, but also think we need to realize what assumptions are being made, and that others may question those assumptions.  In some instances, we may make assumptions, but really the evidence doesn't speak any stronger to one claim over the other.

[Minimalist]

That's because your argument was trashed on Post #2.  You seem incapable of understanding the inherent difference between a claim like a) it is raining outside and b) a dead jew came back to life to atone for my sins.

The outlandishness of the claim determines the evidence needed to support it.  All claims are not created equal.

[RoadRunner79]

That's because your argument was trashed on Post #2.  You seem incapable of understanding the inherent difference between a claim like a) it is raining outside and b) a dead jew came back to life to atone for my sins.

The outlandishness of the claim determines the evidence needed to support it.  All claims are not created equal.

I covered that... if you read the OP. 

Also, it would seem that if you determine that  claim is "outlandish" enough, then you can pretty much deny anything.    It's all subjectively up to you. Do you think that observation is enough to demonstrate something as possible? Are there things, which must be seen personally to be believed, or can substantiated observation by others be enough? 

I find the demand that unbelievable claims require unbelievable evidence to be outlandish.  So you are going to have to support this with reason and apparently better evidence that an anecdote, about it raining outside (which it's not raining outside, I think I'm going for a cycle ride).

[Esquilax]

 Do you think that observation is enough to demonstrate something as possible? Are there things, which must be seen personally to be believed, or can substantiated observation by others be enough? 

Nope. Observation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for rationally justified belief. Obviously if you can't observe a phenomena in one way or another you have no way to detect it, but what we also need to recognize is that our observational capabilities are notoriously unreliable on their own; there are plenty of things we can observe that either are not true, in that the true scale of the phenomena is beyond our ability to comprehend personally (think of the flat Earth, revealed to be round when we gain the capacity to increase the scale of our observations) or turn out to have a cause that's different from the one we'd previously come to. Observation helps, but does not on its own demonstrate as much as you'd think. It's step one, really.

I find the demand that unbelievable claims require unbelievable evidence to be outlandish.  So you are going to have to support this with reason and apparently better evidence that an anecdote, about it raining outside (which it's not raining outside, I think I'm going for a cycle ride).

I always find it odd that people make this argument. It's like... do you just think there's no answer to it? Because there is: you can test the efficacy of believing extraordinary claims on mundane evidence as an epistemological method, and see whether those beliefs turn out to be rationally justified or true in the end. From there, you'd have a good relief map of whether believing extraordinary claims on mundane evidence leads to true beliefs or false beliefs, on average. In fact, we already have a sample group for that: it's called all of human history. Our past is rife with people believing extraordinary claims based on mundane phenomena, and uniformly those phenomena have turned out to be, indeed, mundane. Thunder comes from the gods! ... Only no it doesn't, the explanation is mundane. That belief is wrong. Natural disasters are signs that the gods are angry! ... Only no, there's natural explanations for that too, that belief is wrong. Witches! ... Oh wait, not real. Miracles! ... Oh, hold on...

Every single time an extraordinary belief has been proposed on the back of ordinary evidence, that belief has turned out to be wrong, and an ordinary cause has been found. Every. Single. Time. Holding extraordinary beliefs based on mundane evidence has a zero percent success rate, and this is evidence, the best evidence, that holding extraordinary beliefs like that inevitably leads to holding untrue beliefs. That proposed system is ineffective, and that's a trend, no anecdotes required.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm sorry, I let this thread become neglected by myself some .  I was somewhat waiting to see if some more would address the principles in the OP, rather than jump to conclusions about the evidence. (which I didn't talk about)   I think that it's interesting, that in a discussion about fair and cosnsitant standards of evidence, there where so many who only focused on the outcome, and what may need to be considered.   A number of others jumped to assumptions about lowering evidence, and what is evidence, which where not mentioned by myself at all.

The principles in your OP have been discussed ... and dismissed as vapid. The conversation has moved on to more substantive topics.

Others have alluded, that non-extraordinary claims, already have already been demonstrated, and therefore require less evidence.  I agree with this to an extent, but also think we need to realize what assumptions are being made, and that others may question those assumptions.  In some instances, we may make assumptions, but really the evidence doesn't speak any stronger to one claim over the other.

Be specific. What are you making assumptions about in the absence of definitive evidence? And why are you making such assumptions? What ordinary phenomena are actually extraordinary, the evidence for which we've assumed?

[robvalue]

Everyone can have whatever personal standard of evidence they want for any given belief. They don't have to justify it to anyone.

However, if they are interested in whether their standards are sensible and/or consistent, then justification and discussion is important.

If you believe events occurred that have never been shown to be even possible so far based on textual account(s), then to be consistent, you should also believe any such events, based on textual account(s). This would, for one thing, involve believing every religion to be "true" based on its holy text as well as believing every crazy person who writes anything down. The fact that people can justify to themselves believing one set of accounts but disregarding all the others as obviously wrong is where the special pleading comes in. But again, each person is free to believe as they wish, and if they don't care that their standards are inconsistent, then that is up to them. What this really shows is that the person doesn't believe solely on the strength of those textual accounts, but has other reasons. If they're not prepared to discuss those reasons, then there's not much more that can be done.

(If you think establishing the "reliability" of the authors is at all relevant, that's a common mistake. Being reliable regarding mundane details do not make anyone reliable regarding extraordinary, unprecedented events and their correct classification. All you can conclude, at best, is that they are attempting to tell the truth.)

It is far more consistent not to believe any accounts of events not yet confirmed to be possible, until supporting evidence is presented. Considering this will probably imply an overhaul of scientific theory, the evidence required is going to have to be verifiable and repeatable to scientific standards. And that's just to establish that such a thing is possible. That still doesn't prove it did happen exactly as described in an account, that is still just an anecdote on its own. Whether the anecdote would then be sufficient to believe the claim, on a personal level, depends on various factors. Scientifically however, anecdotes are entirely useless.

[Minimalist]

I covered that... if you read the OP.

Excuse me.  You did not "cover" it.  You made excuses for your own absurd beliefs.  You know just because you write something back does not mean that rational people are under any obligation to accept it as "gospel."  Repeating the same shit over and over does not make it true.

The nature of the claim determines the nature of the needed evidence.

There is none that your godboy came back from the dead....in case you were wondering.