Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

I'd like to add that not believing an account isn't the same as announcing the account is wrong.

I agree.

I have no need to say any given crazy sounding account didn't actually happen, just that I have no good reason to think that it did happen.

I think that "good reason" is what we are discussing.

I don't know whose standards it is you're trying to haggle here, Roadrunner. Historians standards? Scientists? Ours? I really don't know where you're going with any of this. We're not stopping you believing whatever you want, but nor are we suddenly going to believe a particular bunch of crazy stuff over any other.

Not trying to haggle anything, and as said, there are going to be category constraints specific to the claim.

Any individual self-proclaimed sceptic may well have stupid standards of evidence. They may well use silly arguments to justify disbelief in things that are rational to believe in. They're not accountable to us. The only time standards are formally agreed is when work is done such as science or history.

And that is what I am talking about... reasonable standards in regards to history and science.

[RoadRunner79]

I assume this is headed for, "Jesus came back to life" or something.

Actually just wanting to discuss the rational behind the claim that "extra ordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence".  I didn't plan on moving beyond that in the scope of this thread.  I don't think it's valid, and wanted to discuss it.  There are a couple of people, who I largely agree with, who define it differently from how I normally find it is used. I think it is similar to what I explained, although in a condensed form (not as accurate) but certainly more catchy! 

As stated, I normally find this concept it to be ill-defined and inconsistent.  And often used as special pleading.
I do have an additional question as well.  Do you consider the term "extraordinary" to be used in the same sense in both parts of the claim.

[bennyboy]

Come to think of it, I don't know why people don't worship magicians. They do a lot more impressive stuff than most of the lame "miracles" in the bible. And you can actually see it, rather than just reading about it later.

I think if any highly competent modern magician made religious claims, then he probably WOULD be able to start at least a moderate cult following.  In fact, it is claimed that Jesus went to the East to study Indian and other mystical traditions.  It is possible (if he even lived) that he learned magic tricks instead.

[bennyboy]

I assume this is headed for, "Jesus came back to life" or something.

I do have an additional question as well.  Do you consider the term "extraordinary" to be used in the same sense in both parts of the claim.

I don't know why you have ignored my pretty simple definitions of "extraordinary": extraordinary claims are those which are outside the common cultural experience of someone listening to them.  Extraordinary evidence is the degree of evidence which would be required to convince the lister to alter his world view-- obviously, the farther an idea is from someone's current view of the world, the more evidence he is going to require in order to justify the hard (and maybe unsettling) work of adjusting it.

Not that none of this has to do with whether a claim is correct, or founded on solid logic or science.  It is just a description of the process of an idea-spreader trying to influence a potential carrier for his idea.

[RoadRunner79]

I do have an additional question as well.  Do you consider the term "extraordinary" to be used in the same sense in both parts of the claim.

I don't know why you have ignored my pretty simple definitions of "extraordinary": extraordinary claims are those which are outside the common cultural experience of someone listening to them.  Extraordinary evidence is the degree of evidence which would be required to convince the lister to alter his world view-- obviously, the farther an idea is from someone's current view of the world, the more evidence he is going to require in order to justify the hard (and maybe unsettling) work of adjusting it.

Not that none of this has to do with whether a claim is correct, or founded on solid logic or science.  It is just a description of the process of an idea-spreader trying to influence a potential carrier for his idea.

So then I take it the answer is no.. they are not used in the same way. Thanks

[Silver]

There are a couple of people, who I largely agree with, who define it differently from how I normally find it is used. I think it is similar to what I explained, although in a condensed form (not as accurate) but certainly more catchy!

It is no surprise that most theists define reality via a biblical bias rather than through honesty and truth.

[robvalue]

The phrase is only an informal rule of thumb, I think you're maybe taking it a bit too seriously.

Extraordinary, as I would use it, means highly unusual.

If the claim is something highly unusual, then anything other than highly unusual evidence is not likely to suffice. If the evidence for the kind of claim was in fact more commonplace, then the claim itself would no longer be so unusual.

If you're talking about science, you don't need this phrase at all. Any claim must make specific testable and falsifiable predictions. This is where anything to do with religion falls down instantly because it makes no such things.

For history, all you can do is examine the available evidence to decide what the most probable sequence of events were. Accounts that mention things that are not known to be possible carry an extremely high probability of being inaccurate. In fact, talking about such things is an indication that the person is most likely deluded or on the make, in my opinion. All we have to compare to is what we know about reality, and the further the accounts deviate from this, the more likely it is that there are simpler explanations than "something totally unprecedented happened". There is far more room for interpretation with history, but any opinions not supported by relevant evidence are not worth much.

But regarding history, there is no way to reach firm conclusions like there is with a scientific hypothesis. Historians can evaluate the age of evidence, the style used, the language and so on, and then offer their best estimate as to what happened. With science, there is no estimation or room for opinion, there is only what can be tested and demonstrated. (Of course, people can have different ideas about as yet unproved hypotheses.)

[RoadRunner79]

There are a couple of people, who I largely agree with, who define it differently from how I normally find it is used. I think it is similar to what I explained, although in a condensed form (not as accurate) but certainly more catchy!

It is no surprise that most theists define reality via a biblical bias rather than through honesty and truth.

Interesting....I didn't think the people I was referring to where theist. However I think your bias may be showing.

[bennyboy]

I don't know why you have ignored my pretty simple definitions of "extraordinary": extraordinary claims are those which are outside the common cultural experience of someone listening to them.  Extraordinary evidence is the degree of evidence which would be required to convince the lister to alter his world view-- obviously, the farther an idea is from someone's current view of the world, the more evidence he is going to require in order to justify the hard (and maybe unsettling) work of adjusting it.

Not that none of this has to do with whether a claim is correct, or founded on solid logic or science.  It is just a description of the process of an idea-spreader trying to influence a potential carrier for his idea.

So then I take it the answer is no.. they are not used in the same way.  Thanks

Extraordinary claims are those people don't normally make.  Extraordinary evidence is evidence that people aren't normally required to make.  Looks the same to me, dude.

[bennyboy]

It is no surprise that most theists define reality via a biblical bias rather than through honesty and truth.

Interesting....I didn't think the people I was referring to where theist. However I think your bias may be showing.

Obvious Christian poe is increasingly obvious.