Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[Esquilax]

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.

That's a problem with the claim though, not with the assertion that different claims require different evidence. The conclusions one draws in science need to go through a series of steps- nothing crazy, just obvious things inherent in the nature of truth- before one can verify that conclusion: if a conclusion is not possible, then that conclusion cannot be true. So for conclusions that have not previously been established as possible, there needs to be additional scrutiny just to get to that point. The more a claim stretches our previous understanding of reality, the more work needs to go into demonstrating possibility; that's just the nature of claims and how one goes about demonstrating them.

Surely it's not a controversial statement that something needs to be proven possible before it can be considered demonstrable?

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.

You say that, but then you're still not giving any examples.