RE: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
November 8, 2015 at 1:41 pm
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2015 at 1:42 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(November 8, 2015 at 11:40 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 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.
Quote: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?
