Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[downbeatplumb]

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.

Everything is revisited at certain points as ideas are altered and added to. However the hypothesis "there is a god" has the downside of not being testable, or at least has now been moved out side of testability when all the testable tenets of god came back with better explanations.