Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[LadyForCamus]

I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim.  As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence?  It is often just a way to move the goalpost, for that which goes against ones worldview.  To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are.  

I have started discussions before; I don't think that this philosophy is valid (although I can see where it could be useful to dismiss things lazily).  I think it is inconsistent and subjective.   You may get an example, and be asked, which you would be more likely to believe and they will give and analogy, with one thing you will likely accept, and one you likely won't.   However from an epistemology sense they are equal.   You don't have more reason to believe one over the other.  My view is that you are more willing to relieve the epistemic burden for one over the other.  Not that one requires more as a way of knowing.  That is; you are willing to make more assumptions or believe more on faith, in one instance over the other.  

I have heard some valid points, when I am able to get people to discuss this and I'm willing to concede a few things.   However, I don't think it gets you to the way that the extraordinary claims sound bite is often used.  

Anyway, based on my experience, I wish you luck in your efforts.

What the fuck is up with you? Do you have a split personality or something? That is literally the polar opposite of your point of view in every other thread I've seen you in.

He does that all the time, and then whines about being strawmanned.