Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Mister Agenda]

My sentiments to a T.  Rather than argue for the superiority of your epistemic position, the essence of faith would be to admit its frailty and persist nonetheless.  If you have so little faith anyhow, why is it important to convince us?  Convince yourself.

I think that you have a different understanding of faith than I do.  And I don't consider my faith weak, but strong because of the evidence.

It seems like the faith needed to believe something would be inversely proportional to the evidence available to support it. But what's the evidence, again? I seem to missed your attempt to present it.

---

The whole point of the scientific method is to remove subjective judgment from the evaluation of a hypothesis. The irony is that when it comes to anything remotely hinting at the supernatural, in trots the highly subjective criteria of 'extraordinary'. These pseudo-skeptics are a bunch of hypocrites. It's all science, science, science, until its something they don't like and it suits their incredulity its science+. "Oh, yes that's evidence, but its not EXTRAORDINARY evidence"

Yeah, I was just telekinetically hovering over my roof this morning and a thousand people saw me, right after I put my pants on.

Really, who can tell whether it was the hovering or dressing that's the extraordinary claim? It would take selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticism to be able to pretend to tell the difference.