Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[bennyboy]

If you're not discussing the "standards of evidence", why is the phrase "extraordinary evidence" in your thread title?

If I could clarify what I meant. It's not about what the standard of reasonable evidence is, but how it is handled.  I think it is unreasonable to be expected to hit an ever moving an illdefined target.  I don't think that reason and logic are subjective, nor that they only apply to common occurances. I'm open to discussing where the bar is set, but I think it should be able to be applied to all arguments, not just some.

It is the extraordinary claims that set up the ever moving and illdefined target.  It's not the fault of those who disbelieve it that the claimant cannot hit the mark.

[bennyboy]

I am deeply suspicious of anyone who wants to lower the standards of evidence required, so that their claim may be believed.

That is ok.... you suspicions are based mostly on presumptions.  I'm suspicious of those who want to move the bar based on subjective knowledge, and disbelief.

The bar is very simple: those who disbelieve something stated as fact must be convinced.  If you want to convince them, you must provide sufficient reason for them to accept your statement as fact.

That's all this really is: if you want to say outlandish shit that no sensible person would believe, then you need to provide super-strong evidence that no sensible person could ignore-- or you will fail in your objective of getting someone to believe your claim.  That's the thing you don't get (and I'm guessing you have me on ignore already so you won't address it): it is the person WHO THE CLAIM-MAKER IS TRYING TO CONVINCE who gets to set the level of evidence they require.  If you are not willing to meet their standards, then you get to smugly tell your mirror that you are right, because nobody else will be listening.


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. . . if you want anybody who didn't already believe them to change their minds."

Can I hear an /thread up in here?

[RoadRunner79]

That is ok.... you suspicions are based mostly on presumptions.  I'm suspicious of those who want to move the bar based on subjective knowledge, and disbelief.

The bar is very simple: those who disbelieve something stated as fact must be convinced.  If you want to convince them, you must provide sufficient reason for them to accept your statement as fact.

That's all this really is: if you want to say outlandish shit that no sensible person would believe, then you need to provide super-strong evidence that no sensible person could ignore-- or you will fail in your objective of getting someone to believe your claim.  That's the thing you don't get (and I'm guessing you have me on ignore already so you won't address it): it is the person WHO THE CLAIM-MAKER IS TRYING TO CONVINCE who gets to set the level of evidence they require.  If you are not willing to meet their standards, then you get to smugly tell your mirror that you are right, because nobody else will be listening.

Ok... I agree persuasion is subjective and not based on logic and reason (at least for some)....   And if someone has to employ inconsistent and unreasonable standards, under the guise of EC-EE  then I guess it is not my problem.

[RoadRunner79]

If I could clarify what I meant. It's not about what the standard of reasonable evidence is, but how it is handled.  I think it is unreasonable to be expected to hit an ever moving an illdefined target.  I don't think that reason and logic are subjective, nor that they only apply to common occurances. I'm open to discussing where the bar is set, but I think it should be able to be applied to all arguments, not just some.

That's pretty unrealistic where the real world is concerned, as shown above.

It'd be nice if the real world was that cut-and-dried, but it ain't.

There are a lot of variables, so two instances are never exactly the same.   But I find no problems living in the real world and I am understanding that many things are not about reason.

[bennyboy]

Ok... I agree persuasion is subjective and not based on logic and reason (at least for some)....   And if someone has to employ inconsistent and unreasonable standards, under the guise of EC-EE  then I guess it is not my problem.

So when I don't apply the same standards to "It's raining today" as I do to "We don't know what made the universe, therefore Sky Daddy," I'm moving goalposts, huh?

See, if a claim is "extraordinary," it is NOT based on logic and reason. If it were, everyone would just say, "Yeah, that makes sense." But that's not how it goes down, is it? How it goes down is this:

[robvalue]

RR: I've tried really hard to explain all this in the best way I can, but I now have no idea what you're even talking about anymore.

[bennyboy]

RR: I've tried really hard to explain all this in the best way I can, but I now have no idea what you're even talking about anymore.

That's because he's patiently trying to set up an intellectual environment in which religious bullshit has to be seriously considered, but he knows if he says "Sky Daddy," he's instantly going to be refuted, and eventually mocked.

[Heat]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence with the exception of a social norm.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's pretty unrealistic where the real world is concerned, as shown above.

It'd be nice if the real world was that cut-and-dried, but it ain't.

There are a lot of variables, so two instances are never exactly the same.   But I find no problems living in the real world and I am understanding that many things are not about reason.

However, reasoned argumentation in an effort to convince another of a claim you've made does not fall under that rubric of "not about reason."

Now, if you're not worried about changing minds, carry on.

However, I rather cotton to Hitchens's Razor: That which is advanced without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. The unspoken corollary to that is that the evidence should be proportionate to the claim.

[RoadRunner79]

Ok... I agree persuasion is subjective and not based on logic and reason (at least for some)....   And if someone has to employ inconsistent and unreasonable standards, under the guise of EC-EE  then I guess it is not my problem.

So when I don't apply the same standards to "It's raining today" as I do to "We don't know what made the universe, therefore Sky Daddy," I'm moving goalposts, huh?

Despite the straw man here, I believe that you are making more assumptions in accepting the claim it is raining outside or you may have other reasons for not perusing it as persistently as other claims.  Given the same circumstances though you do not have any more or less reason to believe.