Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[Rhondazvous]

Science is supposed to be objective. The minute you say that one set of data requires more or less scrutiny than another you inject more subjectivity into the results. Nevertheless the most recent psi studies are very robust something ever critics have acknowledged. The early posts might have been true 20 years ago. Today its a different story.

Being objective doesn't mean having the same standard for every experiment.  That would be absurd.  Some experiments are more susceptible to bias, and the study has to be tailored to that.  

Because that's what objective really means in this context.  It means eliminating bias as much as possible.

Unfortunately for your pet claims, every time corrections are made to eliminate bias, the results disappear.  That's exactly what we would expect from a false claim.

To eliminate biases one must admit that there are biases. That can't be done with information that was supposed to come direct from god without raising the question of why the new information is more from god than the old information. Thus the theist is handicapped by the very nature of his claim.

Not so with the scientists who doesn't claim to have an immutable source of information in the first place.

[RoadRunner79]

You're splitting hairs, OP. If you want to be taken seriously, don't make a show out of the missing the point.

You've answered your OP in your OP.

Ideas that would be extraordinary to our culture are ordinary to others.  Remember that the point of argumentation is to influence someone's world view, by making them take as fact something you want them to take as fact.  I take QM as a fact; Medieval Englanders, almost for sure, would not.  IN THEIR CULTURE, your QM claims would be extraordinary, and would require. . . wait for it. . . extraordinary evidence.  Of course, that would mean presenting a series of experiments, and explanations, to get the culture up to speed.

I would like to clarify, that while I did reference Sagan for the quote, I do not know the context for Sagan, and my argument is based on the way I have usually seen it presented.

I do think that if what constitutes as an extraordinary claim is subjective, and the decision of the audience, then it is close to what I was talking about.  Also if by extraordinary evidence, one means sufficient evidence and is consistent in application then there is not an issue.

[IATIA]

So what is your evidence, at any level?

[Angrboda]

Here's one sample of some recent research in presentiment...make of it what you will.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/1...00390/full

Meta-analysis.  Bah.

[M]any leading parapsychologists acknowledge that the existence of psi cannot be demonstrated with evidence that meets currently accepted scientific standards. Most critically, these standards include the essential ingredient that the evidence has to be capable of being reliably reproduced by independent investigators. Lacking this basic ingredient, a claim cannot be considered seriously by the scientific community.

Anomalous Cognition? A Second Perspective

[RoadRunner79]

---

I understand where you're coming from but I've come to a different conclusion based on your examples and thoughts.


I'd say all claims require the same evidence and that extraordinary claims are extraordinary because they have less evidence backing them up to begin with.

Seeing a high school friend in the mall vs seeing a dead president in the mall. 

Everyone here I expect will already have evidence, lot's of it, that you can see your high school friend in the mall, it's possible, logical, plausible, practical and happens all the time.  That evidence is there already.
 but if you wanted evidence to present to a court of law about it you would need more evidence to supply beyond that it could happen and you would need to prove that it did happen.

On the other hand a dead president coming back to life and hanging out at the mall, that has no evidence backing it up that it actually is plausible, possible, logical or practical.  In fact an entire history of medical records is evidence that it would be illogical for it to happen.

So if you were going to prove that it happened you would first have to prove it could happen, which involves going against all medical records as proof that it's unlikely to happen.  Then even if you proved it could happen you would have to prove it did happen.

Both claims require the same amount of evidence but it's just one already has a lot of evidence to begin with. 

So I can see your point in a way, but most mundane things already have extraordinary evidence backing them up as to why they could happen, that is what makes them mundane in the first place.

---

I agree; we do need to consider all of the evidence.  As I stated in the example, I don't believe that there is any more reason to believe one claim over the other, given similar circumstances and evidence.  However there is more reason to question.  And their may be outside or secondary evidence to consider. 

I do think that doubt is a good reason to question; however, I do question that subjective knowledge and experience is an argument against something not being possible.  For this, I think you need supported reason contrary to the claim in question.  And then it may come down to what is better supported.

[Angrboda]

I do think that doubt is a good reason to question; however, I do question that subjective knowledge and experience is an argument against something not being possible.  For this, I think you need supported reason contrary to the claim in question.  And then it may come down to what is better supported.

Wut.

[Ravenshire]

Science is supposed to be objective. The minute you say that one set of data requires more or less scrutiny than another you inject more subjectivity into the results. Nevertheless the most recent psi studies are very robust something ever critics have acknowledged. The early posts might have been true 20 years ago. Today its a different story.

Have you maybe got some links to these robust psi studies? I really would be interested in them.

[bennyboy]

Science is supposed to be objective. The minute you say that one set of data requires more or less scrutiny than another you inject more subjectivity into the results. Nevertheless the most recent psi studies are very robust something ever critics have acknowledged. The early posts might have been true 20 years ago. Today its a different story.

Have you maybe got some links to these robust psi studies? I really would be interested in them.

The are extraordinarily weak, I'll wager.

[robvalue]

My psi powers are telling me there's no such thing as psi.

If there are any proper studies, I'd be very interested to see them. Seriously, I think it would have been common knowledge by now if there was anything to it.

Let me guess, there's a conspiracy. Evil scientists are refusing to accept experiments done in people's bedrooms with mirrors in the corner of the room.

[IATIA]

I do think that doubt is a good reason to question; however, I do question that subjective knowledge and experience is an argument against something not being possible.  For this, I think you need supported reason contrary to the claim in question.  And then it may come down to what is better supported.

If anecdotal evidence and books is all it takes, then it is possible that vampyres, leprechauns, werewolves, gremlins, witches, ogres, cyclops, faeries, ghosts, Bigfoot, Yeti, aliens, UFOs, time travelers, OZ, Wonderland, magical forests, and a sundry of other critters and places do exist, because there is no supporting evidence for their lack of existence?

What possible sane argument could you state against against their existence that would not also exclude the existence of your god.