Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Whateverist]

So why not stick with extra-ordinary then.  And how about we define it as something never before witnessed.  The fact that you think the resurrection was witnessed this one time -and presumably only this one time- cannot substantiate the genre when it is the first/only instance of what you've claimed.

If what you've claimed is not extraordinary, then point to the prior noncontroversial instantiation of the same phenomenon.  If it is the first/only of its kind, then it is certainly extraordinary and, for those of us not already inclined to expect such things, in need of extraordinary evidence.  Otherwise just go on about your business believing stuff you feel satisfied to believe while we go on rejecting it for being beyond the realm of what can be accepted without more than you've offered as justification.

[Sorry, Steve, but I've butchered what I had quoted from you here and I'm not sure how to fix it.]

Extraordinary evidence is first and foremost evidence that the extraordinary phenomenon exists at all and in what its nature lies.  If you insist on defining 'God' as that which is beyond nature, then you have defined it right out of our known universe.  You've as much as said it does not exist in any way already known..

To show that an ordinary, garden variety common-as-dirt event occurred it is relevant at least to show that the opportunity was there.  But when the phenomenon in question is of the absolutely mysterious variety, the opportunity is indeterminable.  No one knows under what conditions it could be induced.  

With the ordinary, you can argue that X is precisely the sort of occurrence one might expect for a well-known phenomenon.  But with the deeply mysterious, no one knows what is or isn't likely.  No one knows under what condition the mysterious phenomenon would be expected to occur.

Extraordinary evidence would be that which grounds the extraordinary phenomenon in the world as we know it.  By defining it as outside the known, you raise the bar for what would constitute acceptable evidence by first and foremost establishing what it is and by what it is known.

[Amarok]

No Wooter you are an asshole a big puckered red asshole. From the stick you have jammed up there . An asshole no one wants to be near as you blast hot shitty smelling air and call it reasoning .

[Astonished]

Extraordinary evidence is first and foremost evidence that the extraordinary phenomenon exists at all and in what its nature lies.  If you insist on defining 'God' as that which is beyond nature, then you have defined it right out of our known universe.  You've as much as said it does not exist in any way already known..

To show that an ordinary, garden variety common-as-dirt event occurred it is relevant at least to show that the opportunity was there.  But when the phenomenon in question is of the absolutely mysterious variety, the opportunity is indeterminable.  No one knows under what conditions it could be induced.  

With the ordinary, you can argue that X is precisely the sort of occurrence one might expect for a well-known phenomenon.  But with the deeply mysterious, no one knows what is or isn't likely.  No one knows under what condition the mysterious phenomenon would be expected to occur.

Extraordinary evidence would be that which grounds the extraordinary phenomenon in the world as we know it.  By defining it as outside the known, you raise the bar for what would constitute acceptable evidence by first and foremost establishing what it is and by what it is known.

Not to mention, how one would determine the cause of said phenomenon. He probably wouldn't give half a shit if the extraordinary thing didn't let him be all like,

[Pat Mustard]

Don't see why not, at least part of the Domus Augusti has survived 2,000 years.

I was anticipating his answer, not making the claim myself. Sorry I did not make it obvious.

I saw the point. I was hoping, possibly in vain, to reinforce it.

[Pat Mustard]

Why? It's a fact and there is no way around it. Arguing against the bible being the claim is like arguing against the holocaust.

Hmmm...what claim do Christians make that kind of defines the whole Christianity thing?
I know, I know...the Bible!

Finally, Steve gets it, the bible is the claim, not the evidence.

I'll make one more point, the bible itself goes to great pains to castigate anybody who looks to be presented with evidence, in the person of "doubting" (really should be "sensible and rational") Thomas, a basic admission even in the time of John (earliest date c125CE) that there is no evidence to be found.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Assuming that one is not biased to automatically rule out supernatural causes, is there anything wrong with tentatively accepting them until a reasonable natural cause is posited? Or is something only considered explained if attributed to some visible efficient cause?

[pocaracas]

Assuming that one is not biased to automatically rule out supernatural causes, is there anything wrong with tentatively accepting them until a reasonable natural cause is posited? Or is something only considered explained if attributed to some visible efficient cause?

Are you really advocating that we should tentatively accept that Fairies secretly control the Seasons?
That the Force is a real field that is generated by all life forms in the Universe and can provide its wielders with telekinesis and prescience?
That, when a red comet whizzes by, magic can happen and a true descendant of the Dragon lords can hatch centuries old dragon eggs and not get burned?
That there is a hidden Platform 9&3/4 in London's Kings Cross Train Station and that the train that stops there only carries magical people?


How can a supernatural cause ever be considered for a natural phenomenon (your something)?

[SteveII]

[Sorry, Steve, but I've butchered what I had quoted from you here and I'm not sure how to fix it.]

Extraordinary evidence is first and foremost evidence that the extraordinary phenomenon exists at all and in what its nature lies.  If you insist on defining 'God' as that which is beyond nature, then you have defined it right out of our known universe.  [1] You've as much as said it does not exist in any way already known..

To show that an ordinary, garden variety common-as-dirt event occurred it is relevant at least to show that the opportunity was there.  But when the phenomenon in question is of the absolutely mysterious variety, the opportunity is indeterminable.  No one knows under what conditions it could be induced.  

With the ordinary, you can argue that X is precisely the sort of occurrence one might expect for a well-known phenomenon.  But with the deeply mysterious, no one knows what is or isn't likely.  No one knows under what condition the mysterious phenomenon would be expected to occur.[2]

Extraordinary evidence would be that which grounds the extraordinary phenomenon in the world as we know it.  By defining it as outside the known, you raise the bar for what would constitute acceptable evidence by first and foremost establishing what it is and by what it is known.[3]

1. "Beyond nature" in no way means "right out of our known universe". There is no reason to think that if the supernatural exists it could exist all around us or come and go as it pleases. 
2. You are simply drawing the distinction between a naturally-caused event and a supernaturally-caused event. Prior knowledge in the natural world of when/where/how a supernatural cause is by definition not possible.
3. But you are just defining the evidence as extraordinary by what if is describing--not through any properties of it's own. The evidence is just evidence that anyone can identify with the five senses and apply some common sense to. The example I used earlier about the man walking away. That very plain act was all you get. This is why I am asserting that "extraordinary claims DO NOT REQUIRE extraordinary evidence". Demands of more/better quality are unfounded.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was anticipating his answer, not making the claim myself. Sorry I did not make it obvious.

I saw the point. I was hoping, possibly in vain, to reinforce it.

This is Steve we're talking about. All the reinforcement -- and indeed, all the original points -- are in vain.

[pocaracas]

Bayesian probabilities... hmmm.... How about we apply it to psychology?

What are the odds that an extraordinary claim has extraordinary origins, with the prior knowledge that humans have:
- a fertile imagination
- the ability to Willingly Suspend Disbelief
- the ability to lie
- the tendency to follow charismatic people
- a prior belief system already composed of a few similar extraordinary claims
- a natural evolutionary based tendency to accept a claim if it comes from a trustworthy source (parents at a young age, for example)
- a relatively short lifespan
- a brain that tends to be affected by the Dunning Kruger effect ("a cognitive bias wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is.")
- an inability to accurately assess non-intuitive probabilities
- senses that make it challenging to measure the very small quantum world and the very large extra-galactic Universe.
- etc, etc, etc...