"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

[leftrightleftrightleft]

1) What makes a claim extraordinary?

2) Where's the line between requiring sufficient evidence for an extraordinary claim and requiring unreasonable evidence for a non-extraordinary claim?

3) How does one determine when sufficient evidence has been given to believe a claim?


Isn't it all just arbitrary based on our own suppositions and prior beliefs / biases?

 

[SkyWriting]

Isn't it all just arbitrary based on our own suppositions and prior beliefs / biases?

Yup.

The only ones not admitting the arbitrary nature
will test you with one fact they feel is rock solid
and try to make you look personally foolish.

Or they will read this and remain silent.

 

[durangodawood]

1) What makes a claim extraordinary?

2) Where's the line between requiring sufficient evidence for an extraordinary claim and requiring unreasonable evidence for a non-extraordinary claim?

3) How does one determine when sufficient evidence has been given to believe a claim?

1) An extraordinary claim is one that, if true, requires one to reframe your whole outlook on life. Or one that demands a revolution of the common understanding of how the world works.

2) Thats for each person to decide. Most will require something demonstrable and testable. And why shouldnt they? Youre a chump if you rearrange your whole worldview just because someone said you should with great conviction.

 

[Davian]

1) What makes a claim extraordinary?

That is remarkable or very unusual.

2) Where's the line between requiring sufficient evidence for an extraordinary claim and requiring unreasonable evidence for a non-extraordinary claim?

Dunno. I would not attempt to draw such a line.

3) How does one determine when sufficient evidence has been given to believe a claim?

For an individual, that one accepts the claim. Keep in mind that there are those that claim that the Earth is flat, or that we are currently being visited by extraterrestrial aliens. Are those extraordinary claims?

Isn't it all just arbitrary based on our own suppositions and prior beliefs / biases?

Pretty much.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

That is remarkable or very unusual.

Those are both synonyms of "extraordinary", so I don't think you've helped with the understanding.

I mean, what makes something "remarkable" or "very unusual"?

For an individual, that one accepts the claim. Keep in mind that there are those that claim that the Earth is flat, or that we are currently being visited by extraterrestrial aliens. Are those extraordinary claims?

I don't know. Should they be? That's the question of this thread.

Pretty much.

As with most things...

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

1) An extraordinary claim is one that, if true, requires one to reframe your whole outlook on life. Or one that demands a revolution of the common understanding of how the world works.

Great way of defining it. I like this quite a lot.

Its interesting that, for different people, different things would be extraordinary claims, simply because different things fit into different people's worldview. For some, the idea that animals (along with us) evolved from a common ancestor is an extraordinary claim; while for others, the idea that a god-man rose from the dead is an extraordinary claim.

2) Thats for each person to decide. Most will require something demonstrable and testable. And why shouldnt they? Youre a chump if you rearrange your whole worldview just because someone said you should with great conviction.

I think it is rare for someone to re-arrange their worldview and be convinced by an extraordinary claim, no matter the evidence.

 

[Hieronymus]

1) What makes a claim extraordinary?

I think the consensus of the day does.
The existence of God was hardly disputed in the past, but nowadays we've been fed naturalism, which makes it an extraordinary claim.

3) How does one determine when sufficient evidence has been given to believe a claim?

When you're convinced by it?

Isn't it all just arbitrary based on our own suppositions and prior beliefs / biases?

I hope not.
I have been seeking truth by looking for evidence.

 

[durangodawood]

Great way of defining it. I like this quite a lot.

Its interesting that, for different people, different things would be extraordinary claims, simply because different things fit into different people's worldview. For some, the idea that animals (along with us) evolved from a common ancestor is an extraordinary claim; while for others, the idea that a god-man rose from the dead is an extraordinary claim.

I think it is rare for someone to re-arrange their worldview and be convinced by an extraordinary claim, no matter the evidence.

Absolutely.
Biological evolution itself (not to mention evolution-by-natural-selection) WAS the extraordinary claim for most people when it was proposed, and for some time after.

But for quite a while now, of course, the evidence for the general course of evolution has been extraordinary to match the claim - and then some.

 

[Hieronymus]

Absolutely.
Biological evolution itself (not to mention evolution-by-natural-selection) WAS the extraordinary claim for most people when it was proposed and for some time after.

It still is, and we're waiting for proof for some 150 years now...
Proof of dead unconscious things performing miracles, outperforming all of humanity in bringing forth excellent systems.

But for quite some time, of course, the evidence for the general path of evolution has been extraordinary to match the claim - and then some.

Pure bluff is no evidence.

 

[durangodawood]

What is it about this forum?
When I talk to Christians elsewhere, so many think I'm just trying to discredit the faith when I bring up the amount of opposition to evolution that I encounter.

 

[Davian]

The only ones not admitting the arbitrary nature
will test you with one fact they feel is rock solid
and try to make you look personally foolish.

If someone says something that makes them look foolish, who am I not to call them out on it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

3) How does one determine when sufficient evidence has been given to believe a claim?

When one finds oneself believing the claim.

Isn't it all just arbitrary based on our own suppositions and prior beliefs / biases?

To some extent, yep.

 

[quatona]

1) What makes a claim extraordinary?

I think one criterium is lack of parsimony.
Another would be the postulation of something "supernatural" (a term which actually takes comfort in being extra-ordinary).
Another would be anything that is defined as being beyond human understanding etc.
Another term that itself signifies an extraordinary claim would be "miracle".
Also, those claims which are esoteric (i.e. postulate that only a special group can understand them).
Etc. etc. These are just the first that I can give from the top of my head.

Then again, most people will agree on something being an extraordinary claim until they make it themselves.

2) Where's the line between requiring sufficient evidence for an extraordinary claim and requiring unreasonable evidence for a non-extraordinary claim?

I don´t think a clear line can be drawn.
Also, I do not really know what "extraordinary evidence" is supposed to be.

3) How does one determine when sufficient evidence has been given to believe a claim?

In certain realms we have established standards. In others (especially those which are, by their own definition, extraordinary, super-, beyond-, whatnot) we don´t.
What, however, we can - at least to a certain extent - can take a look at: How consistent are a person´s criteria when it comes to similarly exceptional claims (e.g. if a person makes a "supernatural" claim and takes comfort in "Well, it can´t be disproven" but tackles competing "supernatural" claims by demanding proof).

Isn't it all just arbitrary based on our own suppositions and prior beliefs / biases?

I don´t think it is "all just arbitary" - but there´s certainly some arbitrariness involved.
I guess the thing that worries people most is when they seem to agree with a person on criteria for determining "sufficient evidence", and then this person suddenly introduces new, different criteria for a particular claim.

 

[guyfriendly]

1) What makes a claim extraordinary?

2) Where's the line between requiring sufficient evidence for an extraordinary claim and requiring unreasonable evidence for a non-extraordinary claim?

3) How does one determine when sufficient evidence has been given to believe a claim?


Isn't it all just arbitrary based on our own suppositions and prior beliefs / biases?

Extraordinary claims are claims like people rising from the dead, some kind of miracles that goes against human experience. I think even if we're to provide the evidence for extraordinary claims that wouldn't make it extraordinary evidence.

 

[Davian]

Those are both synonyms of "extraordinary", so I don't think you've helped with the understanding.

I mean, what makes something "remarkable" or "very unusual"?

I suppose it is one of those things that is self-evident. If your co-worker says he was late for work because of an accident on the freeway, you may not find that remarkable.

However, if he claims that the accident was caused by the crash of an alien spaceship, you may find that unusual, and wish to remark on it.

I don't know. Should they be? That's the question of this thread.

I think so. How about you?

As with most things...

 

[Davian]

I think the consensus of the day does.
The existence of God was hardly disputed in the past, but nowadays we've been fed naturalism, which makes it an extraordinary claim.

I would not allude to naturalism, but to methodologies developed for exploring reality that appear to have greater accuracy. Claims for the existence of gods do not do well under that type of analysis.

 

[Davian]

It still is, and we're waiting for proof for some 150 years now...
Proof of dead unconscious things performing miracles, outperforming all of humanity in bringing forth excellent systems.

How do you qualify "excellent" in this context? I would expect things that have been evolving for billions of years to have a leg up over our current technological exploits.

On the subject of 'proof', what proof is there of some guy that, if he existed at all, died 2000 years ago, and yet is still able to telepathically communicate with select individuals and cause his image to appear in toast and water stains? How does that work?

 

[Hieronymus]

What is it about this forum?

It's a Christian forum.

 

[SkyWriting]

If someone says something that makes them look foolish, who am I not to call them out on it?

You for your similar efforts. Most often the argument is internal
long before it is externalized onto others.

The attempt to make others look foolish (or any negative labeling)
is born of insecurity.

 

[SkyWriting]

If someone says something that makes them look foolish, who am I not to call them out on it?

A temporary visitor to this forum.
Guidelines for all Discussion and Debate Forums