"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

[durangodawood]

Videotape would be considered extraordinary?

Yeah, youre right.
We should say extraordinary claims require really super strong evidence instead.
But that doesnt sound as good.

 

[bhsmte]

Videotape would be considered extraordinary?

If it substantiates an extraordinary claim, yes.

 

[durangodawood]

If it substantiates an extraordinary claim, yes.

Nice circular definition!

 

[bhsmte]

Nice circular definition!

Thanks.

 

[quatona]

Yeah, youre right.
We should say extraordinary claims require really super strong evidence instead.

I never liked the term "extra-ordinary evidence", either. That said, I don´t think "super strong evidence" isn´t much better (I mean, videotape isn´t so particularly extra-strong, is it).
I suspect that what´s meant is: An extra-ordinary claim is in greater need of evidence than an ordinary one.
Or something.

 

[durangodawood]

....I suspect that what´s meant is: An extra-ordinary claim is in greater need of evidence than an ordinary one....

Boring but correct, I think.

 

[bhsmte]

I never liked the term "extra-ordinary evidence", either. That said, I don´t think "super strong evidence" isn´t much better (I mean, videotape isn´t so particularly extra-strong, is it).
I suspect that what´s meant is: An extra-ordinary claim is in greater need of evidence than an ordinary one.
Or something.

Well, one either has evidence to substantiate an extraordinary claim or not.

If quality evidence exists, I guess we can call it whatever we want.

 

[KCfromNC]

I asked for an example.

http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

It's a fairly extraordinary claim, any yet there's multiple independent lines of evidence which all point towards that claim being true to the exclusion of others.

 

[Loudmouth]

It can't be used except to change yourself.

How many people have prayed to be cured of cancer, yet still died of cancer?

 

[Loudmouth]

All people intend to adjust your expectations to
what they are offering can provide. Living - lesson one.

And when what is offered doesn't provide anything, you adjust your expectations.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never liked the term "extra-ordinary evidence", either. That said, I don´t think "super strong evidence" isn´t much better (I mean, videotape isn´t so particularly extra-strong, is it).
I suspect that what´s meant is: An extra-ordinary claim is in greater need of evidence than an ordinary one.
Or something.

I prefer, "Extraordinary claims require lots of ordinary evidence".

 

[Loudmouth]

I asked for an example.

One extraordinary claim is that light always travels at 3E8 m/s. If you are driving a car with the headlights on, the speed of the light will not be 3E8 m/s plus the speed of the car. It will be 3E8 m/s. This was quite the extraordinary claim made by Einstein, and it turned out to be true.

 

[Chesterton]

One extraordinary claim is that light always travels at 3E8 m/s. If you are driving a car with the headlights on, the speed of the light will not be 3E8 m/s plus the speed of the car. It will be 3E8 m/s. This was quite the extraordinary claim made by Einstein, and it turned out to be true.

I asked about evidence, not a claim. But since you mention it I'm not sure when ordinary and extraordinary mean anything. That's just what light does. Is it ordinary or extraordinary that something exists rather than nothing? Personally, I think everything is extraordinary, even the nose on my face or the Godman rising from the dead.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is it ordinary or extraordinary that something exists rather than nothing? Personally, I think everything is extraordinary, even the nose on my face or the Godman rising from the dead.

It is ordinary that something exists because we observe something every second of our waking lives.

Extraordinary seems to indicate proposals that are either counterintuitive or contradict long held beliefs. Going back to Relativity for a moment, observing starlight bend around the Sun during a solar eclipse was pretty extraordinary evidence. It supported the rather extraordinary claim that gravity bends spacetime, and light follows with it.

 

[Chesterton]

It is ordinary that something exists because we observe something every second of our waking lives.

Extraordinary seems to indicate proposals that are either counterintuitive or contradict long held beliefs. Going back to Relativity for a moment, observing starlight bend around the Sun during a solar eclipse was pretty extraordinary evidence. It supported the rather extraordinary claim that gravity bends spacetime, and light follows with it.

That falls apart. You mention three things - observation, counter intuitive and contradicts beliefs. Imagine an ancient fellow who lived where there were no bodies of water big enough to have fish and then one day on a journey he discovers a lake with fish in it. Previously he'd never observed fish, his intuition told him no living thing could breathe underwater, and so he believed no animal could live underwater. All of a sudden the definition changes and the extraordinary becomes ordinary. I submit that every fish is extraordinary from the start, and remains so, and merely "getting used to it" doesn't change that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Imagine an ancient fellow who lived where there were no bodies of water big enough to have fish and then one day on a journey he discovers a lake with fish in it. Previously he'd never observed fish, his intuition told him no living thing could breathe underwater, and so he believed no animal could live underwater. All of a sudden the definition changes and the extraordinary becomes ordinary.

Just like today, Relativity is considered ordinary even though it was quite extraordinary when it was first proposed. That's what happens when an extraordinary claim is backed by evidence. It becomes ordinary.

I submit that every fish is extraordinary from the start, and remains so, and merely "getting used to it" doesn't change that.

I would submit that your description does not match up with how the rest of humanity views it.

 

[Chesterton]

Just like today, Relativity is considered ordinary even though it was quite extraordinary when it was first proposed. That's what happens when an extraordinary claim is backed by evidence. It becomes ordinary.

Merely observing a thing changes it's essential nature? That's a pretty human-centric view. Of course I've heard that happens on the particle level.

I would submit that your description does not match up with how the rest of humanity views it.

Well, granted, I'm not saying I totally freak out every time I see a fish.

 

[Loudmouth]

Merely observing a thing changes it's essential nature? That's a pretty human-centric view. Of course I've heard that happens on the particle level.

Since we are talking about how humans view things as ordinary or extraordinary, it is going to be a human-centric explanation.

 

[Chesterton]

Since we are talking about how humans view things as ordinary or extraordinary, it is going to be a human-centric explanation.

Ever experience jamais vu, where the ordinary becomes extraordinary? It's possible to intentionally induce it with written or spoken words. It can be experienced with things, objects also but I don't know if it can be induced.

 

[SkyWriting]

And when what is offered doesn't provide anything, you adjust your expectations.

Quitting is easy.