Carl Sagan changed my life, in 2018

The real Sagan is found in his oft repeated phrase
"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof"
Which is the very antithesis of science.

All claims need the same threshold.
Whether you regard them extraordianry is purely subjective: a threshold they then use to raise the bar to evidence they "dont like"

It is fascinating how "scientists" holding this totally bogus view, Like Dawkins, then get themselves into positions in which they are responsible for "public understanding of science"

No wonder the public are so illinformed about the scope nature and extent of science.

Mountainmike said:

All claims need the same threshold.

Click to expand...

I read in a book that Alice Springs is the capital of the Northern Territory of Australia.

I read in a book that aliens abducted Betty and Barney Hill.

I think it's natural that we respond differently to different types of claims.

I'm not sure it's even sensible to say that there is a single threshold. What is it? p<.05? Some claims just aren't amenable to that kind of analysis. There's no one size fits all way to measure 'evidence'.

If I say I bought a Mazda 3, you believe me. My say-so is enough.

If I say I own an Aston Martin Vulcan, you want to see the key-fob, the car, the title ... and even that may not be enough.

Tinker Grey said:

If I say I own an Aston Martin Vulcan, you want to see the key-fob, the car, the title ... and even that may not be enough.

Click to expand...

I just want to know the number on the engine block. Mine was stolen.

The clear implication of what I say is correlations exist beyond reasonable significance or not. Evidence of occurrence or not, whether or not there is "explanation" with reference to existing scientific models.

To use a non theistic example: Dawkins ridicules telepathy regardless of evidence and raises the evidential bar against it , dismissing all evidence out of hand. He regards it as "extraordinary" . Yet there are compelling significances in single phenomena and metastudies that are beyond reasonable dismissal.

That is the result of his adopting the sagan falasy.
To be valid evidence must be compelling and he must "like" it.

On the other hand if he does "Like" the subject, the lack of evidence is nothing for him. Take abiogenesis he accepts as a fact, without mechanism or evidence it happened. Seemingly for him abiogenesis is "ordinary". Or why does he not ridicule it? as he does telepathy?

essentialsaltes said:

I read in a book that Alice Springs is the capital of the Northern Territory of Australia.

I read in a book that aliens abducted Betty and Barney Hill.

I think it's natural that we respond differently to different types of claims.

I'm not sure it's even sensible to say that there is a single threshold. What is it? p<.05? Some claims just aren't amenable to that kind of analysis. There's no one size fits all way to measure 'evidence'.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

To use a non theistic example: Dawkins ridicules telepathy regardless of evidence and raises the evidential bar against it , dismissing all evidence out of hand. He regards it as "extraordinary" . Yet there are compelling significances in single phenomena and metastudies that are beyond reasonable dismissal.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you hang this on Dawkins in particular. This is the consensus view of the scientific community in general.

Telepathy experiments have historically been criticized for lack of proper controls and repeatability. There is no convincing evidence that telepathy exists, and the topic is generally considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience.

Take abiogenesis he accepts as a fact, without mechanism or evidence it happened. Seemingly for him abiogenesis is "ordinary". Or why does he not ridicule it? as he does telepathy?

Click to expand...

At one point in time, there was no life on earth. Now there is. It's a fact. Correct, we don't have a robust theory of abiogenesis. But it's a fact, just like gravity was a fact before we had a successful theory to explain it.

You repeat the standard rhetoric on telepathy, and on abiogenesis.
That demonstrates the falasy of sagans folly.

Good.
Proves you are not a scientist. Neither was Sagan, or this context dawkins.

You have no idea what evidence is out there, or the controls that were used.
It is just the standard religion that accepts abiogenesis inspite of no evidence whatsoever, or even a model,you prefer the apriori assumption.
You opposes telepathy inspite of evidence way beyond statsitical significance that disproves random chance: you prefer the apriori assumption

I prefer evidenced based decisions.
In which researchers apriori opinions are not given weight over the evidence
But then I am a scientist, so I would.

Which is why I see "extraordinary claims etc..." as unscientific bunk.

essentialsaltes said:

Not sure why you hang this on Dawkins in particular. This is the consensus view of the scientific community in general.

Telepathy experiments have historically been criticized for lack of proper controls and repeatability. There is no convincing evidence that telepathy exists, and the topic is generally considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience.



At one point in time, there was no life on earth. Now there is. It's a fact. Correct, we don't have a robust theory of abiogenesis. But it's a fact, just like gravity was a fact before we had a successful theory to explain it.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

The real Sagan is found in his oft repeated phrase
"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof"
Which is the very antithesis of science.

Click to expand...

Sagan was absolutely correct.

Mountainmike said:

You repeat the standard rhetoric on telepathy

Click to expand...

Quoting Wikipedia demonstrates that this is the uncontroversial opinion of the entire world, apart from a handful of crackpots. This isn't rhetoric.

essentialsaltes said:

Quoting Wikipedia demonstrates that this is the uncontroversial opinion of the entire world, apart from a handful of crackpots. This isn't rhetoric.

Click to expand...

There you go again. You even quote "wikipedia" as a source, which everyone (with any scientific integrity) knows is just an opinion piece for any controversial subject. So worthless.

I repeat. There is plenty of actual evidence for telepathy both as metastudies and individual trials on which no significant experimental defect has been found. The significance beyond random chance.

Every straw man and non sequitur is used to discredit it. Because the establishment does not "like" it. Why? I presume, because it has possible ramification for contesting whether "consciousness" is only a chemical process: that is why the establishment feels threatened and so raises the bar against it..


On abiogenesis there is precisely nothing, except conjecture. There is no end to end mechanism postulated. No minimum intermediate postulated. No evidence it ever occurred. Or is occurring or can be made to occur.

There is absoultelty Nothing except slight of hand.

For example the oft stated false premise that building blocks of life (sic)- amino acids can occur naturally is falsely used as evidence of abiogenesis. Which is just as true as saying a pile of bricks is evidence that houses can self build. Nobody disputes the houses. They surely do not self build. Except the commenters are too stupid or deceitful to admit their complete non sequitur.

But because the establishment "likes" it, the bar is dropped so abiogenesis is accepted whilst failing every test of even a valid hypothesis. All it is is conjecture. - I should say a very valid conjecture to follow. But on evidence base it is nowhere..

Telepathy wins hands down on evidence. So clearly is valid science.

I present the two arenas as how Sagans stupidity is allowed to overrule evidence. Whether the establishment "likes" a topic determines whether it defines it as science. And it proves the general dishonesty of the scientific establishment that led to the unscientific phrase "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof": which is how they subjectively dismiss what they "dont like" And lower the bar to things they do "like". ie apriori prejudice.

It seems you do the same.

Sad. I thought this forum was about science. Not your apriori prejudice.

As a scientist I prefer evidence base.

Mountainmike said:

There you go again. You even quote "wikipedia" as a source, which everyone (with any scientific integrity) knows is just an opinion piece for any controversial subject. So worthless.

I repeat. There is plenty of actual evidence for telepathy both as metastudies and individual trials on which no significant experimental defect has been found. The significance beyond random chance.

Every straw man and non sequitur is used to discredit it. Because the establishment does not "like" it. Why? I presume, because it has possible ramification for contesting whether "consciousness" is only a chemical process: that is why the establishment feels threatened and so raises the bar against it..


On abiogenesis there is precisely nothing, except conjecture. There is no end to end mechanism postulated. No minimum intermediate postulated. No evidence it ever occurred. Or is occurring or can be made to occur.

There is absoultelty Nothing except slight of hand.

For example the oft stated false premise that building blocks of life (sic)- amino acids can occur naturally is falsely used as evidence of abiogenesis. Which is just as true as saying a pile of bricks is evidence that houses can self build. Nobody disputes the houses. They surely do not self build. Except the commenters are too stupid or deceitful to admit their complete non sequitur.

But because the establishment "likes" it, the bar is dropped so abiogenesis is accepted whilst failing every test of even a valid hypothesis. All it is is conjecture. - I should say a very valid conjecture to follow. But on evidence base it is nowhere..

Telepathy wins hands down on evidence. So clearly is valid science.

I present the two arenas as how Sagans stupidity is allowed to overrule evidence. Whether the establishment "likes" a topic determines whether it defines it as science. And it proves the general dishonesty of the scientific establishment that led to the unscientific phrase "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof": which is how they subjectively dismiss what they "dont like" And lower the bar to things they do "like". ie apriori prejudice.

It seems you do the same.

Sad. I thought this forum was about science. Not your apriori prejudice.

As a scientist I prefer evidence base.

Click to expand...

You don't know what "extraordinary" means, do you?

Mountainmike said:

There you go again. You even quote "wikipedia" as a source, which everyone (with any scientific integrity) knows is just an opinion piece for any controversial subject. So worthless.

I repeat. There is plenty of actual evidence for telepathy both as metastudies and individual trials on which no significant experimental defect has been found. The significance beyond random chance.

Every straw man and non sequitur is used to discredit it. Because the establishment does not "like" it. Why? I presume, because it has possible ramification for contesting whether "consciousness" is only a chemical process: that is why the establishment feels threatened and so raises the bar against it..


On abiogenesis there is precisely nothing, except conjecture. There is no end to end mechanism postulated. No minimum intermediate postulated. No evidence it ever occurred. Or is occurring or can be made to occur.

There is absoultelty Nothing except slight of hand.

For example the oft stated false premise that building blocks of life (sic)- amino acids can occur naturally is falsely used as evidence of abiogenesis. Which is just as true as saying a pile of bricks is evidence that houses can self build. Nobody disputes the houses. They surely do not self build. Except the commenters are too stupid or deceitful to admit their complete non sequitur.

But because the establishment "likes" it, the bar is dropped so abiogenesis is accepted whilst failing every test of even a valid hypothesis. All it is is conjecture. - I should say a very valid conjecture to follow. But on evidence base it is nowhere..

Telepathy wins hands down on evidence. So clearly is valid science.

I present the two arenas as how Sagans stupidity is allowed to overrule evidence. Whether the establishment "likes" a topic determines whether it defines it as science. And it proves the general dishonesty of the scientific establishment that led to the unscientific phrase "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof": which is how they subjectively dismiss what they "dont like" And lower the bar to things they do "like". ie apriori prejudice.

It seems you do the same.

Sad. I thought this forum was about science. Not your apriori prejudice.

As a scientist I prefer evidence base.

Click to expand...

Mountain Mike: says there is plenty of actual evidence of telepathy
Mountain Mike: cites no actual evidence of telepathy

Mountainmike said:

There you go again. You even quote "wikipedia" as a source, which everyone (with any scientific integrity) knows is just an opinion piece for any controversial subject. So worthless.

Click to expand...

True or false. Telepathy "is generally considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience."

Mountainmike said:

The real Sagan is found in his oft repeated phrase
"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof"
Which is the very antithesis of science.

Click to expand...

Not really. He was suggesting the equivalent of a Bayesian approach to claims, where you use new data to update your priors until you achieve the required level of confidence that the claim is correct. If your priors are low, it's clear that you require more data or more convincing data to achieve a given level of confidence than if your priors are high.

Mountainmike said:

As a scientist I prefer evidence base.

Click to expand...

The evidence in this forum suggests otherwise.

essentialsaltes said:

True or false. Telepathy "is generally considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience."

Click to expand...

Straw man. It does not matter what the scientific community "considers".

It matters whether evidence supports it.
In that case there is evidence that does, there are significant correlations , and no obvious experimental defect. There is clearly a hypothesis, because an experiment can be conducted. It is therefore valid science.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis. Or a mechanism. Or an observation it happened. Or a way to make it happen. Or a process for it. So it does not get on the first rung of scientific process - as a hypothesis.
It is not valid science, outside conjecture.

It is clear therefore the scientific community puts up barriers to things it does not like. Lowers them to things it does not like. WHich as unscientific as you can get and is how "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof" is actually practised.

Mountainmike said:

There is no evidence for abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

True or false. At one point in time there was no life on earth. And now there is.

Mountainmike said:

Straw man. It does not matter what the scientific community "considers".

Click to expand...

Really? The "considerations" of the scientific community represent the provisional conclusions based upon observation and experiment. Scientific "considerations" are the essential outcomes of scientific research. When a phenomena is established as existing then hypotheses or theories are developed to account for them. In other cases the phenomenon will recognised as an illusion and then the pseudo-phenomenon will be "considered" unworthy of further significant study.
So, if you think "It does not matter what the scientific community 'Considers'", then you are saying that science does not matter. In the context of this discussion that is nonsense.

Mountainmike said:

It matters whether evidence supports it.

Click to expand...

And what the scientific community considers is based upon the evidence. The evidence does not support it. Since one cannot prove a negative, it is up to you to produce this volume of evidence you claim exists. Provide citations of research, published in reputable peer reviewed journals, for the three best examples you know of. That would be a good start.

Mountainmike said:

There is no evidence for abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

Essential Saltes has already pointed out your error here.

Mountainmike said:

Or a mechanism. Or an observation it happened. Or a way to make it happen. Or a process for it.

Click to expand...

Numerous pathways have been proposed. Investigation of portions of those pathways have been investigated. Apparently you are unfamiliar with these. All you have to do is ask for citations and references. (The down side is that you will then be unable to make the statements quoted above without lying.)

Mountainmike said:

So it does not get on the first rung of scientific process - as a hypothesis.
It is not valid science, outside conjecture.

Click to expand...

See above.

Mountainmike said:

It is clear therefore the scientific community puts up barriers to things it does not like. Lowers them to things it does not like. WHich as unscientific as you can get and is how "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof" is actually practised.

Click to expand...

You seem to be projecting your own weaknesses. You need to step back. (Well, you don't need to, but you would ultimately benefit from it.)

Ophiolite said:

Really? The "considerations" of the scientific community represent the provisional conclusions based upon observation and experiment.

Click to expand...

Now study the example I gave that proves you completely wrong.
You are clearly signed up to establishment pure "opinion" you seemingly prefer to real science..

Telepathy. Lots of evidence, repeatable experiments. No obvious experimental flaw. Correlations significant way beyond random chance
The establishment does not "like" it.
So calls it pseudoscience.

Abiogenesis. No evidence it ever occurred , is occurring, no way to make it repeat. No end to end process conjectured. So not even a valid hypothesis in science.
So neither observation nor experiment. So there can be no provisional conclusion.
The establishment does "Like" it. So considers it "science" in violation of the lowest rung of science "hypothesis"

Those are the facts. They are not contestable.

Carl Sagan was not acting as a scientist when he said "exraordinary claims need extraordinarly proof". I am a scientist. I go where evidence leads, however someone else considers it "extraordinary" which is a subjective opinion, in Sagans case to enforce his opinoin in violation of evidence..

Mountainmike said:

The real Sagan is found in his oft repeated phrase
"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof"
Which is the very antithesis of science.

All claims need the same threshold.
Whether you regard them extraordianry is purely subjective: a threshold they then use to raise the bar to evidence they "dont like"

It is fascinating how "scientists" holding this totally bogus view, Like Dawkins, then get themselves into positions in which they are responsible for "public understanding of science"

No wonder the public are so illinformed about the scope nature and extent of science.

Click to expand...

In your opinion, which statement requires a higher threshold of evidence:

1. I own a dog.

or,

2. My dog farts gold bricks.