Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Brady111]

I have done a major revision to my short paper on this topic, I would be interested in any comments. I am trying to find any weaknesses in the content or the logic.

The paper begins:

"This paper is not about religion. Yes, topics such as the supernatural, miracles and specifically the resurrection of Jesus will come into play, but only peripherally, as examples. This is a paper dealing with logic, with rational thinking. There will be no calls to pray and if you began reading this paper as a skeptic or agnostic, you will more than likely finish it the same way. I am not writing to change people’s religious beliefs, but to help rid them of a bit of nonsense"

The paper is at:

http://www.ucapologetics.com/extraord.htm

I would like to sincerely thank those that take the time and thought to respond.

Regards,

Brady

 

[jayem]

I agree with your conclusion that claiming the need for "extraordinary evidence" is imprecise and problematic. More specificity is needed. This is my approach:

The resurrection of Jesus is claimed to be both historical (in that it happened in the past) and supernatural (it violates the laws of nature as we understand them through inductive reasoning.) Obviously, it's the supernatural aspect that requires a certain type of support to be accepted. And I will be specific on what this is. For me, it's verifiable reproducibility. Which is what is demanded by the scientific method when any experimental result suggests our basic understanding of nature must be revised. An example is cold fusion. Low temperature fusion would have violated everything we know about nuclear physics. But the initial experiments purporting to show it have never been verifiably reproduced under properly controlled circumstances. And rightly so, the concept has been rejected by most all physicists. Likewise, the idea that a person who was dead for 2 days (not in a deep coma, but true neurologic and cardiovascular death) came back to life is contrary to everything we know of biology and the laws of nature. And to accept this huge a paradigm shift, I want to see it occur again. It needs to be verifiably reproduced. That is the standard of evidence that would be required for me to believe that it occurred in the past.

Does this make sense?

 

[AlexBP]

I both agree and disagree with the idea of "extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I dislike how many skeptics mention it as if it gives them carte blance to dismiss any claim of a supernatural event. However, the basic thinking behind the quote is really just common sense. For example, if I get a mailer from the nerest supermarket saying that grapes are on sale for $.99 a pound, that's a very ordinary thing and I assume it's true. If I get an e-mail from a Nigerian Prince saying that he'll split his 80-million-dollar fortune with me once he has my bank account information, I'll need a lot more convincing to believe that; indeed, it's hard to think of anything that would convince me it was true. It is entirely understandable why many people would be skeptical of claims such as the Resurrection, since we know that resurrections don't happen every day. When apologists such as Lee Strobel act as if they have an airtight historical case, it's clear why many skeptics are not convinced.

Regarding your paper, first I'd remove the paragraph about Christopher Hitchens and his comments on Mother Teresa. I think that Hitchens was a despicable person, but including that material there adds nothing to the paper.

Concerning your conclusions, I agree with what you do say, particularly the part about it not being reasonable to expect a video of an ancient event. However, that leaves unanswered the question, how do we determine the truth or falsehood of ancient events, if we can't use modern technology or investigative techniques to judge them? Presumably we don't uncritically accept all ancient writing as being true, so what should be our criteria? That's a possible topic for a future paper.

 

[AlexBP]

The resurrection of Jesus is claimed to be both historical (in that it happened in the past) and supernatural (it violates the laws of nature as we understand them through inductive reasoning.) Obviously, it's the supernatural aspect that requires a certain type of support to be accepted. And I will be specific on what this is. For me, it's verifiable reproducibility. Which is what is demanded by the scientific method when any experimental result suggests our basic understanding of nature must be revised. An example is cold fusion. Low temperature fusion would have violated everything we know about nuclear physics. But the initial experiments purporting to show it have never been verifiably reproduced under properly controlled circumstances. And rightly so, the concept has been rejected by most all physicists. Likewise, the idea that a person who was dead for 2 days (not in a deep coma, but true neurologic and cardiovascular death) came back to life is contrary to everything we know of biology and the laws of nature. And to accept this huge a paradigm shift, I want to see it occur again. It needs to be verifiably reproduced. That is the standard of evidence that would be required for me to believe that it occurred in the past.

Does this make sense?

Reproducibility is a thorny topic. Even among purely natural things, some are not reprducible. The Tunguska Event only happened once, for instance. Likewise the Bloop.

Once we introduce actors with free will, the idea of reproducibility becomes even harder to nail down. My mother has only traveled to Brazil once, for instance, and probably wouldn't do it again just to make it reproducible. Yet she did once go there.

So let's consider two hypotheses about the universe we live in. One is that the universe arose without any being with will involved, with the laws governing motion fixed by purely naturalistic processes and never changing. If such were true, then something we clearly violates the laws of nature, such as the Resurrection, would have to be fictional.

On the other hand, if the universe was created by an intelligent being, and that intelligent being created the laws of motion, that being would presumably also be able to interfere and violate those laws. In that case, we'd have no a priori reason to assume that an event which violated the laws of motion was fictional. It might be fiction or it might be fact. But for those of us who are within the universe and certainly don't have power over the creator and sustainer of the universe, we can't run any experiment designed to test that creator and sustainer.

 

[variant]

Some evidence that we could rely on might work.

Most of the sources of the resurrection seem to be hearsay accounts after the fact.

It's not like it was a cross cultural experience where Jesus went back to publicly challenge Pilot and the Septuagint after being killed.

 

[Brady111]

[FONT=&quot]Jayem,

I appreciate your response. And I appreciate you using the example of the resurrection to present your thoughts on the topic. Although, as I mention in the paper, I am not trying to promote any particular extraordinary claim, the use of an example helps us focus our thoughts. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What I would like to do is apply the logic I present in the paper to your response. Not as an attack, but merely to see if you will agree with the logic as it is applied to your thoughts. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The main point is your response is verifiable reproducibility. You are offering this (it appears to me) as an additional criterion to determine extraordinary claims; specifically claims like the resurrection and including the resurrection.

Let me apply the points in the paper to this to see what you think:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Guideline 1 states: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The criterion must be able to be met, at least in principle. I think we would agree that reproducing any historical event is in principle impossible. Once an historical event happens, it is gone and can never be reproduces. As Heraclitus but it, “You never step in the same river twice.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]However, what you may mean is that parts of the event are reproducible. Thus, we can’t reproduce Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon in 49 B.C; but we can reproduce someone crossing the Rubicon. And if Julius Caesar was still around and hanging out down at Starbucks, we could go grab him and have him cross the Rubicon; but none of that could tell us whether he did do it in 49 B.C. Additionally, what if we did throw Jules in the boat and he couldn’t do it now? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]That would still tell us nothing about if he did it in 49 B.C. This is why [/FONT][FONT=&quot]verifiable reproducibility in not used to determine historical events, even those that are not considered extraordinary. This brings us to Guideline 4. It states: “The criterion must be one which has been used in historical research and has been demonstrated as a reliable way of determining history.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Let me address something else you said that I thought was interesting: "Likewise, the idea that a person who was dead for 2 days (not in a deep coma, but true neurologic and cardiovascular death) came back to life is contrary to everything we know of biology and the laws of nature. And to accept this huge a paradigm shift, I want to see it occur again. It needs to be verifiably reproduced.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Maybe, I need to add something about this to my paper; I will have to think about it; but then again, my paper is not about the resurrection in specific. You have already helped me make a change in wording to one sentence, making it clearer. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Let me make this comment about the above. In the example we are using of the resurrection, you are not asked to make a paradigm shift regarding biology or the laws of nature. There is no claim that the resurrection is a natural event. The claim is that a being who has sufficient power to raise someone from the dead used that power to raise someone from the dead. In some way like you, when you wave your hand it has sufficient power to change the determined path of the particles, atoms and molecules that we call air. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another point, on three occasions you have used the phrases, “This is my approach,” “For me, it's verifiable reproducibility,” and “That is the standard of evidence that would be required for me to believe;” and all of these are subjective references. One of the main points in my paper is to get people to take a look at what they mean by “extraordinary evidence” and offer (if it is indeed possible) an objective way of determining what that is. We have the objective means and methods for determining historical events and other claims at our disposal; but once something is deemed "extraordinary," we seem to throw out the objective criteria that have worked for us up until this point and insist on new, different and subjective criteria that are not used to determine the question at hand. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Let me put to you the last point in my paper for your consideration and perhaps your comments, if you are inclined. Doesn’t the request for extraordinary evidence imply that the standard burden has already been met? If we can show there is insufficient evidence for any extraordinary claim, whatever it is, using the standard, objective means and methods, then extraordinary evidence is superfluous. We could just show that the extraordinary claim, whatever it may be, doesn’t meet the threshold of sufficient evidence and we are done with it. So, it would seem that the only time extraordinary evidence could ever come into play or be requested is when the skeptic agrees that there is sufficient evidence using those standard means and methods. What do you think?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Regards, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Brady[/FONT]

 

[decent orange]

You can claim whatever you want, with no evidence at all.

 

[Ken-1122]

I have done a major revision to my short paper on this topic, I would be interested in any comments. I am trying to find any weaknesses in the content or the logic.

The paper begins:

"This paper is not about religion. Yes, topics such as the supernatural, miracles and specifically the resurrection of Jesus will come into play, but only peripherally, as examples. This is a paper dealing with logic, with rational thinking. There will be no calls to pray and if you began reading this paper as a skeptic or agnostic, you will more than likely finish it the same way. I am not writing to change people’s religious beliefs, but to help rid them of a bit of nonsense"

The paper is at:

http://www.ucapologetics.com/extraord.htm

I would like to sincerely thank those that take the time and thought to respond.

Regards,

Brady

I didn't have time to read the entire thing, but I did scan over it a bit. I find it difficult to believe this person has never found a skeptic who was able to articulate what he would consider extraordinary evidence. I've used the pharse plenty of times and each time I explain exactly what I would consider to be extraordinary evidence.

Ken

 

[jayem]

Hi Brady,

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear in discussing the cold fusion example. I intended to show that seeking reproducibility is not extraordinary. Being able to replicate an outcome is a standard part of the scientific method. This is not a level of evidence above and beyond what is needed to confirm a hypothesis. Let's say my wife told me the kitchen was cold this morning and she put a pan of warm water on the stove. But then she left without turning the stove on. When she came back in the kitchen, the stove was still off, but water had come to a boil, while the air in the room was even colder. My wife is not a physicist, but let's say she announced that she had just witnessed a reversal of the normal downhill flow of heat as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I know my wife is quite trustworthy. I could just accept her eyewitness account. But is it really asking too much to see this phenomenon replicated before I believe it? Which is more rational?

 

[Brady111]

AlexBP,

Thank you for your comments they are greatly appreciated.

 

[Brady111]

Some evidence that we could rely on might work.

Most of the sources of the resurrection seem to be hearsay accounts after the fact.

It's not like it was a cross cultural experience where Jesus went back to publicly challenge Pilot and the Septuagint after being killed.

Variant,

Thank you for your input. Let me reiterate that the example of the resurrection is peripheral. If you take a look at the list of "extraordinary claims" given on the poster from the CFI, you will find that many are not supernatural at all. Items on there such as Big foot or UFOs, would be completely natural, as would vitamin therapy.

Back to your point above, as i pointed out in my paper, if the evidence is as bad as you suppose for the resurrection, then there is no need to request extraordinary evidence, is there? All you would have to do is use the standard means, methods and criteria to show that the claim "doesn't meet soec" and be done with it. This is why I find it interesting that so many skeptics, like the guy I had the conversation with in the paper, insist there is little or no evidence and when challenged, immediately demand extraordinary evidence. It just doesn't make sense.

Thanks again,

Brady

 

[Brady111]

You can claim whatever you want, with no evidence at all.

Hi Decent Orange,

I am not sure what your point is or how it applies to my paper. could you please explain?

Thank you,

Brady

 

[Brady111]

I didn't have time to read the entire thing, but I did scan over it a bit. I find it difficult to believe this person has never found a skeptic who was able to articulate what he would consider extraordinary evidence. I've used the pharse plenty of times and each time I explain exactly what I would consider to be extraordinary evidence.

Ken

Ken,

Thank you for your comment. I wonder if you were able to show how you objectively determined the difference between standard and extraordinary evidence? Please remember, we are not looking for what you would personally and subjectively accept, but something that anyone could look at and see the difference for themselves.

Also, i would be curious to know it you were willing to accept that the evidence available was sufficient to assert the claim was true, before you asked for extraordinary evidence?

Regards,

Brady

Thanks again,

Brady

 

[eckhart]

Maybe have a look at Hume's "Of Miracles" if you can use it?

 

[Brady111]

Hi Brady,

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear in discussing the cold fusion example. I intended to show that seeking reproducibility is not extraordinary. Being able to replicate an outcome is a standard part of the scientific method. This is not a level of evidence above and beyond what is needed to confirm a hypothesis. Let's say my wife told me the kitchen was cold this morning and she put a pan of warm water on the stove. But then she left without turning the stove on. When she came back in the kitchen, the stove was still off, but water had come to a boil, while the air in the room was even colder. My wife is not a physicist, but let's say she announced that she had just witnessed a reversal of the normal downhill flow of heat as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I know my wife is quite trustworthy. I could just accept her eyewitness account. But is it really asking too much to see this phenomenon replicated before I believe it? Which is more rational?

I am sorry Jayem, it was probably I who was at fault for not communicating my point. Given scientific claims, the scientific method is fine; but for historical and legal claims, science can only play a secondary role. So, given you were continuing to use the example of the resurrection, I was trying to point out that in historical research verifiable reproducibility is not used because, even if you can reproduce the claim, that doesn't mean it happened the first time. So, even if we could reproduce resurrection after resurrection, it wouldn't mean that Jesus rose from the dead; just as if you and I crossed the Rubicon a thousand times together, this would have no bearing on whether Jules crossed it even once in 49 B.C. A quick look through any number of textbooks dealing with historiography will show that verifiable reproducibility is never used.

I guess another way to put it, is that if it can't help establish whether a non-extraordinary event happened (like with Jules), it can't be used to establish if an extraordinary event happened either.

I hope, in coming at this in a little different way, has helped.

But, I still have to point out that in even suggesting this extra requirement, are you not admitting that given the standard means, methods and criteria, that the extraordinary claim has met those standards? If not, then why ask for something more? Just use the standard criteria and show the claim fails to meet that standard. You are then done and everyone can go home.

Regards,

Brady

 

[Brady111]

Maybe have a look at Hume's "Of Miracles" if you can use it?

Evie, I quote from Hume's chapter on miracles and reference it and him several times in the paper.

Thanks,

Brady

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It should be noted that in the over 250 years, since Hume, no one has offered any objective means or methods for determining how to objectively formulate “extraordinary evidence.” Given the nature of the statement, is should be clear that there is no way, in principle or in fact, to offer an objective method for formulating what the skeptic calls extraordinary evidence. When all is said and done, we will find that the statement “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence,” is both philosophically and scientifically unviable. In other words, the demand is philosophically a nonsense statement, i.e. there is no way to construe what extraordinary evidence is, nor is there any way to verify or falsify any such attempts. With this said it follows that anything called “extraordinary evidence” can offer nothing of scientific value.

Hows about this for a definition of "extraordinary evidence". A claim is extraordinary if is not supported implicitally by regular inductive inference. For instance if its a midsummers day in the Gobi dessert the claim it will snow soon is extraordinary because it is not justifiable by regular reasonable generalisations or analogies. Which is to say that such a claim is usually regarded as 99.999999 % likely to be wrong, or worse, given observation.

Extraordinary evidence would then be an observation, or a rigorous defense of the claim, so as to make the claim (if a priori) seem more likely than not to be true (this it is a priori arguments can be asigned probabilities in the light of evidence, excepting the logically true and false), and if a posteriori the same (either by direct evidence or auxilliary reasoning) goes. It would either be direct evidence though obesrvation, or a inductively strong support of the argument itself showing that analogies of it have been strong or reliable time and time again. (eg if a weatherman has repeatedly made what would seem me to be weak, outlandish, extraordinary predictions which actually prove true, then a further, similar prediction by him about snow in the Gobi later today may have strong analogical or generalised support).

So the evidence is either directly empirical (an actual observation) or one that changes the estimation from 99.999999 % improbable to something less than 50% by inductively supporting faith in the argument itself ("meta-induction" perhaps).

So for the resurrection you would need meta induction as observations are off limits. So the extraordinary support would be from someone like the weatherman, but one who has made religious claims that seem outlandish but have consistently, and against all observationally driven odds, come true. You would need him to support the resurrection idea. He would be arguing against regular inductive predictions (contra induction), but by analogy with his unprecedented success in these cases we would have faith in him (meta-inductively).

 

[quatona]

It seems hard enough to even only present ordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.

 

[quatona]

I´ve always understood the sentence to mean something to the effect of: "When exposed to an extraordinary claim you better meet it with an extra portion of skepticism".

 

[Brady111]

I´ve always understood the sentence to mean something to the effect of: "When exposed to an extraordinary claim you better meet it with an extra portion of skepticism".

Interesting! and is that extraordinary portion of skepticism objectively measurable or is it based on your subjective likes or dislikes?

And wouldn't you agree that unless the evidence for a claim that is considered extraordinary met a standard criteria, there is no need to even consider extraordinary evidence (what ever that is)?

Regards,

Brady