Maybe I wasn't clear, your example is a red herring that can only produce an irrelevant conclusion. So, no, I won't go there.
Well, thanks for sharing, but I think the OP and the paper clearly set the bounds that I am working within. The question of the paper that is being addressed is the skeptics claim that, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"
I have offered two defeaters:
1) That there is no way to objectively determine what extraordinary evidence is, and that which cannot be objectively defined cannot be objectively met, even in principle, let alone in fact.
2) If the skeptic is unwilling to admit that an extraordinary claim has met and passed the same criteria that we use to determine ordinary claims of the same kind, then the demand for extraordinary evidence is superfluous. All he has to do is show that there is insufficient evidence and the argument is finished.
If you would like to address the soundness of these two defeaters, I am happy to discuss it with you; but red herring is not on the menu tonight.
Remember that our conversation started from my post #19, in which I wrote:
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".,
to which you replied in post #21:
"
Interesting!"
and added a couple of questions.
I´ve tried to answer them.
The fact that you kept and keep ignoring my explanations, examples and main points already made me sense that you had lost your initial interest. Thanks for clarifying this now in a straightforward manner.
Brady wrote: "It falls on the skeptic making the demand to provide criteria, not me; correct?"
Quatona wrote: "1. So which criteria do you provide for evidence for the claim that I come from France, and what criteria do you provide for evidence for the claim that I come from Mars?"
Maybe I wasn't clear: It falls on the skeptic making the demand for extraordinary evidence to provide criteria, not me; correct?
Ok. No, you weren´t unclear. I understood your question to ask this, and I meant to address this very question.
Why need we "assume" such a burden? The skeptic asks for extraordinary evidence, and in turn he is asked what that is; the burden indeed falls on him to give an answer. There is no assuming here. In a discussion I had with a frien-emy, this exact situation came up. He told me that I needed extraordinary evidence to prove to him that God exists. I asked him what he meant by extraordinary evidence, what would he consider to be proof? After a minute of thinking his response was (and this is an exact quote), "I'm not going to tell you." Need I say more?
The way you guys discuss it´s predictable it won´t get you anywhere.
I have written quite a few words about that in my previous post. As usual, you simply ignored them.
What would that even mean? What would be the implications? Would the inability to provide criteria for evidence for an "exceptional claim" mean that the claim must be accepted as valid, true, objective, whatever?
Well, the skeptic is making the demand for extraordinary evidence, I suggest you ask him. If he doesn't know what he means by it, it can't have any philosophical or scientific value.
Well, I am not making the demand for "extraordinary evidence". I told you how I interpreted the statement in question:
Extraordinary claim are best met with an extra portion of skepticism.
I have also explained that I don´t think there´s a clear line between "ordinary" and "extraordinary claims", yet there´s a gradation from claims that are in no way unusual, and others that are completely unusual. The skepticism that they we better meet them with is proportional to the degree to which they are unusual.
I have also explained to you that there´s a lot of subjectivity in determining the degree of "unusualness" of a claim. It depends largely on the experiences of the person exposed to it, the situation and the intersubjectivity of the claimer and the recipient.
I have explained all that by using an example.
Of course you are free to keep ignoring all these points and explanations, and just insist on the narrow points that there are no objective criteria for "extraordinary evidence" (while there aren´t such for "extraordinary claims", "standard claims" and "standard evidence", either). Of course you are free to keep singling out "extraordinary evidence" - but of course this demonstrates your bias to me.
It´s not that hard to understand.
"There´s a cat in this box." is pretty close to a standard claim in our culture.
And the evidence we would demand is clear:
"Open the box and show me the cat."
Whereas
"There´s a cat in this box who´s not perceivable by our senses." falls way further on the unusual side of the spectrum. Add to that that the claim explicitly defies any demand for evidence.
Personally and when in a good mood, I might kindly ask the person making the claim to tell me how
he came to this conclusion and which criteria for evidence
he had used for verification.
When not in a particularly good mood or when short of time I might just say "Yes, sure buddy. Make sure to treat him well." and move on.
I agree with you that in the latter case demanding any sort of evidence from the claimer would be stupid. If only for the fact that I would load burdens on my shoulder that simply don´t belong there.
