"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

[Tree of Life]

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?

I think that this device is used to express a totally subjective feeling. There's no cosmic arbiter (apart from Yahweh) of what claims require what evidence. When someone says: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" the "for me to be persuaded" is implied.

For instance, a claim like "I had a peanut butter sandwich for lunch" is not very extraordinary and I will likely believe you without demanding much evidence. But if my life depended on knowing what you had for lunch, your claim might be more extraordinary (because it has extraordinary implications) and I would demand more evidence before I arrived at a conclusion. Or if you said: "I had lunch with Matthew McConaughy today" then, even though there are no extraordinary implications, I might not believe you unless you produced some evidence that was more extraordinary than evidence for a peanut butter sandwich lunch.

But it's all subjective. People are expressing what it will take to persuade them of the truth of your claim. There's no real laws out there about claims and evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Quitting is easy.

That would be the other part of the con. Tell the people to keep trying until it works, and just ignore all the of times it doesn't work. Using that sales pitch, I could sell lucky charms that 100% guarantee that you will win the lottery.

 

[bhsmte]

Quitting is easy.

As is denial.

 

[Davian]

I think that this device is used to express a totally subjective feeling. There's no cosmic arbiter (apart from Yahweh) of what claims require what evidence. When someone says: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" the "for me to be persuaded" is implied.

Why did you say "apart from Yahweh"? Are we to exempt your particular religion from its evidential burden?

Are you still of the opinion that anyone that disagrees with your religion is lying about it?

 

[SteveB28]

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.

"In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

David Hume

 

[Chesterton]

"In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

David Hume

Okay, sounds like common sense.