Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

[Tammuz]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLN30A0vmlo[/YOUTUBE]

As you might know, the agade "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was popularized by Carl Sagan (I don't think he coined it). Is it correct, though?

William Lane Craig in the above video argues that it is not correct. He thinks eyewitness testimony is enough, apparently.

Personally, I think the adage makes logical sense. If you make a claim that potentially overthrows the currently known laws of nature, you have a lot of explaining to do, including incorporating all of the present data.

 

[ruby sparks]

WLC is not a physically unattractive man, and that beard suits him, but he is talking complete shite.

Even if there was eyewitness testimony for something as extraordinary as the resurrection (which there isn't, there's just reported eyewitness testimony in very ropey old texts written quite a few years after the alleged event) he'd still be talking complete shite.

 

[Politesse]

What is "extraordinary evidence"? ??

This adage has never made any sense to me. How do you decide what kind of claim is which? How do those terms make sense at the same time? If "extraordinary" claims is a code word for "supernatural" claims, it seems like "extraordinary" evidence would be supernatural evidence. So for instance, perhaps the spectral evidence introduced at the Salem Witch Trials to prove the extraordinary accusations of witchcraft might qualify. But most people do not think of the Salem Witch Trials as a crowning moment in the history of rationality. I don't see that a rational person ought to include their personal judgements of how extraordinary the claim is into their consideration at all, and would simply hold everything to the same standard of ordinary evidence. What do the facts care whether you are personally incredulous about them or not?

 

[James Brown]

What is "eyewitness testimony"?

 

[Tammuz]

What is "extraordinary evidence"? ??

This adage has never made any sense to me. How do you decide what kind of claim is which? How do those terms make sense at the same time? If "extraordinary" claims is a code word for "supernatural" claims, it seems like "extraordinary" evidence would be supernatural evidence. So for instance, perhaps the spectral evidence introduced at the Salem Witch Trials to prove the extraordinary accusations of witchcraft might qualify. But most people do not think of the Salem Witch Trials as a crowning moment in the history of rationality. I don't see that a rational person ought to include their personal judgements of how extraordinary the claim is into their consideration at all, and would simply hold everything to the same standard of ordinary evidence. What do the facts care whether you are personally incredulous about them or not?

I think the video below explains the logic behind it.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1tA6RxGcs[/YOUTUBE]

 

[James Brown]

Does WLC accept eyewitness testimony of phenomena that he doesn't already believe in?

 

[ruby sparks]

What is "eyewitness testimony"?

It's a direct report from someone who saw something.

For example, two blokes have, let's say, agreed to meet for a drink, in ancient Judea. On the way, one of them sees Jesus, and has a chat with him. He knows Jesus from before and he was at the crucifixion and burial. The other guy stumbles into a temporary wormhole and lands up in the year 2125 for a while, before stumbling back out. Anyhows they both meet up as planned and the first guy says, 'you'll never guess, I've just seen a man who has risen from the dead'. The second guy says, 'ok, that's pretty awesome, sort of, but wait till you hear about some of the stuff I just saw'.

 

[Politesse]

What is "extraordinary evidence"? ??

This adage has never made any sense to me. How do you decide what kind of claim is which? How do those terms make sense at the same time? If "extraordinary" claims is a code word for "supernatural" claims, it seems like "extraordinary" evidence would be supernatural evidence. So for instance, perhaps the spectral evidence introduced at the Salem Witch Trials to prove the extraordinary accusations of witchcraft might qualify. But most people do not think of the Salem Witch Trials as a crowning moment in the history of rationality. I don't see that a rational person ought to include their personal judgements of how extraordinary the claim is into their consideration at all, and would simply hold everything to the same standard of ordinary evidence. What do the facts care whether you are personally incredulous about them or not?

I think the video below explains the logic behind it.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1tA6RxGcs[/YOUTUBE]

I'm not a big video watcher. What would you describe as the most salient points?

 

[bilby]

The idea is that the more impact a new claim has on our understanding of reality, the more evidence we should demand before accepting that claim as true.

It's a shortcut - a way to get around the onerous requirement to thoroughly test everything, and instead to decide to provisionally accept those claims whose impact is small, with a smaller amount of evidence.

For the most trivial claims, about things we consider unimportant, this can even fall as far as 'taking somebody's word for it'. Which is a very risky epistemology, but one that is tolerable when the cost of being wrong is trivial.

So if someone tells you that the Earth's equatorial bulge is a metre larger than geologists currently understand it to be, you might just take his word for it - as a non-geologist, you don't really care either way.

If the same person makes the same claim to a group of geologists, then they will want good evidence (perhaps a set of accurate and repeated GPS readings) - because the new claim overturns some of their understandings, and might have a knock-on effect on other geological measurements, hypotheses, or theories too.

If the claim is that the equatorial bulge is a kilometre greater than current understanding, then it starts to have a knock-on effect on geography as well - and the impacts on geology are going to be significant. Such a change in understanding implies big changes in the theoretical structure and/or composition of the planet. For this more far reaching claim to be accepted as true, not only will the claimant need to show that they correctly measured the distances involved, but they wll likely also need to find and demonstrate the errors in the earlier theories and hypotheses, that led to the previous erroneous understanding of the shape of the Earth.

If the claim is that the Earth is a flat disk, then the need for evidence is greater again. Not only must the claimant explain their new methodology to measure the shape accurately, and demonstrate that it is repeatable and accurate; But they will also need to explain all of the prior (mis)understandings that are incompatible with their new claim. How does the Sun move around the disk to create its observed apparent motion in the sky? Why haven't cats pushed everything off yet? Where is Australia, and how do you explain the existence of Crocodile Dundee movies if no such continent exists?

The more extraordinary a claim is, the more other parts of our model of reality will need to be adjusted in order to accommodate that claim - and so, the more compelling and wide-ranging the evidence must be before it is reasonable to accept the claim.

The model of reality constructed by the scientific method over the last few centuries is a cohesive whole - it has no independent parts. Making a small tweak to one component or another is easy; Making a big change that affects many components is hard.

It's like a complex wooden model of an intricate object - the earliest work was rougher and more coarse-grained, and could be done with a chainsaw. But the closer you get to the final product, the more subtle your tools must be - polishing a tiny bit here and there with fine sandpaper is easy to justify, but you will need some serious justification before you get out the chainsaw again. Incorporating a BIG new claim - an EXTRAORDINARY claim - is going to need that chainsaw. But you will need to be absolutely certain it's necessary. You will need EXTRAORDINARY evidence.

 

[ruby sparks]

What is "extraordinary evidence"? ??

This adage has never made any sense to me. How do you decide what kind of claim is which? How do those terms make sense at the same time? If "extraordinary" claims is a code word for "supernatural" claims, it seems like "extraordinary" evidence would be supernatural evidence. So for instance, perhaps the spectral evidence introduced at the Salem Witch Trials to prove the extraordinary accusations of witchcraft might qualify. But most people do not think of the Salem Witch Trials as a crowning moment in the history of rationality. I don't see that a rational person ought to include their personal judgements of how extraordinary the claim is into their consideration at all, and would simply hold everything to the same standard of ordinary evidence. What do the facts care whether you are personally incredulous about them or not?

I think the video below explains the logic behind it.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1tA6RxGcs[/YOUTUBE]

I'm not a big video watcher. What would you describe as the most salient points?

I watched it. To me, the best way to sum it up very briefly, and the most salient point is, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

It may be slightly too pithy. Someone (you) could say that the wording implies that if the event is a claim involving the supernatural, the evidence needs to be supernatural also, but it is not really trying to say or mean that. Perhaps 'unusual claims require more evidence' might be better, or even (if we want to allow for exceptions I suppose) 'arguably, unusual claims should, normally, require more evidence (before they are generally or widely accepted as being factual, true an/or correct)'.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not a big video watcher. What would you describe as the most salient points?

I watched it. To me, the best way to sum it up very briefly, and the most salient point is, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

It may be slightly too pithy. Someone (you) could say that the wording implies that if the event is a claim involving the supernatural, the evidence needs to be supernatural also, but it is not really trying to say or mean that. Perhaps 'unusual claims require more evidence' might be better, or even (if we want to allow for exceptions I suppose) 'arguably, unusual claims should, normally, require more evidence (before they are generally or widely accepted as being factual, true an/or correct)'.

I was hoping for, say, a justification or explanation of the aphorism, not a mere assertion that it is true.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not a big video watcher. What would you describe as the most salient points?

I watched it. To me, the best way to sum it up very briefly, and the most salient point is, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

It may be slightly too pithy. Someone (you) could say that the wording implies that if the event is a claim involving the supernatural, the evidence needs to be supernatural also, but it is not really trying to say or mean that. Perhaps 'unusual claims require more evidence' might be better, or even (if we want to allow for exceptions I suppose) 'arguably, unusual claims should, normally, require more evidence (before they are generally or widely accepted as being factual, true an/or correct)'.

I was hoping for, say, a justification or explanation of the aphorism, not a mere assertion that it is true.

So you are having genuine trouble understanding it. Ok. That's very interesting of itself. Unusual, I would say. Do you have any idea why it might be the case?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was hoping for, say, a justification or explanation of the aphorism, not a mere assertion that it is true.

Well, 'ordinary' claims match our expectations, our understanding of how the world works.
"The Butler Did It," for example, is an ordinary claim. Butlers are people, people have committed crimes, everything we know about butlers, people, crimes and their commission dovetails nicely with the claim. Further evidence proving why it was the Butler, vice the Chauffer, the Ingénue, the Industrialist or any of the other characters will be ordinary claims. The specific circumstances may be unusual ("The butler was the only one with access to the left-handed key to the liquor cabinet where the murder weapon was acquired on the night of the full moon during the thunderstorm when lightning hit the belfry...) but each individual claim will not stretch our understanding of possibility.


An EXTRA-ordinary claim is one we not only do not expect, we could not expect it because of how we understand the rules of the universe to work. All our experience argues against the possibility, it is outside of our experience.
So when the Detective character gets everyone in the drawing room to reveal that "The Baby Did it," that's a claim that all our knowledge of babies precludes.
So we need EVIDENCE that's outside of our experience and expectations. "Show me how it's even possible that the Baby could have committed the crime," is our immediate response.
Well, immediate after "Pshaw!" anyway...
So either Detective can produce this new, out-of-our-experience evidence to support his claim, or we are very unlikely to accept his accusation.

If our understanding of the crime would require someone lift a 20-pound weapon up to club the victim's skull, we need extraordinary evidence indeed, to believe a baby could do that, which we need to believe before we'll accept that This Baby DID do that.

 

[ruby sparks]

If our understanding of the crime would require someone lift a 20-pound weapon up to club the victim's skull, we need extraordinary evidence indeed, to believe a baby could do that, which we need to believe before we'll accept that This Baby DID do that.

Can I just ask, Would it make a difference if we were talking about the baby Jesus specifically?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If our understanding of the crime would require someone lift a 20-pound weapon up to club the victim's skull, we need extraordinary evidence indeed, to believe a baby could do that, which we need to believe before we'll accept that This Baby DID do that.

Can I just ask, Would it make a difference if we were talking about the baby Jesus specifically?

Are babies that wield 20-pound maces something you find ordinary in your experience? If you have a lot of experience with baby messiahs and morningstars, your acceptance of this claim may have a lower threshold than I might.

 

[James Brown]

It's likely that everyone agrees with the statement. Tell someone, "You raped and murdered a twelve-year-old boy last week," and they probably won't nod and mumble something about the variegation of human experience. They'll likely insist that you prove it--in other words, "Back up your assertion with ironclad evidence." Especially if there are real-world consequences for the claim--such as a prison sentence.

When I was a Christian, I pushed back on statements like this because I knew a camel's nose in the tent when I saw one. I couldn't provide extraordinary evidence for my supernatural beliefs, so I preferred to argue that I shouldn't have to provide it, because reasons.

One person's 'extraordinary claim' is another's 'basic truth.'

 

[ruby sparks]

Are babies that wield 20-pound maces something you find ordinary in your experience? If you have a lot of experience with baby messiahs and morningstars, your acceptance of this claim may have a lower threshold than I might.

Sure, but WLC says that because Jesus is our divine saviour, different standards apply as to what we might deem extraordinary in specifically his case.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are babies that wield 20-pound maces something you find ordinary in your experience? If you have a lot of experience with baby messiahs and morningstars, your acceptance of this claim may have a lower threshold than I might.

Sure, but WLC says that because Jesus is our divine saviour, different standards apply as to what we might deem extraordinary in specifically his case.

They WOULD, once we accept that Jesus IS out divine savior.
But the miracles he performed were part of his effort to prove that he was the Messiah. The Bible mentions this, that we might know his glory and power due to the miracles.
So we still need extra-ordinary evidence for the miracles. Something to prove to us that something so outrageous was real, that it really happened, that it must be accepted as historical fact. Convince us that Jesus has a direct connection to The Divine.
From that, yeah, then Jesus' other claims, such as about the afterlife, judgment, rich men getting through a camel's eye, whatever, those can be evaluated as the claims of a supernatural being who might be expected to know what he's talking about.

 

[bilby]

Are babies that wield 20-pound maces something you find ordinary in your experience? If you have a lot of experience with baby messiahs and morningstars, your acceptance of this claim may have a lower threshold than I might.

Sure, but WLC says that because Jesus is our divine saviour, different standards apply as to what we might deem extraordinary in specifically his case.

The appropriate response to which is uproarious laughter, followed by "Wait, did you actually mean that?", then more laughter, and a response along the lines of "So this kind of crazy shit actually gets you respected as one of the better thinkers in Christian circles? Those guys must be totally fucking stupid!"

If I could say stuff like that with a straight face, I could be a billionaire. There really is one born every minute.

 

[Politesse]

I was hoping for, say, a justification or explanation of the aphorism, not a mere assertion that it is true.

So you are having genuine trouble understanding it. Ok. That's very interesting of itself. Unusual, I would say. Do you have any idea why it might be the case?

Simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.