Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

[A Toy Windmill]

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

Some, including WLC and his fans, have taken Bayes' Theorem as a means of talking about evidence.

The idea is that extraordinary things have low probability. According to Bayes' Theorem, if some supposed evidence (eye-witness claims) is likely under a hypothesis (Jesus rose from the dead), one should increase their belief in the likelihood of the hypothesis (Jesus rose from the dead) to the extent that the evidence (eye-witness claims) has lower probability than the hypothesis. In other words, if the hypothesis is extraordinary, then one should only count extraordinary evidence towards it.

WLC agrees with this, but says that the atheist's prior probability that Jesus rose from the dead has been biased low by materialism. He also thinks that the behaviour of the apostles after the resurrection is extraordinary.

 

[ruby sparks]

Simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.

Can you justify or explain that? I was hoping for more than a mere assertion.

 

[Politesse]

Simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.

Can you justify or explain that? I was hoping for more than a mere assertion.

I'm not asserting anything. I'm asking you to demonstrate that your axiom makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[Politesse]

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

Some, including WLC and his fans, have taken Bayes' Theorem as a means of talking about evidence.

The idea is that extraordinary things have low probability. According to Bayes' Theorem, if some supposed evidence (eye-witness claims) is likely under a hypothesis (Jesus rose from the dead), one should increase their belief in the likelihood of the hypothesis (Jesus rose from the dead) to the extent that the evidence (eye-witness claims) has lower probability than the hypothesis. In other words, if the hypothesis is extraordinary, then one should only count extraordinary evidence towards it.

WLC agrees with this, but says that the atheist's prior probability that Jesus rose from the dead has been biased low by materialism. He also thinks that the behaviour of the apostles after the resurrection is extraordinary.

Pehaps you could explain how you are assigning these "probabilities". From what set are they derived?

 

[ruby sparks]

Simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.

Can you justify or explain that? I was hoping for more than a mere assertion.

I'm not asserting anything. I'm asking you to demonstrate that your axiom makes any sense whatsoever.

You baldly asserted that simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.

I should let you know that I may not be able to dwell on the merits or otherwise of your assertion at length today, and perhaps not for a little while. I was badly bitten by a pink and orange-spotted triceratops yesterday while mowing the lawn, and am recuperating in hospital, on Venus, as it happens, in the year 3019 CE. I hope you can readily understand that this unfortunate but entirely plausible and believable situation restricts my participation here, for a number of reasons.

On top of which, the original aphorism has been elaborated upon, both by me and others, in this thread, including in my factual report of my current predicament above. Also, the video posted is only 6 minutes long in 'earth-time'. So I am wondering why you are still asking for more justification and explanation. Why are you still asking?

 

[A Toy Windmill]

Pehaps you could explain how you are assigning these "probabilities".

No. That's as much as you'll get from me. I don't care much for the Bayesian take, but it is an attempt to formalize the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not asserting anything. I'm asking you to demonstrate that your axiom makes any sense whatsoever.

You baldly asserted that simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.

I should let you know that I may not be able to dwell on the merits or otherwise of your assertion at length today, and perhaps not for a little while. I was badly bitten by a pink and orange-spotted triceratops yesterday while mowing the lawn, and am recuperating in hospital, on Venus, as it happens, in the year 3019 CE. I hope you can readily understand that this unfortunate but entirely plausible and believable situation restricts my participation here, for a number of reasons.

On top of which, the original aphorism has been elaborated upon, both by me and others, in this thread, including in my factual report of my current predicament above. Also, the video posted is only 6 minutes long. So I am wondering why you are still asking. Why are you still asking?

I can easily demonstrate that popular aphorisms are not always true. Do you need me to?

 

[ruby sparks]

I can easily demonstrate that popular aphorisms are not always true. Do you need me to?

Maybe not. But then I'm not going to be obtuse.

Laters, sorry, I must fly. Literally (to the operating theatre). I can only hope that you find a way to understand the aphorism in due course. There may be some reason, that I could only guess at, which makes it tricky for you.

 

[ruby sparks]

ps

I'm asking you to demonstrate that your axiom makes any sense whatsoever.

That the adage/axiom/aphorism makes no sense whatsoever is, imo, quite a strong claim, so I am going to have to ask you to provide some good evidence to support it.

Or is it just the semantics which bother you? How about 'unusual claims require unusual amounts of evidence' (noting that merely 'unusual' could be deemed to cover 'unusual amounts' because unusual amounts could themselves be called unusual, as in uncommon, because of the quantity)? Because that is what it effectively means, albeit it's arguably too pithy for its own good, using the same word ('extraordinary') twice when it doesn't always mean exactly the same thing (but can mean slightly different things). Iow, the aphorism/axiom/adage as it stands (in the OP) can and does make sense if we allow that the word 'extraordinary' can have slightly different meanings. But this has been explained several times already.

I'm assuming you only object to the semantics, but not the underlying point or intended meaning.

 

[James Brown]

I'm not asserting anything. I'm asking you to demonstrate that your axiom makes any sense whatsoever.

You baldly asserted that simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.

I should let you know that I may not be able to dwell on the merits or otherwise of your assertion at length today, and perhaps not for a little while. I was badly bitten by a pink and orange-spotted triceratops yesterday while mowing the lawn, and am recuperating in hospital, on Venus, as it happens, in the year 3019 CE. I hope you can readily understand that this unfortunate but entirely plausible and believable situation restricts my participation here, for a number of reasons.

On top of which, the original aphorism has been elaborated upon, both by me and others, in this thread, including in my factual report of my current predicament above. Also, the video posted is only 6 minutes long. So I am wondering why you are still asking. Why are you still asking?

I can easily demonstrate that popular aphorisms are not always true. Do you need me to?

Yes. Such a claim will require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Politesse]

I can easily demonstrate that popular aphorisms are not always true. Do you need me to?

Yes. Such a claim will require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not making a claim.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can easily demonstrate that popular aphorisms are not always true. Do you need me to?

Yes. Such a claim will require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not making a claim.

What do you think a claim is, then?

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not making a claim.

That's now two claims.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not making a claim.

What do you think a claim is, then?

An assertion that something is true. Asking for verification that someone's assertion is true before believing it is just good sense.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not making a claim.

That's now two claims.

The thing is, I know the reason you're playing semantic games instead of just answering the question is that you know perfectly well the OP is unsupportable bullshit, and are stalling for time.

 

[ruby sparks]

Asking for verification that someone's assertion is true before believing it is just good sense.

Now you're getting warm.

The next step is to agree (hopefully) that unusual or unlikely claims require unusual evidence (in terms of quality and/or amount) before they are to be believed.

In the normal course of things, I mean. Not necessarily in terms of religious beliefs.

 

[ruby sparks]

The thing is, I know the reason you're playing semantic games instead of just answering the question is that you know perfectly well the OP is unsupportable bullshit, and are stalling for time.

The OP being unsupportable bullshit would be 3 claims, and counting.

What was the question?

 

[ruby sparks]

But if you mean the part of the OP where WLC speaks, I agree. That is definitely bullshit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm not making a claim.

What do you think a claim is, then?

An assertion that something is true.

That's false, though.

Now, have _I_ just made a claim?

 

[Brian63]

This entire exchange is not the most fascinating or insightful exchange ever held on the history of any web forum.

If you ask me to justify that claim, I will tell you to just shove this exchange up your ass and see how much time and energy you expend to try and dig it back out.