Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

[tedbundty]

I'm sure you've heard it said before that claim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is illogical or incoherent because the claim itself is extraordinary but does not provide any extraordinary evidence. I.E. if it's true, then it should not be accepted because it doesn't meet it's own requirement.

 

So sometimes people change the claim to

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence except for the claim that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'"

 

But this has it's own problem since even though it provides for the claim that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' it doesn't provide evidence for itself ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence except for the claim that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'").

 

But what if the claim is changed to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence except for this one"? Does that fix the problem or is there still some logical error? This question has been driving me nuts the past couple weeks so I hope you guys can give me some input.

[Range_This11]

It doesn't matter if it's illogical. Carl Sagan said it.

 

I suppose I should address the question too...hmm.

 

Define an 'extraordinary claim'. If the claim 'extraordinary claims...' falls under that definition, you can toss it out as illogical.

[SirMuse]

PARADOX!!!1!

Reminds me of this:

 

'This statement is false.'

 

For it were indeed false, then the claim that it is false is false itself, meaning that it is true. This would then mean that the statement is being truthful in saying that it is false, making it false.

[Sir_Squab]

Your basing it upon the assumptions that the claim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an extra ordinary claim. From the perspective of logic, you need to define what an extra-ordinary claim is and what extra-ordinary evidence is. Without any strict definitions, I could use that claim to argue that an alien corpse isn't evidence of the claim aliens exist. on the notion that the claim that aliens exist is an extra-ordinary one but bringing back a corpse of something is ordinary evidence for proving the existence of a creature, and therefore by extension not an extra-ordinary one. However, then one could argue that the corpse of an alien is both ordinary (because the corpse as proof a species is standard procedure for evidence of a species) and extra-ordinary proof, because, damnit, IT'S A BLOOD ALIEN CORPSE.

 

One of the major flaws of doing logic in natural languages.

 

Bottom line: Define extra ordinary evidence and extra ordinary claims. However, realistically, the best you could do is make a guideline for it.

 

Another thought: just because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence does not logically mean that ordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence.

 

Anyways, the assumption that the claim is illogical is based on the assumption that the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is, in fact, an extraordinary one. You could always just define it as being an ordinary claim and you'd be fine. Or, you come up with something that can be considered extraordinary evidence for it.

[Assume Nothing]

I sense some crackpot theories soon. I think this thread just brushed over the meanings of "extraordinary". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

[tedbundty]

Your basing it upon the assumptions that the claim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an extra ordinary claim. From the perspective of logic, you need to define what an extra-ordinary claim is and what extra-ordinary evidence is. Without any strict definitions, I could use that claim to argue that an alien corpse isn't evidence of the claim aliens exist. on the notion that the claim that aliens exist is an extra-ordinary one but bringing back a corpse of something is ordinary evidence for proving the existence of a creature, and therefore by extension not an extra-ordinary one. However, then one could argue that the corpse of an alien is both ordinary (because the corpse as proof a species is standard procedure for evidence of a species) and extra-ordinary proof, because, damnit, IT'S A BLOOD ALIEN CORPSE.

 

One of the major flaws of doing logic in natural languages.

 

Bottom line: Define extra ordinary evidence and extra ordinary claims. However, realistically, the best you could do is make a guideline for it.

 

Another thought: just because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence does not logically mean that ordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence.

 

Anyways, the assumption that the claim is illogical is based on the assumption that the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is, in fact, an extraordinary one. You could always just define it as being an ordinary claim and you'd be fine. Or, you come up with something that can be considered extraordinary evidence for it.

 

Extraordinary claims could be defined simply as any claim that carries great implications if someone chooses to believe it. Do I have proof for that definition? No. But I'm not claiming to accept the claim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If someone wishes to prove the claim true, they must be the ones to prove that the claim itself is not extraordinary.

 

The reason why it's 'extraordinary claims' is because it would be ridiculous to try to live realistically always trying to find evidence for the smallest. For instance, if I told you that 'I ate Wheaties for breakfast this morning', are you really not going to rest until you find enough evidence that my claim is true? There'd be no point in doing so.

 

Let's look at another way of disproving this claim. Say i make the claim that "No claims require evidence. Believe whatever you want." This claim does not offer evidence for itself but does not require evidence by it's own grounds. I can make any claims I want and not need to provide evidence as long as you cannot prove that my claim is illogical. So i can say that the ECREE claim is incorrect and there'd be no way to prove me wrong unless you can prove my claim wrong.

[Assume Nothing]

Your basing it upon the assumptions that the claim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an extra ordinary claim. From the perspective of logic, you need to define what an extra-ordinary claim is and what extra-ordinary evidence is. Without any strict definitions, I could use that claim to argue that an alien corpse isn't evidence of the claim aliens exist. on the notion that the claim that aliens exist is an extra-ordinary one but bringing back a corpse of something is ordinary evidence for proving the existence of a creature, and therefore by extension not an extra-ordinary one. However, then one could argue that the corpse of an alien is both ordinary (because the corpse as proof a species is standard procedure for evidence of a species) and extra-ordinary proof, because, damnit, IT'S A BLOOD ALIEN CORPSE.

 

One of the major flaws of doing logic in natural languages.

 

Bottom line: Define extra ordinary evidence and extra ordinary claims. However, realistically, the best you could do is make a guideline for it.

 

Another thought: just because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence does not logically mean that ordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence.

 

Anyways, the assumption that the claim is illogical is based on the assumption that the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is, in fact, an extraordinary one. You could always just define it as being an ordinary claim and you'd be fine. Or, you come up with something that can be considered extraordinary evidence for it.

 

Extraordinary claims could be defined simply as any claim that carries great implications if someone chooses to believe it. Do I have proof for that definition? No. But I'm not claiming to accept the claim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If someone wishes to prove the claim true, they must be the ones to prove that the claim itself is not extraordinary.

 

The reason why it's 'extraordinary claims' is because it would be ridiculous to try to live realistically always trying to find evidence for the smallest. For instance, if I told you that 'I ate Wheaties for breakfast this morning', are you really not going to rest until you find enough evidence that my claim is true? There'd be no point in doing so.

 

Let's look at another way of disproving this claim. Say i make the claim that "No claims require evidence. Believe whatever you want." This claim does not offer evidence for itself but does not require evidence by it's own grounds. I can make any claims I want and not need to provide evidence as long as you cannot prove that my claim is illogical. So i can say that the ECREE claim is incorrect and there'd be no way to prove me wrong unless you can prove my claim wrong.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Distinguishing_absence_of_evidence_from_evidence_of_absence

 

Demanding negative proof in itself is a false dilemma. It ignores a third option; that there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

 

Oh, and if you don't know what I mean by false dilemma, basically, it's like asking "Is this piece of paper black or white" when it's actually a shade of grey

[tedbundty]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Distinguishing_absence_of_evidence_from_evidence_of_absence

 

Demanding negative proof in itself is a false dilemma. It ignores a third option; that there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

 

Oh, and if you don't know what I mean by false dilemma, basically, it's like asking "Is this piece of paper black or white" when it's actually a shade of grey

 

 

I'm having a hard time understanding how what you said related to anything on this thread. Who demanded negative proof and what was the negative proof?

[Assume Nothing]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Distinguishing_absence_of_evidence_from_evidence_of_absence

 

Demanding negative proof in itself is a false dilemma. It ignores a third option; that there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

 

Oh, and if you don't know what I mean by false dilemma, basically, it's like asking "Is this piece of paper black or white" when it's actually a shade of grey

 

 

I'm having a hard time understanding how what you said related to anything on this thread. Who demanded negative proof and what was the negative proof?

 

"I can make any claims I want and not need to provide evidence as long as you cannot prove that my claim is illogical. So i can say that the ECREE claim is incorrect and there'd be no way to prove me wrong unless you can prove my claim wrong."

[Myweponsg00d]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a philosophical claim. Not a physical claim. The statement refers to claims about the physical world, as these are the only types of claims that actually have physical evidence.

 

The claim just simply states how science works. If you want to disagree with the claim then you are just disagreeing with the philosophy of science. We invented science and this is simply how it works.

 

Its like saying I need "evidence" to support my claim that 1=1. 1=1 is true because we defined what "1" is and what "=" is. The "evidence" for this is "Well...go look it up!"

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" has similar evidence. Go look up some works on the nature of science. You'll find that most people will tell you that grand claims require grand evidence.

[Zierro]

I'm sure you've heard it said before that claim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is illogical or incoherent because the claim itself is extraordinary but does not provide any extraordinary evidence. I.E. if it's true, then it should not be accepted because it doesn't meet it's own requirement.

 

Well, they don't literally require extraordinary evidence... You can still make the claims, but in order for the person who made that statement to take you seriously, then extraordinary evidence is definitely required. The extraordinary evidence that he requires extraordinary evidence in order to take things seriously lies within the fact that he just wants it that way.

[lordkafei]

It doesn't matter if it's illogical. Carl Sagan said it.

 

Sagan popularized it, but Marcello Truzzi of CSICOP is credited with originating the statement. The concept goes back further with slightly different wording.

[Synthox]

My brain hurts now...