Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is nonsense. Here’s why

[Apology]

Given Mr Rramjet's proposed replacement for ECREE, I think that was an extremely forlorn hope as well.

Well, yeah I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt more than many other skeptics do.

Ah, we're back to pointing that out. That was one of my early posts, seventy pages ago. I pointed out that it could just be replaced by "I don't find your evidence compelling". Rramjet, not surprisingly, had no answer.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6365303#post6365303

I would be positively shocked at this juncture if any new arguments were made. It's all been said before, mostly within the first 10 pages of this thread. I guess I'll just keep tilting at windmills until about page 100 or so, and then even I will give up on the concept that Rramjet will ever concede any points or admit to any wrongs.

It is interesting that Rramjet thinks that pulling down a single phrase from a single skeptic would somehow do in an age-old philosophy that has weathered much worse storms though. The truth is that many prior skeptics have had their philosophies discarded or replaced, and skepticism as a philosophy or system of thought has continued on without them, while still honoring these philosophers. Even if Rramjet had been successful, it wouldn't have even put a ding in Sagan's credibility. He would still be honored as one of the greatest skeptics of all time.

 

[jiggeryqua]

It is interesting that Rramjet thinks that pulling down a single phrase from a single skeptic would somehow do in an age-old philosophy that has weathered much worse storms though. The truth is that many prior skeptics have had their philosophies discarded or replaced, and skepticism as a philosophy or system of thought has continued on without them, while still honoring these philosophers. Even if Rramjet had been successful, it wouldn't have even put a ding in Sagan's credibility. He would still be honored as one of the greatest skeptics of all time.

Did Rramjet actually state that as his aim at any point? I see someone appeared to misread something just a few posts back, and framed it in those terms, but I understand the point of the thread was that ECREE was semantically meaningless (which it is), while everyone else was arguing that it didn't matter (which it doesn't)...and then neither side could afford to budge an inch in case somebody somewhere thought they believed in little green men from outer space.

 

[Egg]

...okay? And, who's trying to argue for the top one?

Actually, numerous people throughout the thread have phrased their explanation of EE so as to mean the first one. I think it's because the more obvious meaning of "extraordinary evidence" is evidence of the extraordinary and it's an easy trap to slip into. That said, I do think most of the people in this thread who do make that that connection, do actually get the concept behind ECREE.

 

[SOdhner]

I understand the point of the thread was that ECREE was semantically meaningless (which it is), while everyone else was arguing that it didn't matter (which it doesn't)

Well, while I'll happily concede some of the complaints about ECREE part of Rramjet's problem is that he goes beyond any fiddly semantic issues and says that the phrase is nonsense. There's a difference, there.

As far as whether or not he's stated a goal regarding this... he's said people should stop using the phrase, as it is "promulgating nonsense". The point is that for one thing, he's not appealing to some sort of authority that could ever decree that ECREE SHALL NEVER BE UTTERED AGAIN so that's silly, and for another the phrase does mean something in the sense that it has a commonly understood usage which would just be replaced by a slightly different phrase.

And maybe that phrase would have fewer potential semantic quibbles, but since Rramjet is the only one who seems to be bothered by the current situation that wouldn't be a very noticeable improvement.

This whole thread boils down to Rramjet not liking a common saying, despite the fact that his issues with it don't cause any problems at all. It's pointless nitpicking, which is certainly a common thing on the internet but I would suggest that it's less common for someone to go out of their way to start a discussion about something so meaningless rather than just stumbling into it in an unrelated argument. So that's mildly interesting, and the reason (well, one reason) that it feels like there's a bigger ulterior motive.

The fact is, Rramjet does seem to be arguing for allowing lots of anecdotes with no proof to count as evidence of things that require some seriously compelling evidence. His implication that this is somehow less subjective than ECREE doesn't make sense, and that makes the conversation continue. The conversation is also fueled by silly things like Rramjet arguing, essentially, that the word 'extraordinary' is itself useless nonsense even while using the word. You can have an extraordinary number of flagella, but not an extraordinary denomination of paper money?

As Egg has pointed out, several people have made the mistake of saying the evidence would be extraordinary simply because it is evidence for an extraordinary claim, and I agree that if you use that definition the phrase gets a bit silly for several reasons. So the non-Rramjet side can make this goofy too. Just not nearly as badly.

So whatever the point of this thread was supposed to be, now it's clearly about not only semantics but also Rramjet's absurd hypocrisy and some awkward definitions on both sides.

 

[Rramjet]

You may be as skeptical of ECREE as you like, but you must ask yourself, after 93 pages and the majority of opinion going against you, if you are being sceptical or if you are just being contrarian.

So now being right or wrong is dependent on a mere popularity contest? Some of our most fundamental scientific theories were highly unpopular when first proposed – but that did not mean they were incorrect hypotheses when proposed.

And no, even if you did somehow manage to completely obliterate ECREE, it would not bring skepticism itself into question, it would only bring ECREE into question. Skepticism would keep rolling right along without ECREE just fine.

Then why did you rhetorically contend otherwise? (“So is all of skepticism set on its ear now by the pedantic picking-apart of a single popular maxim?”)

All you ever had a hope of doing with this thread was creating a different catchphrase that would have replaced ECREE.

What about the possibility of me being able to reinstate the universality of the rules of evidence – demonstrating that they should apply equally, without fear or favour in all circumstances? Claims require evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I pointed out that it could just be replaced by "I don't find your evidence compelling". Rramjet, not surprisingly, had no answer.

Are you kidding? That is an end result – a conclusion - based on the presentation of evidence for (or against) a claim. It says nothing about the rules of evidence – as ECREE does. Unfortunately ECREE illegitimately changes the rules of evidence for some claims and not others – and can therefore be dismissed as nonsense. Claims require evidence, Nothing more. Nothing less.

No, looks pretty similar to me. I believe it's only rramjet who's insisting on "extraordinary" being a dichotomous, independent adjective.

No, I am insisting on the application of the common dictionary definition of extraordinary (that is: beyond what is usual or ordinary; exceptional, remarkable). I am pointing out that its meaning is intimately linked to – is dependant on – context; what is extraordinary in one context is entirely ordinary in another (and vice versa).

But Rramjet is terrible at judging the reliability of sources. Just trust me on this one.

Precisely! So why would we assign that role of “judge” (arbiter of what is extraordinary and what is not) to anyone? Just as we do if we accept ECREE – that is, in accepting ECREE, we leave it to whomever is opposing out point of view to be the judge – “Oh, your claim is extraordinary, therefore different rules of evidence must be applied." …Nonsense – illogical, antiscientific nonsense. Claims require evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Did Rramjet actually state that as his aim at any point? I see someone appeared to misread something just a few posts back, and framed it in those terms, but I understand the point of the thread was that ECREE was semantically meaningless (which it is), while everyone else was arguing that it didn't matter (which it doesn't)...and then neither side could afford to budge an inch in case somebody somewhere thought they believed in little green men from outer space.

Nice, summation! - except of course that I disagree with “Which it doesn’t” – I believe it does matter.

Actually, numerous people throughout the thread have phrased their explanation of EE so as to mean the first one. I think it's because the more obvious meaning of "extraordinary evidence" is evidence of the extraordinary and it's an easy trap to slip into. That said, I do think most of the people in this thread who do make that that connection, do actually get the concept behind ECREE.

LOL. Are you sure about that last statement?

The fact is, Rramjet does seem to be arguing for allowing lots of anecdotes with no proof to count as evidence of things that require some seriously compelling evidence.

It might seem like that to you – but that is a mere projection of your own fears that (as jiggeryqua noted) “ in case somebody somewhere thought they believed in little green men from outer space.” You fear that if ECREE is knocked down, then that will be the result. But the danger in promoting ECREE as a bulwark against such beliefs is that when it is noted for the nonsense that it is, then “LGM” proponents will merely state “You oppose my position with logical inconsistencies, so why should I believe anything you say?” In other words the promotion of ECREE is counterproductive – if only for the reason that it is open to the criticisms I have made against it.

The conversation is also fueled by silly things like Rramjet arguing, essentially, that the word 'extraordinary' is itself useless nonsense even while using the word. You can have an extraordinary number of flagella, but not an extraordinary denomination of paper money?

No, extraordinary is a subjectively comparative term – what is extraordinary in one context is entirely ordinary in another – and who is to be the arbiter of which is which? What might be an extraordinary denomination of money in one system will be an entirely ordinary denomination in another. What is an extraordinary claim in one context, will be an entirely ordinary claim in another.

Imagine you make a claim – what you consider to be an ordinary claim – but your opponent states – “Oh, that is an extraordinary claim – I assume you have the extraordinary evidence to support it? – but all you have in support is the usual evidence that goes into supporting any claim. What do you do then? Throw out the evidence that supports you claim merely on the basis that someone has claimed that your claim requires extraordinary evidence? I don’t think so. You will revert to Claims require evidence and state “Here is the evidence for my claim. We can legitimately debate whether that evidence is sufficient to support the claim – but you cannot simply throw it out – or deny its legitimacy as evidence – merely on the basis that you consider it not to be extraordinary evidence! That would be a nonsense.”

Simply:
Claims require evidence.
You either have the evidence or you do not.
If you have the evidence, then we can debate the sufficiency of that evidence – but you cannot dismiss evidence merely on the basis that it is not (considered by you to be) “extraordinary”.

 

[Marduk]

So now being right or wrong is dependent on a mere popularity contest? Some of our most fundamental scientific theories were highly unpopular when first proposed – but that did not mean they were incorrect hypotheses when proposed.
.

thats right

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown

Honk that horn Roger, honk it

 

[Rramjet]

(Carl Sagan)
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown

Another of Sagan’s little inanities? Sounds good on the surface, but it is actually meaningless nonsense. Since when did Bozo the clown cease being a mere entertainer whose aim was to promote laughter? Since when did Bozo cease being serious about his profession? Just as the scientists involved were serious about their own scientific hypotheses? It’s nonsense statements like this that Sagan sprinkles his utterances with that negate his standing as a serious scientist. A true scientific and critical thinker would never make such nonsensical statements.

Moreover you fail to include the full quote:

“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/889.html)

Which of course is even worse! Why is Bozo the clown not a genius in his own profession? Of course Sagan is illegitimately confabulating two types of laughter – that of derision for the proposed scientific theories - and that of genuine mirth at the genius of Bozo.

As I stated – the truth in an idea is (fortunately) independent of its popularity.

 

[Marduk]

Another of Sagan’s little inanities? Sounds good on the surface, but it is actually meaningless nonsense. Since when did Bozo the clown cease being a mere entertainer whose aim was to promote laughter? .

when he changed his name to Ramjet and started posting on internet forums, he's still getting laughed at, just for a different reason

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Another of Sagan’s little inanities? Sounds good on the surface, but it is actually meaningless nonsense. Since when did Bozo the clown cease being a mere entertainer whose aim was to promote laughter? Since when did Bozo cease being serious about his profession? Just as the scientists involved were serious about their own scientific hypotheses? It’s nonsense statements like this that Sagan sprinkles his utterances with that negate his standing as a serious scientist. A true scientific and critical thinker would never make such nonsensical statements.

Moreover you fail to include the full quote:

“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/889.html)

Which of course is even worse! Why is Bozo the clown not a genius in his own profession? Of course Sagan is illegitimately confabulating two types of laughter – that of derision for the proposed scientific theories - and that of genuine mirth at the genius of Bozo.

As I stated – the truth in an idea is (fortunately) independent of its popularity.

If I had my druthers, anyone new to this debate who is contemplating joining in should have to read this post, and then click a button which asks, "Are you really sure this is a thing you want to do?"

 

[Egg]

As I stated – the truth in an idea is (fortunately) independent of its popularity.

That would certainly be true for a scientific hypothesis and true in terms of pointing out whether something is logical or not. In the case of whether a phrase does a decent job in encapsulating a particular concept then we really are talking a numbers game. If most people get the meaning of the concept from the phrase, we would say it is largely successful in how well it communicates what it's supposed to. The same would be said in terms of how useful people find the phrase.

 

[SOdhner]

Imagine you make a claim – what you consider to be an ordinary claim – but your opponent states – “Oh, that is an extraordinary claim – I assume you have the extraordinary evidence to support it? – but all you have in support is the usual evidence that goes into supporting any claim. What do you do then? Throw out the evidence that supports you claim merely on the basis that someone has claimed that your claim requires extraordinary evidence? I don’t think so. You will revert to Claims require evidence and state “Here is the evidence for my claim. We can legitimately debate whether that evidence is sufficient to support the claim – but you cannot simply throw it out – or deny its legitimacy as evidence – merely on the basis that you consider it not to be extraordinary evidence! That would be a nonsense.”

Rramjet, when has that ever happened? Can you point to a single time that this phrase has somehow stifled debate?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Let me try this:

An extraordinary claim is one that is very much in conflict with what the listener believes to be true.

Yes, I know this is subjective. Is there anything wrong with this definition?

 

[Rramjet]

That would certainly be true for a scientific hypothesis and true in terms of pointing out whether something is logical or not. In the case of whether a phrase does a decent job in encapsulating a particular concept then we really are talking a numbers game. If most people get the meaning of the concept from the phrase, we would say it is largely successful in how well it communicates what it's supposed to. The same would be said in terms of how useful people find the phrase.

I guess my point is that scientists and educators should not only be able to convey their ideas, but should also be doing so by setting good examples of logical, critical and scientific thinking. Sagan’s ECREE (and many of his other “sayings” as just demonstrated above) does (do) not do this. It is like Sagan is saying “Do as I say, but not as I do” and that is not a sound basis for public education. Why should I follow the rules of critical, logical and scientific thought - and why should I accept your dictums - when in making them you break the very rules you claim to be governed by and that should govern all of us?

 

[Rramjet]

Let me try this:

An extraordinary claim is one that is very much in conflict with what the listener believes to be true.

Yes, I know this is subjective. Is there anything wrong with this definition?

The problem is that theories such as evolution by natural selection is an extraordinary claim to Creationists (it conflicts with what the listener believes to be true). They would demand extraordinary evidence – and no matter what you produced – they would claim that it was not the extraordinary evidence they required. Do you really want to be held hostage in this way to the mere whims of groups such as creationists – merely in order to maintain ECREE?

No, claims require evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I guess my point is that scientists and educators should not only be able to convey their ideas, but should also be doing so by setting good examples of logical, critical and scientific thinking. Sagan’s ECREE (and many of his other “sayings” as just demonstrated above) does (do) not do this.

Before you criticize scientists and educators for inadequately communicating logical, critical and scientific thinking, please demonstrate that you understand logical, critical and scientific thinking.

I tried to walk you through significance and inference a few dozen pages ago, but you would not have it, so now I shall simply stand with arms crossed to wait. That might be a good place to pick it up, though.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The problem is that theories such as evolution by natural selection is an extraordinary claim to Creationists (it conflicts with what the listener believes to be true). They would demand extraordinary evidence – and no matter what you produced – they would claim that it was not the extraordinary evidence they required. Do you really want to be held hostage in this way to the mere whims of groups such as creationists – merely in order to maintain ECREE?

No, claims require evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I know that, and it's quite natural.

If one has lived their entire life believing something quite passionately, then they are not going to overturn that belief on a whim. This is not a very controversial position, and it's actually a very simple model for how the human mind processes evidence that conflicts with previously held beliefs.

I should also point out that this should be the focus of the conversation. If we're not talking about the way people process information, or come to be convinced of new ideas, then what are we talking about?

 

[Paul2]

Another of Sagan’s little inanities? Sounds good on the surface, but it is actually meaningless nonsense. Since when did Bozo the clown cease being a mere entertainer whose aim was to promote laughter? Since when did Bozo cease being serious about his profession? Just as the scientists involved were serious about their own scientific hypotheses?

Sweet baby cheeses, you're further gone than even I thought if you're attempting a serious analysis of Sagan's comparison of Bozo with Columbus, et al.

Die, thread, die! Ugh, die, you demon spawn! Argh, die, die die! Ahhhhhhh!

 

[Akhenaten]

So now being right or wrong is dependent on a mere popularity contest?

As far as the meaning of “words” and “phrases” is concerned, yes.

I would have thought that after “pages” and “pages” of trying to buck this “system” by using your own personal “definitions” for common “words” and “phrases” it would have been rather obvious to “you”.

Some of our most fundamental scientific theories were highly unpopular when first proposed – but that did not mean they were incorrect hypotheses when proposed.

ECREE is not a scientific “theory”.

 

[Apology]

So now being right or wrong is dependent on a mere popularity contest? Some of our most fundamental scientific theories were highly unpopular when first proposed – but that did not mean they were incorrect hypotheses when proposed.

The difference being that the proponents of these scientific theories were able to come up with compelling---some may even call it extraordinary---evidence to back up their theories, which is why they are now accepted rather than ridiculed. Without the extraordinary evidence, those theories would still be unpopular and ridiculed.

Then why did you rhetorically contend otherwise? (“So is all of skepticism set on its ear now by the pedantic picking-apart of a single popular maxim?”)

It's a rhetorical device called sarcasm which aims to show how ludicrous a concept is by the use of irony.

What about the possibility of me being able to reinstate the universality of the rules of evidence – demonstrating that they should apply equally, without fear or favour in all circumstances? Claims require evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So you would be perfectly happy to agree that a man named Noah built an ark and preserved 2 of every animal on earth from a great flood that drowned every other living being on Earth because the claim is backed by evidence (the Bible)? Or is some evidence more reliable than other evidence?

If I claimed I could levitate, and Akhenaten told you he'd seen me levitate, would you believe I could levitate based on Akhenaten's testimony, or would you want more reliable evidence? Conversely, if I claimed I had a U.S. quarter in my pocket, would you demand to see it to prove that I had one, and have tests run on in in order to verify that it wasn't counterfeit, or would you just say "OK, so what?" Not all evidence is of the same value, and not all claims require the same amount of scrutiny in order to be accepted.

 

[Rramjet]

I know that, and it's quite natural.

If one has lived their entire life believing something quite passionately, then they are not going to overturn that belief on a whim. This is not a very controversial position, and it's actually a very simple model for how the human mind processes evidence that conflicts with previously held beliefs.

I should also point out that this should be the focus of the conversation. If we're not talking about the way people process information, or come to be convinced of new ideas, then what are we talking about?

We are talking about how one person (Sagan) attempted to (somewhat successfully judging by this thread) illegitimately shift the standards of evidence for some claims and not others. Not only that, but he shifted that standard to require something that does not exist and is therefore impossible to produce.

Now if the focus of that conversation should end up being about how people process new information (ideas, evidence, etc) – especially in light of their existing beliefs, processing heuristics and cognitive biases, then well and good. A couple authors have created some seminal works concerning those concepts. Festinger (1957) and Kahneman and Tversky (1979) are names and dates that immediately spring to mind in that regard.

However, in consideration of ECREE and standards of evidence, at a most basic level, we must consider that what evidence we accept for a claim will depend very much on how much the implications of the claim matter to us. If the implications of a claim do not particularly matter to us, then we are likely to accept the lowest form of evidence (anecdotal for example) without giving it much thought at all, however, if the implications of a claim do matter to us, then perhaps nothing short of forensic evidence will suffice.

Over and above that, we must also take into considerations the effect of pre-existing beliefs, heuristics and biases – but let us not put the cart before the horse. ECREE is a generalised statement of principle. It states that EE requires EC – but of course that does not account for how we fundamentally approach and process evidence in the determination of what our beliefs are. It is simply not true that for us to believe in the veracity of a claim (even an extraordinary one) that we require extraordinary evidence (whatever that may be). Sometimes even the slimmest of evidence (or even no evidence at all) will do. Indeed, sometimes if something merely sounds right to us – we will believe it. Just as for example, for many people, the mere fact that ECREE itself merely sounds good - is enough for them to believe in its veracity. Such people never stop to critically analyse the underlying assumptions it makes, nor what this “extraordinary evidence” it talks about actually consists of (how are we to rationally define EE for example).

I could go on… but perhaps you would like to comment on the ideas I have presented above before we delve deeper into the concepts you think we should be talking about in regard to ECREE?