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

[Akhenaten]

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.

Just out of idle curiosity, what exactly do you believe was Dr Sagan's motive for doing this?

 

[Rramjet]

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.

You keep referring to this “extraordinary evidence” as if it was a priori a legitimate concept. But that is the debate. I am contending it is not a legitimate concept. You cannot simply state that you call it extraordinary, therefore (by implication) it is legitimate. If it is legitimate - what makes evidence extraordinary?

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?

There is a scale of evidential quality, from anecdotes, through physical, to empirical evidence. Depending on many factors, corroboration being a key factor, all of those types of evidence can be more or less reliable. The anecdotal evidence from the Bible, is negated and outweighed by the observational evidence we see in the world around us. That is there is a greater weight of evidence (of all types – including anecdotal) for evolution by natural selection than there is for Creationism and Noah’s ark. It is the weight of evidence that is the key – not whether that evidence is ordinary or extraordinary.

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?

I would need corroborating evidence for the anecdotal contentions.

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?"

If it did not matter to me if you had a quarter in your pocket or not, I would be tempted to say “Okay, so what?” If however, your claim did matter to me – then I would request a higher standard of evidence. I would not however demand you produce extraordinary evidence.

Not all evidence is of the same value, and not all claims require the same amount of scrutiny in order to be accepted.

Exactly the point I am trying to convey. So perhaps you can now define extraordinary evidence for us?

 

[Rramjet]

Just out of idle curiosity, what exactly do you believe was Dr Sagan's motive for doing this?

He stated his motive! He required "hard evidence, rigorously and sceptically examined" before he would believe in the reality of UFOs as ET spacecraft. Anecdotes were simply not enough for him to "believe". ECREE was his method of conceptualising that and of attempting to rule anecdotes out as evidence.

Unfortunately for him and subsequent ECREE supporters, ECREE does not rule anecdotes out as being able to fulfil the requirements of ECREE.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

He stated his motive! He required "hard evidence, rigorously and sceptically examined" before he would believe in the reality of UFOs as ET spacecraft. Anecdotes were simply not enough for him to "believe". ECREE was his method of conceptualising that and of attempting to rule anecdotes out as evidence.

Unfortuunatley for him and subsequent ECREE supporters, ECREE does not rule anecdotes out as being able to fulfil the requirements of ECREE.

No anecdotes are ruled out on being poor evidence of anything

 

[Rramjet]

No anecdotes are ruled out on being poor evidence of anything

That may or may not be so - but whatever the case, that does not mean they cannot fulfil the requirements of ECREE.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

If however, your claim did matter to me – then I would request a higher standard of evidence.

If anecdotes are not sufficient evidence that someone has a quarter in their pocket, how can you argue that they are evidence at all?

 

[Akhenaten]

Just out of idle curiosity, what exactly do you believe was Dr Sagan's motive for doing this?

He stated his motive! He required "hard evidence, rigorously and sceptically examined" before he would believe in the reality of UFOs as ET spacecraft. Anecdotes were simply not enough for him to "believe". ECREE was his method of conceptualising that and of attempting to rule anecdotes out as evidence.

And here you are, in an online community of people who are of like mind with regard to the uselessness of anecdotes as evidence, attempting to demonstrate that this eminently sensible approach to examining claims is “““nonsense”””.

Are you really surprised that nobody is buying your silly flying saucer stories?

Unfortunately for him and subsequent ECREE supporters, ECREE does not rule anecdotes out as being able to fulfil the requirements of ECREE.

As Frying Dutchmen has pointed out, reality does a pretty neat job of that all by itself.

 

[Akhenaten]

No anecdotes are ruled out on being poor evidence of anything

That may or may not be so - but whatever the case, that does not mean they cannot fulfil the requirements of ECREE.

Perhaps, if they were extraordinary anecdotes.

Got any?

 

[SOdhner]

He required "hard evidence, rigorously and sceptically examined" before he would believe in the reality of UFOs as ET spacecraft. Anecdotes were simply not enough for him to "believe".

That sounds reasonable to me. And, as has been pointed out, you won't even accept that someone has a quarter without physical evidence. So why would you be so eager to accept aliens on just anecdotes?

 

[RoboTimbo]

That sounds reasonable to me. And, as has been pointed out, you won't even accept that someone has a quarter without physical evidence. So why would you be so eager to accept aliens on just anecdotes?

You must remember Rramjet's Rule of Reversal: He thinks nightclubs, cats, refrigerators, and usual and expected numbers are extraordinary but believes that an alien raygun, alien spaceship or alien body would be ordinary, if one were to ever be found.

He has his preconceived idea that there are aliens among us so naturally he would think those things are ordinary. A pity he can't produce one to show how ordinary they are.

Rramjet, why do you continue to waffle and run away from the substantive questions?

I asked:

"Rramjet, can you give an example of extraordinary anecdotal evidence?"​

Your inability to answer the question speaks volumes.

I asked:

"Rramjet, why do you assert that usual and expected numbers are extraordinary?"​

You've never answered that without hypocrisy.

I asked:

"Rramjet, how can you make the hypocritical statement 'The more a claim matters to us, the greater weight of evidence we require.' when the moderated UFO thread is you presenting anecdote after anecdote to justify your irrational belief system?"​

You've never answered that either.

I asked:

"Do you remember being caught flat-footed in your outright lie about why you started this thread?"​

You've never acknowledged your lying.

When will you be answering these outstanding substantive issues? They'll need to be addressed before we can discuss your imagined issues with ECREE.

 

[Egg]

Rramjet, why do you continue to waffle and run away from the substantive questions?

I asked:

"Rramjet, can you give an example of extraordinary anecdotal evidence?"​

Your inability to answer the question speaks volumes.

I asked:

"Rramjet, why do you assert that usual and expected numbers are extraordinary?"​

You've never answered that without hypocrisy.

It seems to me that these questions in particular have been addressed almost to the point of tedium. I can't work out if you continue to bring them up because you don't understand his answers (and the points he was trying to make in the first place) or if you're just intentionally being difficult.

And are these really "substantive questions"? They come across as pretty nit-picky to me.

 

[SOdhner]

It seems to me that these questions in particular have been addressed almost to the point of tedium.

I would agree with the "extraordinary anecdote" thing, because I think that's just the result of the other thing you were just discussing (defining extraordinary evidence as evidence of the extraordinary means if you ever count anecdotes as evidence then they can be counted as extraordinary anecdotes as long as they are anecdotes about the extraordinary, which is silly).

For the other one, I think it's an important point. Rramjet has insisted that some things can't be extraordinary (denominations, evidence, etc.) but others can (number of flagellum). This makes no sense, and he has stood by this statement without being able to defend it. He has continued to use this twisted and nonsensical logic to defend his stance, so it's reasonable to keep asking him about it.

 

[Egg]

For the other one, I think it's an important point. Rramjet has insisted that some things can't be extraordinary (denominations, evidence, etc.) but others can (number of flagellum). This makes no sense, and he has stood by this statement without being able to defend it. He has continued to use this twisted and nonsensical logic to defend his stance, so it's reasonable to keep asking him about it.

Stated like that, it does make for a more reasonable point. An apparent inconsistency in what would and wouldn't be described as "extraordinary" does need some clarification (or perhaps justification).

 

[tojohndillonesq]

Have to go with the Ramjet on this one. The problem is that EVERYONE - every single person - will have their own judgement of what is ordinary and what is extraordinary. The statement above - about Buzz Aldrin - does not hold water. It says that "because I have (second hand) knowledge of a person's activities, his statements that agree with my knowledge of his past have more credence." Under that premise, it is your knowledge, or lack thereof, that becomes the standard by which evidence is measured.

The interesting thing here is that each poster has an unacknowledged bias toward a specific evidentiary procedure. One common procedure is the "court of law." It has a few basic rules such as 1) Expert testimony bears more weight than amateur testimony. 2) First hand evidence is accepted, second hand evidence is hearsay. 3) The conclusion is not "tentative and to be changed upon receipt of further evidence." The case is decided and acted upon; someone is found guilty or innocent and goes to jail/pays a fine, or does not. There is no "wait and see." (Granted that some cases are appealed on presentation of new evidence) 3) The evidence must be more compelling in cases where more is riding on it (murder case vs traffic case.) The important cases are also more likely to allow appeal on new evidence.

Under the logical process of science (I would argue that science is nothing more than a logical process), these rules are not allowable. 1) Logic does not allow ad homimen (you are dumb therefore wrong), nor does it allow "ad verecundiam" (you are a subject expert therefore correct). 2) We accept second hand evidence (we did not gather the evidence, but present it.) That is reasonable and practical in science. 3) Because science is not dogma, we not not make a "final" conclusion about anything. 4) The importance of the outcome is not salient to the requirements of the process. In other words, I can't decide that the claim is "ordinary" (a traffic ticket) or extraordinary (a murder case) without assuming an arbitrary position of authority on the topic. Going back through the history of science we find this error repeated time and again... "extraordinary" claims that were rejected out of hand were later proven true.

 

[Paul2]

Have to go with the Ramjet on this one. The problem is that EVERYONE - every single person - will have their own judgement of what is ordinary and what is extraordinary.

Are you saying that if a word admits of variable or subjective interpretation, it is meaningless?

So, if I say "It takes a beautiful woman to win the beauty contest," you would say that is nonsensical because we all may have (somewhat) different ideas about what is beautiful?

 

[CAC Wirraway]

...
Yes, you’re getting close, but strictly speaking there is also no such thing as “good” (or “bad”) evidence either. Evidence is evidence. You either have it or you do not. ...

that's absurd. any trial lawyer -- who has to deal with this in real world way every day -- will tell you that there is weak evidence that's unpersuasive because of who provides it (biased or incompetent witnesses) or its provenance (questionable authenticity) or reliability (hearsay) and strong evidence which might be strong to the point that its conclusive.

bad evidence might get you as far as a trial, but bad evidence is a loser at trial.

 

[Paul2]

that's absurd. any trial lawyer -- who has to deal with this in real world way every day -- will tell you that there is weak evidence that's unpersuasive because of who provides it (biased or incompetent witnesses) or its provenance (questionable authenticity) or reliability (hearsay) and strong evidence which might be strong to the point that its conclusive.

bad evidence might get you as far as a trial, but bad evidence is a loser at trial.

Well done, CAC. The trial lawyer example hasn't been rolled out yet (I think - give me a few years to check for it in this entire thread), and it is a slam dunk against Rramjet's position.

Rramjet, the obvious difference in quality of evidence at a trial gives you only three options:

1. finally admit that evidence is not just evidence, but can be distinguished as to quality;
2. mount some new defense against CAC's example;
3. write something that is the equivalent of holding your hands over your ears while blabbering so that you don't hear what we're saying.

Please don't offer #3 in the guise and form of #2.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It seems to me that these questions in particular have been addressed almost to the point of tedium. I can't work out if you continue to bring them up because you don't understand his answers (and the points he was trying to make in the first place) or if you're just intentionally being difficult.

And are these really "substantive questions"? They come across as pretty nit-picky to me.

If he is going to simply keep repeating the same refuted arguments, I'll have no option but to keep repeating the same refutations.

Your concern needs to be addressed to Rramjet.

 

[I Am The Scum]

that's absurd. any trial lawyer -- who has to deal with this in real world way every day -- will tell you that there is weak evidence that's unpersuasive because of who provides it (biased or incompetent witnesses) or its provenance (questionable authenticity) or reliability (hearsay) and strong evidence which might be strong to the point that its conclusive.

bad evidence might get you as far as a trial, but bad evidence is a loser at trial.

Or, you can look at it in an even more practical light.

Evidence is defined as that which tends to prove or disprove a given conclusion. Some things are better at this than others. If my friend tells me that an elephant escaped from the zoo, that tends to prove that it happened, though it doesn't do a very good job of it. Perhaps my friend has misunderstood the news, or is attempting to play a trick on me. However, if I see live video footage of the elephant rampaging down main street, then this will do a much better job of proving the conclusion.

 

[CAC Wirraway]

Or, you can look at it in an even more practical light.

Evidence is defined as that which tends to prove or disprove a given conclusion. Some things are better at this than others. If my friend tells me that an elephant escaped from the zoo, that tends to prove that it happened, though it doesn't do a very good job of it. Perhaps my friend has misunderstood the news, or is attempting to play a trick on me. However, if I see live video footage of the elephant rampaging down main street, then this will do a much better job of proving the conclusion.

"tends to prove or disprove" is a traditional (and very good) way of describing what evidence is. now the issue is how much weight to give the evidence because the definition runs the gamut from the weakest possible to the most airtight.

maybe your friend watching the news sincerely believes he watched the elephant's escape, but wasn't wearing his glasses and is an elephant lover, so you have a bad witness with a confirmation bias. its evidence of something, just not convincing. (this is the typical UFO witness who goes out looking for flying saucers and sees them everywhere).

getting trampled by the elephant is conclusive.