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

[RoboTimbo]

Moreover, if we cannot define what makes evidence extraordinary – and do so in such a way as to rule out anecdotes and photographs being able to fulfil the requirements of ECREE – then ECREE is nonsense on that level also. One does not have to be an Einstein to be able to note that much either.

As many others have noted, these points have been answered to the point of tedium. It doesn't seem to be beneath you to continue to flog them. However, I will be kind and not deign to refer to your despicable tactics as I could.

 

[tsig]

"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.

That describes reading this thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

One doesn't have to be an Einstein to answer the questions below either, but Rramjet doesn't seem to be able to.

As others have noted:As one other has noted:

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.

ftfy.

What you have there, Rramjet, is an argumentum ad populum without the populum.

I of course have a much stronger opinion about your tactics than the ever diplomatic Egg - but it is beneath me to express them here.

Whatever you do, don't go outside if it's windy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You could live a long life and met no one with less patience for semantic hair splitting then me, but even I understand that words either have meaning or they don't. Yes language is fluid and variable, but it can't be completely arbitrary or communications becomes impossible.

On the overall topic I never had a hard time understanding what is meant by extraordinary in Sagan's context. A statement which requires us to deviate further from our current understanding of how the world works will require more evidence then a statement that requires us to deviate less. "Extraordinary" is just a nice way to put that into context for laypeople. Splitting that particular hair down to the atomic level hardly seems necessary to me. An extraordinary claim is simply one that requires me to deviate further then normal from my world view. It's not that hard a concept.

If you tell me the paint on your front door is wet I can easily accept that based on a minimun of evidence because all the parts to the statement, the existence of a substance called paint, of objects called doors, of the fact that paint is at certain times in its existence wet, that you own a house that has a door, are all already accepted and established. The new variable you are asking me to assimilate into my world view does not require any major rewriting of how I view the world.

 

[Yeah_Right]

You could live a long life and met no one with less patience for semantic hair splitting then me, but even I understand that words either have meaning or they don't. Yes language is fluid and variable, but it can't be completely arbitrary or communications becomes impossible.

On the overall topic I never had a hard time understanding what is meant by extraordinary in Sagan's context. A statement which requires us to deviate further from our current understanding of how the world works will require more evidence then a statement that requires us to deviate less. "Extraordinary" is just a nice way to put that into context for laypeople. Splitting that particular hair down to the atomic level hardly seems necessary to me. An extraordinary claim is simply one that requires me to deviate further then normal from my world view. It's not that hard a concept.

If you tell me the paint on your front door is wet I can easily accept that based on a minimun of evidence because all the parts to the statement, the existence of a substance called paint, of objects called doors, of the fact that paint is at certain times in its existence wet, that you own a house that has a door, are all already accepted and established. The new variable you are asking me to assimilate into my world view does not require any major rewriting of how I view the world.

Very well put.

 

[Rramjet]

You could live a long life and met no one with less patience for semantic hair splitting then me, but even I understand that words either have meaning or they don't.

No, that is not true at all. Words have a consensus, public meaning, which despite often comprehensive dictionary definition, is often fluid and ever changing. Terms can be considered in the same way. Many people, when they do not understand a word or a term will turn to the dictionary to determine the consensus opinion about its meaning. Often they will find therein more than one meaning for the word. They must then examine the context in which they originally came across the word in question to determine which meaning might be applicable.

In ECREE we seem to have an entirely new definition of “extraordinary” – something totally outside dictionary definitions and not at all accessible to the “lay” person. It therefore positively demands a definition from those who propose it – but whenever that demand is made – ECREE proponents balk. They make all sorts of excuses in order to get out of actually defining it – so that lay people can understand it – for after all, they do contend that ECREE is squarely aimed at lay people.

So ECREE proponents cannot define “extraordinary evidence” in a way that does not allow anecdotes and photographs to be able to fulfil the requirements of ECREE. ECREE is therefore nonsense.

ECREE is also antiscientific in that it negates the legitimacy of a weight of evidence being able to legitimately influence our thinking on the probability of the veracity of certain hypotheses. For Sagan, you either have “extraordinary evidence” or you do not. If not, then we can reject the hypothesis out of hand. That is simply antiscientific. It is not how science works and it is certainly not how humans work in day to day settings. One does not have to be an Einstein to be able to note that much. ECREE is therefore nonsense.

In a similar line – ECREE also illegitimately shifts the standard of evidence for some claims and not others. What is extraordinary to one person is ordinary to another. What is extraordinary in one context is ordinary in another. ECREE is therefore nonsense.

ECREE proponents will simply not engage with those objections to ECREE.

If you tell me the paint on your front door is wet I can easily accept that based on a minimun of evidence because all the parts to the statement, the existence of a substance called paint, of objects called doors, of the fact that paint is at certain times in its existence wet, that you own a house that has a door, are all already accepted and established.

Perhaps you can then establish the existence of extraordinary evidence for us then...?

The new variable you are asking me to assimilate into my world view does not require any major rewriting of how I view the world.

ECREE requires a complete rewriting of the rules of evidence, science, critical thinking and logic. How does that square with your expressed view on the meaning of things?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You simply cannot demand the same level of evidence for all claims put forth. That's insane.

You don't prove your bath water is wet via a 6 month double blind lab controlled experiment everytime you take a bath.

 

[Resume]

ECREE requires a complete rewriting of the rules of evidence, science, critical thinking and logic. How does that square with your expressed view on the meaning of things?

It's a maxim and requires no such thing.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You simply cannot demand the same level of evidence for all claims put forth. That's insane.

You don't prove your bath water is wet via a 6 month double blind lab controlled experiment everytime you take a bath.

For a "student" poster, you are very wise
Very well put. Nominated.

 

[Resume]

For a "student" poster, you are very wise
Very well put. Nominated.

Yep.

 

[ynot]

An extraordinary claim would be - "I can levitate"'

Extraordinary evidence to support this claim would be an open and honest demonstration of me levitating.

Once my ability to levitate had been openly and honestly demonstrated my claim that I can levitate and the credible evidence that I actually could would no longer be extraordinary.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, that is not true at all. Words have a consensus, public meaning, which despite often comprehensive dictionary definition, is often fluid and ever changing. Terms can be considered in the same way. Many people, when they do not understand a word or a term will turn to the dictionary to determine the consensus opinion about its meaning. Often they will find therein more than one meaning for the word. They must then examine the context in which they originally came across the word in question to determine which meaning might be applicable.

In ECREE we seem to have an entirely new definition of “extraordinary” – something totally outside dictionary definitions and not at all accessible to the “lay” person. It therefore positively demands a definition from those who propose it – but whenever that demand is made – ECREE proponents balk. They make all sorts of excuses in order to get out of actually defining it – so that lay people can understand it – for after all, they do contend that ECREE is squarely aimed at lay people.

What did you mean when you asserted that a usual and expected number is extraordinary? This seems to be some new definition of the word that you've made up on the spot.

So ECREE proponents cannot define “extraordinary evidence” in a way that does not allow anecdotes and photographs to be able to fulfil the requirements of ECREE. ECREE is therefore nonsense.

Well, no. Your repeated falsehood does not make it true so your unfounded assertion is dismissed. Can you give an example of extraordinary anecdotal evidence? You never have.

ECREE is also antiscientific in that it negates the legitimacy of a weight of evidence being able to legitimately influence our thinking on the probability of the veracity of certain hypotheses. For Sagan, you either have “extraordinary evidence” or you do not. If not, then we can reject the hypothesis out of hand. That is simply antiscientific. It is not how science works and it is certainly not how humans work in day to day settings. One does not have to be an Einstein to be able to note that much. ECREE is therefore nonsense.

Well, no. Wanting to believe in aliens using anecdotes as evidence is unscientific. One doesn't have to be Einstein to know that much. Therefore your unfounded assertion that ECREE is nonsense is itself nonsense.

In a similar line – ECREE also illegitimately shifts the standard of evidence for some claims and not others. What is extraordinary to one person is ordinary to another. What is extraordinary in one context is ordinary in another. ECREE is therefore nonsense.

Well, no. Weren't you paying attention? You've asserted that usual and expected numbers are extraordinary out of one side of your mouth and out of the other side you've asserted that they are not. You've asserted that cats, refrigerators, and nightclubs are extraordinary out of one side of your mouth while asserting that, if one were to be found, alien rayguns, alien spaceships, and alien bodies are ordinary. You've been using hypocritical arguments. Therefore, your assertion that ECREE is nonsense is itself nonsense.

ECREE proponents will simply not engage with those objections to ECREE.

Done and done. You've never answered my questions without resorting to hypocrisy. Will you do so now?

Perhaps you can then establish the existence of extraordinary evidence for us then...?

Alien raygun, alien body, alien spaceship.

ECREE requires a complete rewriting of the rules of evidence, science, critical thinking and logic. How does that square with your expressed view on the meaning of things?

Well, no. Your unfounded assertion is dismissed.

ECREE certainly seems to get the creduloids' panties in a twist, though.

You've also never answered this:

Let Rramjet's anecdotes be represented by the number of flagella that ordinary bacteria possess.
Let alien raygun, alien spaceship or alien body be represented by the number of flagella that Azotobacter has.

The number is extraordinary in comparison to the usual amount such (species of) bacteria possess (and the "usual amount" can be quantified).

Just do the math. Or is it your Rrogic^TM that is faulty?

 

[Egg]

An extraordinary claim would be - "I can levitate"'

Extraordinary evidence to support this claim would be an open and honest demonstration of me levitating.

Once my ability to levitate had been openly and honestly demonstrated my claim that I can levitate and the credible evidence that I actually could would no longer be extraordinary.

That would be defining "extraordinary evidence" as "evidence of something extraordinary" and ECREE would fail to mean what it was intended to do (ie. suggest that weird claims need to be demonstrated by an extraordinarily high standard of evidence).

In order for ECREE to mean what Sagan intended, the evidence would have to continue to be able to be described as "extraordinary" whether the claim had been demonstrated or not and whether the claim itself was extraordinary or not.

 

[Correa Neto]

Please note that its a general line, directed to people at a TV series from decades ago and related to a certain issue. OK, it was originally directed towards ET visitation and later expanded to other fringe subjects, but always within informal discussions environments. That's as far as one can and should actually go.

Personally, under the above perspective, I think that when you write something like

In order for ECREE to mean what Sagan intended, the evidence would have to continue to be able to be described as "extraordinary" whether the claim had been demonstrated or not and whether the claim itself was extraordinary or not.

You are trying to derive, infer or attribute to it a precision level it was never meant to have. Its original meaning was something like "unreliable data (anecdotes, blurry pictures, material suspected of being the product of hoaxes, etc.) can not be used to support certain claims, especially those which if real, reliable data to back them would be expected to be available".

Please note the cases you wrote are (I suppose) not actually impossible and I can think right now of a case: A claim (extraordinary or not, later proven correct or false) may be sustained by a dataset with extraordinary precision due to the particular conditions while data was being acquired. Here's another one- a dataset that is completely outside the predicted by the current model (yes, I am assuming most of the datasets are as predicted by the model). Note the above conditions will not be present to all possible cases of extraordinary evidences and claims.

Sure, Rramjet can go on with his foolish dance while saying "they are just numbers" and "only their attributes are extraordinary". It'll be nothing but empty semantics and have no actual importance regarding Sagan's maxim being efficient or not, or how its used or not.

Note also that since it is not used as a scientific (or philososophic) "rule", neither to block the advance of certain causes, a high degree of precision is not required. All it takes is most of the audience understanding the message about why using unreliable data to back a claim when reliable data is expected to exist is a sign that something is wrong.

In the end, this is what actually disturbs pseudoscientists and proponents of fringe subjects in general: they have not been able to provide reliable data to back their claims despite the fact that if their claims were true, these data sets should be available. In the absence of this reliable evidence, they are left with nothing but special pledges, fallacies (example- "evidence is evidence"), vain attempts to sell pyrite as gold, semantic debates, and complains against mythical persecution and conspiracies.

So, palladins of fringe subjects, why don't you try to apply the scientific method, create good data acquisition projects instead using the same old tired routine?

Please, don't even try to complain about lack of funding, conspiracies, mainstream science, the negative effect of close-minded skeptics on psi, etc. Stop trying to attribute your failures to outside sources. Just tell me why you have not been able to show reliable evidence when it should exist if your claims were true. Oh, and please do not try to sell fools' gold to me, OK?

 

[Egg]

You are trying to derive, infer or attribute to it a precision level it was never meant to have.

Not at all. What led you to that conclusion? I would see the word "extraordinary" as imprecise, subjective and contextual.

Its original meaning was something like "unreliable data (anecdotes, blurry pictures, material suspected of being the product of hoaxes, etc.) can not be used to support certain claims, especially those which if real, reliable data to back them would be expected to be available".

Yes, although it's stated the other way around. There's an assumption that most things we believe are taken on board on the basis of fairly low standards of evidence (which we might loosely describe as "ordinary evidence"). The suggestion is that certain types of claim should require a far higher standard.

Please note the cases you wrote are (I suppose) not actually impossible and I can think right now of a case: A claim (extraordinary or not, later proven correct or false) may be sustained by a dataset with extraordinary precision due to the particular conditions while data was being acquired. Here's another one- a dataset that is completely outside the predicted by the current model (yes, I am assuming most of the datasets are as predicted by the model). Note the above conditions will not be present to all possible cases of extraordinary evidences and claims.

...and you've lost me. What cases did I write? I don't get the point you're trying to make here.

 

[Correa Neto]

What led you to that conclusion?

This:

In order for ECREE to mean what Sagan intended, the evidence would have to continue to be able to be described as "extraordinary" whether the claim had been demonstrated or not and whether the claim itself was extraordinary or not.

I think is a bit above the bar for the original intentions, goals. Its like using a sniper rifle at a school of small fishes.

Yes, although it's stated the other way around. There's an assumption that most things we believe are taken on board on the basis of fairly low standards of evidence (which we might loosely describe as "ordinary evidence"). The suggestion is that certain types of claim should require a far higher standard.

Well, I've been thinking a bit more about the whole situation and came to the conclusion that the best (or an alternative) approach would be something like "One would expect better evidence would be available if your claim is true". Sure, its not exclusive regarding the "certain types of claims require higher standards of evidence" reading. Its actually inclusive. It actually must be, since its my reading, lol.

 

[ynot]

That would be defining "extraordinary evidence" as "evidence of something extraordinary"

Yes, as in evidence of something that is - beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established. This means the ability to be able to provide such evidence is also - beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established.

and ECREE would fail to mean what it was intended to do (ie. suggest that weird claims need to be demonstrated by an extraordinarily high standard of evidence).

But “extraordinarily high standard of evidence” only needs to mean high standard of credibility not complexity. A claim to be able to levitate could be credibly proven by a simple open and honest demonstration of levitating. The method doesn’t need to be extraordinary but the result does. I don’t think Sagan used extraordinary to mean amazing or complex.

In order for ECREE to mean what Sagan intended, the evidence would have to continue to be able to be described as "extraordinary" whether the claim had been demonstrated or not and whether the claim itself was extraordinary or not.

To claim that people could talk to people on the other side of the world via a small handheld device would have been an extraordinary claim 500 years ago. Today however (for most people) it’s now an ordinary claim as it‘s no longer a claim that’s - beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established. It only remains extraordinary in an amazing and complex sense.

 

[Rramjet]

Well, I've been thinking a bit more about the whole situation and came to the conclusion that the best (or an alternative) approach would be something like "One would expect better evidence would be available if your claim is true". Sure, its not exclusive regarding the "certain types of claims require higher standards of evidence" reading. Its actually inclusive. It actually must be, since its my reading, lol.

Let’s go back to basics. Claims require evidence. That much is indisputable. However, the contention is that some claims require “better” evidence than other claims.

So what type of claims constitute those claims that require “better” evidence?

Well, “extraordinary claims” do.

Why is that? (and) What makes them “extraordinary claims”?

Because the implications of those claims run counter to our current knowledge of the natural or technological world.

So why do such claims require “better” evidence? What is wrong with evidence?

The existing evidence is not enough to satisfy me.

What “existing” evidence? Are you thinking of a specific claim here or are we still talking generally?

If the existing evidence for any claim is not enough to satisfy me, then I will demand “better” evidence.

Sure, but that is a generality that applies to ALL claims. I am trying to understand what makes “extraordinary claims” different in terms of standards of evidence.

Well, I am just trying to state that if the implications of a claim threaten to overturn what we know about the natural or technological world, then you better have pretty darn good evidence to support it – mere anecdotes will not do.

Okay, but does not the same principle apply to any claim whose implications matter to us – extraordinary or not? I mean, in a “watercooler” conversation, if you claimed that you were having lunch at the restaurant over the road at 12:30 pm last Thursday – that would be an ordinary claim right? We would tend to accept that claim at face value because there is nothing unusual about it and besides, why would you lie about such banalities? (and even if you did lie, what earth-shattering consequences, for us or for you, would follow?) However, what if we take that very ordinary claim and make it an alibi against a murder charge (I couldn’t have done it your honour, I was in the restaurant over the road peacefully having lunch at the time!) Still, nothing extraordinary about the claim. Yet now we would require that “better” evidence - at the very least “better” evidence than mere anecdotal that you were in that restaurant as you say.

So once again, I fail to see anything that distinguishes the standards of evidence required based merely on whether a claim is extraordinary or not. The standard of evidence required for any claim is entirely contextual. It does not matter in the least if that claim is extraordinary or not.

Okay, but I am saying that “extraordinary claims in particular always require a “better” standard of evidence – no matter what the context.

So when I claim to have visited a nightclub last night (an extraordinary claim because I have never visited one before and have vowed never to cross the threshold of one) then you would demand “better” evidence than my mere say so?

Yes.

Okay, what if I presented a security camera video of myself inside the club? Would that be enough?

No, videos can be hoaxed.

What if I could present a dozen eyewitnesses.

They could be lying or have may simply be mistaken.

What about the receipt?

You could have obtained that from a friend or on the ground outside the club…

So what possible evidence could I present that would convince you? Is it not true that whatever evidence I present there will always be a reason why it might not have veracity and you will always be able to demand “better” evidence? That is, if you wanted to maintain a non-belief in my extraordinary claim, you could easily do so by discounting the existing evidence and stating that you required “better” evidence?

Now let us bring the discussion directly back to ECREE. Is not this “better” evidence just “extraordinary evidence” in another guise? Is it not a fact that you cannot define this “better” evidence in just the same way as you cannot define “extraordinary evidence”? No matter what evidence I may present for any claim I might make, you will simply turn around and state that it is not “extraordinary evidence” and therefore you require something “better”? That is merely illegitimately shifting the goalposts on the standards of evidence… there is simply no possible way I could ever fulfil your requirements for evidence.

No, you go too far. As Sagan stated, if you could present “physical evidence, rigorously and sceptically examined” then I would be satisfied.

But what makes such evidence “extraordinary evidence”? Surely that is a usual standard of evidence that can be presented for any claim – if required - extraordinary or not?

Well, it is extraordinary evidence because it is evidence of something extraordinary.

So just because I have evidence that plants are green, that makes the evidence “green evidence”? Just because I have evidence that photographs exist, that makes it “photographic evidence”? The logic is simply not sound.

Moreover, defining extraordinary evidence in this way would mean that anecdotes and photographs (which are after all evidence – no matter what you think of their quality) would be able to fulfil the requirements of ECREE.

Well, it is the subject of the evidence that makes it extraordinary evidence. An alien raygun for example would be extraordinary evidence – because it is alien.

Okay, but that does not alter things at all. If the subject of an anecdote or a photograph was alien, then that definition would also mean that they could fulfil the requirements of ECREE. I simply see no way that extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence can be practically or usefully distinguished from plain old claims and evidence. Claims require evidence. It is that simple. You either have the evidence or you do not. If you have the evidence, it will either be sufficient or it will not. Any judgement of sufficiency in that regard will have to be rationally justified. All this talk of extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence is just nonsense. It merely opens the way for charges of illegitimate shifting of the standards of evidence – and the ability to do so! It does not provide any rational method of distinguishing between types of evidence. It is antiscientific in that it proposes we treat some claims differentially on a subjective whim considering what we might think to be extraordinary or not. It is illogical, in that we cannot define extraordinary evidence in such a way that any evidence cannot be extraordinary. It is counterproductive because if you base you assessments on illogicalities such as ECREE, then clearly you are not a critical thinker, and so why should I believe you on anything?


Don’t get me wrong. I understand the sentiment behind ECREE very well. It is just that ECREE does not express it in any logical or rationally defined way.


Of course there is always the “Common Use” argument. That is we know what Sagan intended it to mean and what he intended it to mean is well known (broadly understood) and ECREE merely then expresses that intended meaning. My objection to that “common use” argument is that science should not only hold to and publically promote its principles and methodology – but should also be seen to express them in rational and logical ways. ECREE fails that test.

 

[Egg]

Yes, as in evidence of something that is - beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established. This means the ability to be able to provide such evidence is also - beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established.

I understand why that works as a possible definition of "extraordinary evidence" and why someone might use it that way. However, it does not fit as Sagan's definition when you try to insert it into ECREE.

But “extraordinarily high standard of evidence” only needs to mean high standard of credibility not complexity. A claim to be able to levitate could be credibly proven by a simple open and honest demonstration of levitating. The method doesn’t need to be extraordinary but the result does. I don’t think Sagan used extraordinary to mean amazing or complex.

I agree with you. When I say "extraordinary high standard" I just mean extremely compelling or strong evidence, hard to refute etc. It needn't be complex or amazing or weird in itself as evidence.

To claim that people could talk to people on the other side of the world via a small handheld device would have been an extraordinary claim 500 years ago. Today however (for most people) it’s now an ordinary claim as it‘s no longer a claim that’s - beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established. It only remains extraordinary in an amazing and complex sense.

Again I agree. It's no longer an extraordinary claim, and according to ECREE it no longer requires highly convincing evidence.

I think you've missed the point of what I was saying. It's your definition of "extraordinary evidence" which isn't fitting ECREE. Sagan's assumption with ECREE is that claims require evidence. By adding the "extraordinary"s he's suggesting that particular kinds of claims need some sort of special evidence. If by "extraordinary evidence" he just meant "evidence of something unusual", then adding the "extraordinary"s adds nothing to the original assumption. In that instance, the claim is what is making the evidence extraordinary. It would be pointless then to say it required "extraordinary" evidence if just by being evidence (for that claim), that evidence was extraordinary.

On top of that, ECREE then would say nothing about the standard of evidence required for the claim. All it asks is that the evidence support that particular claim. The poorest of evidence could be described as "extraordinary evidence" with this definition, so long as was evidence of something extraordinary.

Another way of putting ECREE is "big claims require big evidence". I think this is probably a little less confusing. The point of ECREE is to suggest we need better evidence for unusual claims than we might do for claims of more usual events or things. From this it becomes clear that for Sagan, "extraordinary evidence" is evidence which is extraordinary by its high standards and not extraordinary by nature of supporting an extraordinary claim.

 

[Egg]

Of course there is always the “Common Use” argument. That is we know what Sagan intended it to mean and what he intended it to mean is well known (broadly understood) and ECREE merely then expresses that intended meaning. My objection to that “common use” argument is that science should not only hold to and publically promote its principles and methodology – but should also be seen to express them in rational and logical ways. ECREE fails that test.

That would be a reasonable objection if ECREE is being proposed as a scientific rule. Or perhaps that is a reasonable objection to ECREE being proposed as a scientific rule.

Firstly, your quotation marks on "common use" suggest that you're missing that all language and definitions are from common use and that in this case, the use of "extraordinary" when applied to evidence work in the same kind of way that "extraordinary" is used when applied to most other things. EE is extraordinary in its high standards (just as Usain Bolt is extraordinary in his high speed).

Secondly the meaning we get from this, when assuming that the evidence is extraordinary in its high standards, isn't an irrational or illogical way of expressing the concept.

I agree that there are issues with it, that it doesn't necessarily work or is the best principle in all contexts and instances and that it is open to the kind of abuse you've mentioned.

But that is only a problem if we assume it is a rule or an essential part of the scientific process. It's not and I don't believe it was ever meant to be. It's a bit of a throw away saying, suggesting that people should be stricter in the evidence they accept for claims which might seem unlikely.