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

[Beelzebuddy]

Welp, for starters I'd like to point out that all of your questions are fully answerable by my bayesian definition, which it would seem you still have not fully digested. Your last response consisted of a restatement of the need for bayesian inference, pulled from a random webpage.

However, I'm noticing two other errors that I'll call out explicitly.

You have therefore simply supplied another definition for extraordinary evidence that allows any evidence whatsoever (hearsay, anecdotes, photographs…) to be extraordinary evidence and to fulfil the criteria of ECREE.

Anecdotes, etc can never be extraordinary evidence, because for extraordinary claims they are never reliable and unfalsifiable enough to demonstrate P(A|E) >> 0.95, all on their lonesome.

That is not to say they aren't evidence, though.

Every Kansas hick who swears he got buttraped by ET improves the net probability of aliens, though not by very much. If you have enough of these anecdotes, you should be able to make the argument that alien visitation is no longer an extraordinary claim - P(A|X) !<< 0.95.

Incidentally, each Kansas hick who turns out to have faked the whole thing to get attention bumps the odds back down. And there have been many, many demonstrated alien hoaxes.

It would be perfectly valid to say there is no practical amount of anecdotal evidence that would make aliens believable, which is what people mean when they tell you not to bother. I'd disagree with that though: an alien craft touching down in the middle of Central Park would generate hundreds of matching anecdotal observations, sufficient to make a pretty good argument for aliens. Backwoods Kentucky, seen by one hick and his dog? Not so much.

What if there is no evidence (or hearsay evidence) against a claim and anecdotal evidence for it? By your definition that anecdotal evidence then becomes extraordinary evidence.

This is your second error, the notion that devoid of evidence either way, the slightest amount of incredibly ****** evidence is sufficient to prove the claim until evidence against it is presented, like this is some sort of talking heads political debate.

The prior probability of aliens visiting us is very low because they have never been observed, never been inferred or somehow detected indirectly, and there are numerous laws of physics they'd have to bust in two just to get here in the first place. If you think the probability should be higher than "vanishingly small," that's something you, the proponent of the claim, needs to argue. Once evidence starts piling in the odds quickly approximate that given by the evidence, but without evidence the default position is not "maybe," but "no."

Otherwise you need to acknowledge the 50/50 chance that a real live leprechaun is staring at you right now, where you can't see him. He's riding an invisible pink unicorn. The leprechaun's not invisible though, he's just very good at hiding.

 

[Pulseczar]

Hi Pulseczar.

[removed picture because I'm a new user and can't have a URL in my post]​

Extraordinarily good to see you.

Thanks for the friendly welcome.

Brilliant maybe, but infallible? …unlikely.

Very true.

 

[Stray Cat]

So extraordinary evidence is evidence for a claim that outweighs the evidence against that claim. But isn’t there the potential for any evidence to do that?

No

What if there is no evidence (or hearsay evidence) against a claim and anecdotal evidence for it?

Then it wouldn't be an extraordinary claim would it, as there isn't an extraordinary amount of contrary evidence to have to overturn.

By your definition that anecdotal evidence then becomes extraordinary evidence.

No.

You have therefore simply supplied another definition for extraordinary evidence that allows any evidence whatsoever (hearsay, anecdotes, photographs…) to be extraordinary evidence and to fulfil the criteria of ECREE.

No.

Must try harder.

 

[Akhenaten]

If "we cannot agree" meant something like a 50/50 split of all the people who have ever encountered ECREE you might just have a case. As it is, however, we're talking about Rramjet vs teh Rest. This certainly presents real problems for Rramjet, but only this and nothing more.

That is merely to commit the fallacy of an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum).

No.

And I find such an accusation more than somewhat hypocritical in light of the fact that your whole embarassing argument in this misbegotten thread is nothing more than an appeal against popularity.

Instead of looking at my comment above in isolation, let's have a little look at the post of yours to which it was directed as a response:

What is the criteria for what constitutes an extraordinary claim? If we cannot agree on what an extraordinary claim is, that presents real problems for ECREE and leads to the charge of illegitimately shifting the goalposts on the standards of evidence for some claims and not others.

my bolding​

You are the one who is attempting to win his case by forcing agreement to his particular definitions of words.

You are the one who keeps trying to insinuate phrases starting with "we this . . ." and "we that . . ." into the discussion as though consensus had already been reached on your silly assertions.

Get it straight, Rramjet. The meanings of words, and of phrases like ECREE, are decided by popular usage, and not by strict, precise definition as is the case with something like a scientific theorem or mathematical formula.

Pointing this out to you, as I have done and will continue to do, is not a logical fallacy - it's a simple statement of the bleeding obvious.

Perhaps there is a God after all…

No.

Unless you have some extraordinary evidence for one, that is.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So extraordinary evidence is evidence for a claim that outweighs the evidence against that claim. But isn’t there the potential for any evidence to do that? What if there is no evidence (or hearsay evidence) against a claim and anecdotal evidence for it? By your definition that anecdotal evidence then becomes extraordinary evidence. You have therefore simply supplied another definition for extraordinary evidence that allows any evidence whatsoever (hearsay, anecdotes, photographs…) to be extraordinary evidence and to fulfil the criteria of ECREE.

Can you give an example of such a claim?

You've consistently failed to give an example of extraordinary anecdotal evidence. Let's see if you fail at this as well.

What is the criteria for what constitutes an extraordinary claim?

If you cannot even define an extraordinary claim, then you cannot require a different standard of evidence for it over and above other claims. If your criteria for extraordinary claims is entirely arbitrary, then you are illegitimately shifting the standard of evidence for some claims and not others.

Since you've earlier admitted the existence of extraordinary claims, how were you defining them? Or is this more ordinary evidence of your hypocrisy?

That is merely to commit the fallacy of an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum). Perhaps there is a God after all…

Remember the multiple examples of your hypocritical arguments? And all the questions that are still on the table that you've scurried away from every time?

The use of ECREE illegitimately shifts the standard of evidence for some claims and not others.

Your unfounded assertion is legitimately ignored. Like you've been ignoring me drawing attention to your hypocrisy. That won't be going away. Why do you hypocritically assert that a usual and expected number is extraordinary out of one side of your mouth?

To utilise a nonsense phrase whose terms cannot be adequately defined in order to promote critical thought about standards of evidence is distinctly an act of lowering the bar.

Why do you continue to do it then? I've advised you against your nonsense phrases but you keep using them. No rational thinking person will be held hostage to your ridiculously low standards for evidence and your promotion of pseudoscience.

That you would leave rational debate behind to resort to such utter nonsense says a great deal about why you support ECREE in the first place.

Why have you abandoned any rational discourse whatsoever? Is it more evidence of your hypocrisy?

What is the criteria for what constitutes an extraordinary evidence?

Why do you hypocritically assert that you must use objective criteria when comparing two things to declare one extraordinary (see your Usain Bolt example) out of one side of your mouth and assert that a woman can be extraordinarily beautiful out of the other side of your mouth?

It becomes more and more obvious that rational debate on the question of interest is beyond you - and you therefore make me wonder now why I am even bothering to reply to you…

You've long ago given up any semblance of rational debate and have simply devolved into more and more hypocrisy.

The only definitions so far proposed allow anecdotes and photographs to fulfil the criteria of ECREE and that is a situation no-one wants to maintain (ECREE devolves into Claims require evidence).

Can you give an example of extraordinary anecdotal evidence? You've consistently failed to do so.

Stray Cat’s definition also allows anecdotes and photographs to become extraordinary evidence and thus able to fulfil the criteria of ECREE. What then makes ECREE any different from Claims require evidence?

Well, no. Your unfounded assertion is legitimately dismissed.

I can understand why certain types of mind are drawn to bright colours and big print, but the mere utilisation of, and attraction to such, does not guarantee a rational argument.

I have no doubt that you understand those types of mind. It has been noted that you have long ago given up rational argument.

When will you be answering the outstanding substantive questions about your blatant hypocrisy, Rramjet? The rest of us may legitimately assume that you are acting dishonestly due to your agenda unless you are able to answer those questions without hypocrisy.

 

[Access Denied]

If you mean my definition of “alien” as “foreign to our understanding of the natural or technological world” then of course I have produced a great deal of evidence for that claim – indeed an entire threads worth of (multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photograph and physical trace) evidence.

Claims without evidence can be dimissed as such.

 

[Wudang]

Oh but we can agree on when dawn is. We can define it so that it makes sense to us – the most common is when the sun first appears above the horizon. Whether you agree with that definition or not - it is a sensible definition that makes logical sense of the term “dawn”.

And 3 different groups have defined "dawn" in ways that make sense to them, i.e. in context. And since you missed the point, even though we don't have a single definition of "dawn" still the idea of "day" and "night" has a certain utility for most people.

However, when it comes to ECREE, it seems there simply is no sensible definition of extraordinary evidence …unless of course you have one that you would like to propose…

There have been several - a claim with a low a priori probability such as UFOs being ETs given what we know of the science involved is one.

 

[blobru]

Well, I see what you're getting at, but I think it's fairest to say it's a settled claim…

Funny, I could have sworn there was a dispute about it’s legitimacy… here for example (http://homepages.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html - see Myth #4)

Funnier, I could have sworn I said "the claim is that for many..."

...(the claim is that for many sceptics, ECREE; the evidence is that for many sceptics, in this thread, ECREE; therefore: duh). So, given ECREE, the relevant discussion is over how it's used [as a sceptical maxim] and what it means. -

Useful link, tho'. Adds to the relevant discussion over what it means and how it's used.

 

[Rramjet]

The meanings of words, and of phrases like ECREE, are decided by popular usage, and not by strict, precise definition as is the case with something like a scientific theorem or mathematical formula.

I know what you mean - the meaning and existence of God has been defined and proved by popularity. Given that 70+ percent of people believe UFOs are ET, then that too has been proved by popularity. Ghosts, psychic powers, etc and so on - all now defined and meaningful because they are immensely popular. Who needs science and rational definitions? Just take a vote!

So, perhaps you would care to outline the “popular” consensus definition of extraordinary evidence then? No…? Surprise, surprise….

And 3 different groups have defined "dawn" in ways that make sense to them, i.e. in context. And since you missed the point, even though we don't have a single definition of "dawn" still the idea of "day" and "night" has a certain utility for most people.

Sure it has, because all the proposed definitions make sense of “dawn” “night” and “day” – perhaps then you can come up with a definition of extraordinary evidence that would make sense of ECREE…?

There have been several - a claim with a low a priori probability such as UFOs being ETs given what we know of the science involved is one.

How do you assess that “low prior probability”? How do you know what the probability of UFOs being explained by ET is? If it turns out that they can be so explained - then the probability = 1 (a certainty)! There is certainly nothing in science that would prevent UFOs = ET from being a certainty.

...(the claim is that for many sceptics, ECREE; the evidence is that for many sceptics, in this thread, ECREE; therefore: duh)

…(the claim is that for many people, GOD; the evidence is that for many believers, in website forums, GOD; therefore duh)

Yep, with such powerful, critically thought our arguments such as that, you should think about joining a debating team. LOL!

So, given ECREE, the relevant discussion is over how it's used [as a sceptical maxim] and what it means.

I know of no maxims that cannot be demonstrated to hold true in some or other context. Can you demonstrate ECREE to be true?

Useful link, tho'. Adds to the relevant discussion over what it means and how it's used.

Perhaps even worth quoting the relevant section then:

“Myth #4: Extraordinary hypothesis require extraordinary evidence.
This is a myth that, as myths go, isn't all that bad. All things being equal, a more extraordinary claim, a claim that makes predictions which contradict those of well established theories, does require better evidence. But, all things are usually not equal, and a skeptic would do well to gain a better understanding of the assumptions behind this slogan. Theodore Schick wrote an good article about this for Skeptic. I will review some of his criticisms and toss in one or two of my own,

The biggest problem with this myth is it favors conservatism, or retaining the established theory. This is both good and bad. We should retain that which works until something better comes along. But, new theories require time to develop, to be tested, to prove themselves against the old theories. If scientists do not study new theories, and if funding is not made available to run experiments, new theories would not be able to accumulate extraordinary evidence. When this happens, science cannot progress. Clearly, some guidelines are needed to for when a competing theory is promising enough to warrant further research before extraordinary evidence is available.

Some guidelines to consider are: the scope of a theory, or how much data, relative to another theory, the new theory account for; the fruitfulness of the new--how many new ideas does it generate; the number of assumptions for the new versus old theory. There is a tendency to favor theories that make surprising results, and there are also trendy theories which attract research because they are new and interesting compared to established theories.

Finally, what is the price if we are wrong? If a well established theory is accepted on less than extraordinary evidence what harm will come in the form of redirected research efforts, or the impact on society. If the harm is minimal, a new competing theory is more likely to be considered.

Schick summarized; the myth does not give a sufficient condition for sufficient evidence. In practice, it is usually better to avoid saying ``Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'' in specific arguments---it is not a fait accompli. Instead, ask what evidence the claimant has, or suggest what is lacking in the evidence presented and what would be more convincing evidence. Take the time to explain what well established theories are being contradicted. This doesn't always help, but it usually doesn't hurt. (http://homepages.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html)​

So, according to this exposition, ECREE is a myth… and that “In practice, it is usually better to avoid saying (ECREE)…” – I go further to contend that to claim myths is not sceptical or rational in any circumstance…

 

[jiggeryqua]

Funnier, I could have sworn I said "the claim is that for many..."

Hilariously, you said it was a settled claim and, parenthetically & convolutedly, that it wasn't a settled claim. The former satisfied the ECREEites and the latter came in handy when Rramjet pointed out that it wasn't a settled claim. The punchline is, you think you made him look foolish. That's comedy. The tragedy is most of the audience will be laughing...

 

[Akhenaten]

The meanings of words, and of phrases like ECREE, are decided by popular usage, and not by strict, precise definition as is the case with something like a scientific theorem or mathematical formula.

I know what you mean - the meaning and existence of God has been defined and proved by popularity. Given that 70+ percent of people believe UFOs are ET, then that too has been proved by popularity. Ghosts, psychic powers, etc and so on - all now defined and meaningful because they are immensely popular. Who needs science and rational definitions? Just take a vote!

Either you don't know what I mean or you're just pretending that you don't. Since both possibilities are equally tragic I don't really feeled inclined to try and figure out which, but if you truly can't tell the difference between establishing the meaning of a word and establishing the existence of the thing that word describes then you are in no wise equipped to advance your argument with respect to ECREE.

So, perhaps you would care to outline the “popular” consensus definition of extraordinary evidence then? No…? Surprise, surprise….

I don't care in the slightest what you think, Rramjet, and nobody else needs it explained to them. I prefer to continue having my fun just pointing out how pathetic your arguments are, thanks all the same.

 

[blobru]

…(the claim is that for many people, GOD; the evidence is that for many believers, in website forums, GOD; therefore duh)

Where "duh" = many people believe in GOD, a claim which evidence settles fairly easily; says nothing about the being's existence (irrelevant in the case of ECREE, as it's not a being but a concept); the relevant discussion is then over what ECREE means, what this thread's been about, really. The evidence for or against it won't be strictly empirical but semantic as well (was my point).

Yep, with such powerful, critically thought our arguments such as that, you should think about joining a debating team. LOL!

Well, I've expanded the point for any who missed it first time 'round (& could've explained it much more carefully -- note: not a debating point; just a footnote; lol?)

I know of no maxims that cannot be demonstrated to hold true in some or other context. Can you demonstrate ECREE to be true?

"For claims that are extraordinarily hard to accept, one wants evidence that is extraordinarily hard not to." I'd say that's semantically equivalent to ECREE; not as concise but a little plainer. Plain enough for me, and others apparently, to treat it as "true" (i.e., useful in the context of extraordinarily hard to accept claims).

Perhaps even worth quoting the relevant section then:

“Myth #4: Extraordinary hypothesis require extraordinary evidence.
This is a myth that, as myths go, isn't all that bad. All things being equal, a more extraordinary claim, a claim that makes predictions which contradict those of well established theories, does require better evidence. But, all things are usually not equal, and a skeptic would do well to gain a better understanding of the assumptions behind this slogan. Theodore Schick wrote an good article about this for Skeptic. I will review some of his criticisms and toss in one or two of my own,

The biggest problem with this myth is it favors conservatism, or retaining the established theory. This is both good and bad. We should retain that which works until something better comes along. But, new theories require time to develop, to be tested, to prove themselves against the old theories. If scientists do not study new theories, and if funding is not made available to run experiments, new theories would not be able to accumulate extraordinary evidence. When this happens, science cannot progress. Clearly, some guidelines are needed to for when a competing theory is promising enough to warrant further research before extraordinary evidence is available.

Some guidelines to consider are: the scope of a theory, or how much data, relative to another theory, the new theory account for; the fruitfulness of the new--how many new ideas does it generate; the number of assumptions for the new versus old theory. There is a tendency to favor theories that make surprising results, and there are also trendy theories which attract research because they are new and interesting compared to established theories.

Finally, what is the price if we are wrong? If a well established theory is accepted on less than extraordinary evidence what harm will come in the form of redirected research efforts, or the impact on society. If the harm is minimal, a new competing theory is more likely to be considered.

Schick summarized; the myth does not give a sufficient condition for sufficient evidence. In practice, it is usually better to avoid saying ``Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'' in specific arguments---it is not a fait accompli. Instead, ask what evidence the claimant has, or suggest what is lacking in the evidence presented and what would be more convincing evidence. Take the time to explain what well established theories are being contradicted. This doesn't always help, but it usually doesn't hurt. (http://homepages.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html)
​

So, according to this exposition, ECREE is a myth… and that “In practice, it is usually better to avoid saying (ECREE)…” – I go further to contend that to claim myths is not sceptical or rational in any circumstance…

It's a myth if it's unsceptically adhered to, treated as if it condensed all of science into five words. It doesn't of course (as the article rightly says). It's rather a useful reminder for many of us of the need for hard-to-refute evidence in cases where, as of yet, none has been offered.

Hilariously, you said it was a settled claim and, parenthetically & convolutedly, that it wasn't a settled claim. The former satisfied the ECREEites and the latter came in handy when Rramjet pointed out that it wasn't a settled claim. The punchline is, you think you made him look foolish. That's comedy. The tragedy is most of the audience will be laughing...

I specify in parentheses in what sense it is settled (should in hindsight have said "consensus") -- the obvious, empirical sense: [for many sceptics] ECREE. The relevant discussion is then semantic: given the phrase, what does it mean? (worth distinguishing, I felt, from the notion that all evidence must be empirical)

eta: but as I think about this some more, the semantic leads back into the empirical/pragmatic eventually (except for pure logic), so the distinction's likely moot. (well, that was a long detour to nowhere)

 

[Akhenaten]

The use of ECREE illegitimately shifts the standard of evidence for some claims and not others.

Given that you consider "I went to the store" and "I was abducted by aliens" to be equivalent claims in terms of their extraordinariness you're in no position to be commenting on the legitimacy of establishing standards of evidence.

 

[Stray Cat]

Given that you consider "I went to the store" and "I was abducted by aliens" to be equivalent claims in terms of their extraordinariness you're in no position to be commenting on the legitimacy of establishing standards of evidence.

It's more complicated than that in Rramjetland though.
Although the two claims are equal to Rramjet, depending upon who's making them (a friend or a stranger), then both claims require no evidence and lots of evidence respectively.

Rramjet's world may implode if his friend went to the store with a stranger and got abducted by aliens on the way. Imagine the dilemma when the 2 people reported it to him upon their return.

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practice to de-ECREE.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sure it has, because all the proposed definitions make sense of “dawn” “night” and “day”…

I know what you mean - ECREE makes sense because all of the definitions given to you in this thread make sense. So why were you using so much hypocrisy to argue the opposite?

Why have you hypocritically asserted that you must compare objective criteria to declare one to be extraordinary (see your Usain Bolt example) out of one side of your mouth and out of the other side of your mouth you have asserted that a woman can be extraordinarily beautiful?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I wonder at moments: Does this incredible inability to grasp the meaning of a word apply only to the context of Sagan's quote, or does it apply to all other fields consistently?

Does Rramjet have a concept of what "unusual" means for example? Is that term completely alien to him? (Pun not intended)

I haven't read all of the posts (and I certainly don't intend to) but I wonder if Rramjet has shown any ability of understanding the concept of "unusual". That in itself should be enough for a fairly intelligent person at least as smart as a 12 year old to grasp what the meaning of the catch phrase ECREE was trying to say.

 

[Yeah_Right]

I wonder at moments: Does this incredible inability to grasp the meaning of a word apply only to the context of Sagan's quote, or does it apply to all other fields consistently?

Does Rramjet have a concept of what "unusual" means for example? Is that term completely alien to him? (Pun not intended)

I haven't read all of the posts (and I certainly don't intend to) but I wonder if Rramjet has shown any ability of understanding the concept of "unusual". That in itself should be enough for a fairly intelligent person at least as smart as a 12 year old to grasp what the meaning of the catch phrase ECREE was trying to say.

Sadly, I think you're hoping for the extraordinary.

 

[bozman]

What's really extraordinary is that this thread is 109 pages long.

 

[John Albert]

I said the same thing too, several pages back!

Now for a picture round:

This. ^