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

[jiggeryqua]

Mathematicians prove things. I prove identities in Trigonometry. Science doesn't prove anything.

EDIT: Science gathers evidence and makes the best matched conclusion. If there is no evidence in favor of a claim, then the conclusion is that the claim is false. There is no evidence in favor of alien of abductions. Alien abductions are false until evidence shows the opposite.

Thanks for the entirely unnecessary lecture, I guess it comes more naturally than seeking understanding.

There are anecdotes of alien abduction. Anecdotes are evidence - anecdotal evidence. An anecdote doesn't prove anything, but it's evidence nonetheless. Not extraordinary evidence, by any means, but evidence all the same. Personally, I wouldn't believe anyone who presented anecdotal evidence of being abducted by aliens. I wouldn't, as it happens, conclude that their claim is false - I would conclude that I have insufficient evidence to accept their claim.

But none of this, or your post, touches on what I actually said: much of the confusion in this thread revolves around posters who think 'evidence' is defined as 'that which proves something' (and if you can't relax the cultural pedantry, 'proves' is defined as 'demonstrates the best matched conclusion').

 

[Wudang]

But none of this, or your post, touches on what I actually said: much of the confusion in this thread revolves around posters who think 'evidence' is defined as 'that which proves something' (and if you can't relax the cultural pedantry, 'proves' is defined as 'demonstrates the best matched conclusion').

I think most of the explanations of why ECREE is coherent and useful are valid even if we are just at the level of deciding whether a claim is worth taking seriously, not validating the truth of the claim.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, if you have an ounce of conscience that operates purely inside your self - your own inner voice - then listen:

In the above I gave you (and I) a way out - a way to resolve this issue that does not prove anyone wrong, and yet is not intellectually dishonest on either of our original sides.

Can you try to find your way to honestly - within your own private conscience - agree?

Do you want to try?

It would be helpful if you could simply leave out the ad hominems and merely state you arguments Paul. Surely you can understand if I am disinclined to treat you seriously if you persist in couching your arguments surrounded by such choleric and ad hominem lectures?

So Rramjet might consider the situation in these terms: the amount, quality, etc. of evidence needed to believe that the stranger was abducted by aliens is far beyond that needed to believe that the stranger needed the store if the background knowledge of the store story (stores exist, people regularly go to them) is not counted (because it's very deep background knowledge).

Perhaps this is a way in which Rramjet's view and the view of ECREE supporters might be reconciled.

I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make there Paul. What is the difference between physical evidence for the store and physical evidence for ET?

As far as I can tell, the quality of the evidence – the physical evidence – is precisely the same in both instances.

If we then discount that physical evidence (as you seem to be proposing) – then it falls to whether the claims “I went to the store” and “I was abducted by aliens” are believable or not.

In both cases you stated there was a respected judge testifying to the reality of both claims. The decision then comes down to the credibility of the judge. On what grounds then do you accept the credibility of that judge for the “store” claim, but reject it for the “ET” claim?

Moreover, where in any of that is “extraordinary evidence” apparent?

 

[Rramjet]

So to adjust the test case a little:
case 1 - my friend says he went to the store
case 2 - my friend claims to have made water flow uphill, solved world hunger, developed a cure for cancer, won the Nobel prize 26 times this year and brought peace to the Middle East in 5 minutes and persuaded all of Scientology that Ron Hubbard was a liar.

You say both of these require the same level of evidence or not?

The critical difference between the two cases is that the implications of the claim “I went to the store” does not matter to you. It simply does not matter if the claim is correct or not. Thus you are inclined to take your friend’s word on it – because no radical consequences will flow if it is not correct.

The other claims however do have more radical consequences. The implications do matter to you in some way – and because they do matter to you, you will require a higher standard of evidence than someone's mere word on it.

However, if the “store” claim did matter to you, then you would similarly demand a higher standard of evidence.

If all the claims had implications that mattered to you, the question is whether the standard of evidence required would be any different for any of the claims. I contend that standard would not be any different – and certainly it would not be necessarily “extraordinary”.

That is, if all the claims had implications that mattered to you (including “I went to the store”) you would say “show me the physical evidence” (or some evidence of similarly high standard sufficient to convince you).

But again, where in any of that is “extraordinary evidence”?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The other claims however do have more radical consequences. The implications do matter to you in some way – and because they do matter to you, you will require a higher standard of evidence than someone's mere word on it.

But this is simply more of your hypocrisy. Here is a thread concerning the subject that is most important to you and you've based your belief on the lowest form of evidence. How do you justify such a disparate difference between the words out of one side of your mouth and your actual practice?

 

[Akhenaten]

I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make there Paul. What is the difference between physical evidence for the store and physical evidence for ET?

You have to be kidding.

As far as I can tell, the quality of the evidence – the physical evidence – is precisely the same in both instances.

And the quality of the evidence – the physical evidence – is precisely the same for the Loch Ness monster and elephants? For bigfoot and the lowland gorilla? Atlantis and Africa?

You don't reckon a failure to exist might count against the quality of the physical evidence, do you?

 

[Akhenaten]

The critical difference between the two cases is that the implications of the claim “I went to the store” does not matter to you. It simply does not matter if the claim is correct or not. Thus you are inclined to take your friend’s word on it – because no radical consequences will flow if it is not correct.

The other claims however do have more radical consequences. The implications do matter to you in some way – and because they do matter to you, you will require a higher standard of evidence than someone's mere word on it.

However, if the “store” claim did matter to you, then you would similarly demand a higher standard of evidence.

If all the claims had implications that mattered to you, the question is whether the standard of evidence required would be any different for any of the claims. I contend that standard would not be any different – and certainly it would not be necessarily “extraordinary”.

That is, if all the claims had implications that mattered to you (including “I went to the store”) you would say “show me the physical evidence” (or some evidence of similarly high standard sufficient to convince you).

But again, where in any of that is “extraordinary evidence”?

It sank under the weight of all the italics.

 

[Paul2]

It would be helpful if you could simply leave out the ad hominems and merely state you arguments Paul. Surely you can understand if I am disinclined to treat you seriously if you persist in couching your arguments surrounded by such choleric and ad hominem lectures?

I think you misunderstood my tone and my intent.

I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make there Paul.

Partially because nowhere in your response did you acknowledge the idea of "background knowledge," which was the primary idea in my point.

 

[Rramjet]

And the quality of the evidence – the physical evidence – is precisely the same for the Loch Ness monster and elephants? For bigfoot and the lowland gorilla? Atlantis and Africa?

You don't reckon a failure to exist might count against the quality of the physical evidence, do you?

I think you may be confusing the standard of evidence required with whether that evidence (in your opinion) does or does not exist.

What I am saying is that the same standard of evidence (physical evidence) is required for the claim “elephants exist” as for the claim “The Loch Ness monster exists”. In either case, the physical evidence will have to be produced. In the case of elephants, it has already been produced so we accept the claim. In the case of the Loch Ness monster, the evidence has not been produced, so we don’t accept the claim.

So if the physical evidence was produced for the Loch Ness monster, it would be of precisely the same standard as that of the physical evidence that was produced for elephants. None of it extraordinary - merely physical evidence that is ordinarily produced for claims of the existence of things.

Partially because nowhere in your response did you acknowledge the idea of "background knowledge," which was the primary idea in my point.

Then I don’t understand your concept of “background knowledge” and you will have to explain it to me.

Merely on the basis of that however, do you intend to continue to ignore the substantial points I made in reply to you and the questions I posed in return?

 

[Wudang]

The other claims however do have more radical consequences. The implications do matter to you in some way – and because they do matter to you, you will require a higher standard of evidence than someone's mere word on it.

So since the existence of life outside this planet carries enormous significance to me I should demand the very highest level of evidence?

 

[RoboTimbo]

In the case of the Loch Ness monster, the evidence has not been produced, so we don’t accept the claim.

Since no evidence has been produced for aliens visiting the Earth, we shouldn't accept that claim either? And once there was evidence of it, say, an alien body, that would be extrarordinary evidence?

Good, glad we have that settled.

 

[Correa Neto]

So since the existence of life outside this planet carries enormous significance to me I should demand the very highest level of evidence?

Oh, no, its actually the opposite. If you like the idea of aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature buzzing around, you should demand the very lowest possible level of evidence. The bar is- if it matches your beliefs, then its good.

 

[Anakritis]

Counterfeiters want you to think that money is money.

Counterfeit money IS money! (until it is removed from the reserves)

 

[Paul2]

Then I don’t understand your concept of “background knowledge” and you will have to explain it to me.

It's defined right in the parenthetical in the post:

the background knowledge of the store story (stores exist, people regularly go to them)

Merely on the basis of that however, do you intend to continue to ignore the substantial points I made in reply to you and the questions I posed in return?

I am long, long past the point at which I care if my end of our conversation is equal and fair in this regard. You have the option of not caring, too. That may not bode well for our continuing a conversation, but that's OK with me, too. Either way is OK.

 

[Rramjet]

It's defined right in the parenthetical in the post:

the background knowledge of the store story (stores exist, people regularly go to them)

Paul, obviously I have no idea what that means in the context of your argument. I answered in the context of what I thought you meant. You rejected that interpretation out of hand. So clearly I do not understand your meaning. I am therefore asking you to please explain to me what it does mean in the context of your argument.

 

[Rramjet]

So since the existence of life outside this planet carries enormous significance to me I should demand the very highest level of evidence?

Yes, of course you should.
(but if you demand "extraordinary evidence" I will of course ask you to define what you mean so that we might know what it is we are being asked to produce).

 

[Wudang]

Evidence of enormous significance.

 

[Paul2]

Paul, obviously I have no idea what that means in the context of your argument. I answered in the context of what I thought you meant. You rejected that interpretation out of hand. So clearly I do not understand your meaning. I am therefore asking you to please explain to me what it does mean in the context of your argument.

Sorry, I was listening to my inner snark too much.

Background knowledge is knowledge that has already been well-establish and which people might take for granted, like the fact that there are stores and that people go to them. Those facts are extraordinarily well-established.

So when we compare what evidence we need to establish that a stranger has gone to the store compared to the stranger being abducted, I can actually see how your formulation - we need as much evidence for one claim versus another - might work but only if we take into account that background knowledge.

The bar is equally high in both cases (store vs. aliens), but we're already standing on the background evidence that stores exist and people go to them, which is an enormous pile of evidence, so that we only need the testimony of a stranger and maybe one other piece of quick and easy evidence to get us over the bar of believing the stranger.

But we don't have that big pile of evidence to stand on with regard to the alien story, so, while the bar is equally high in both cases, we don't have the advantage of the background knowledge (we don't know that aliens exist to anywhere near the surety that we know that stores exist and that people go to them), so the bar is pretty high from where we're standing without that advantage.




we might forget

 

[Akhenaten]

Evidence of enormous significance.

As excellent a definition as any we've seen.

My guess for Rramjet's supercilious raison du jour for rejecting it (as though that counted for anything) will be "Circular!"

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Nah, he'll seize on the subjective nature of "significance." For example, rramjet already believes in aliens, so evidence of aliens is not significant enough to him to prove the existence of aliens.