• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
So can you provide a definition of “extraordinary evidence” that would allow us to make sense of ECREE?
Click to expand...

extraordinary adj.

a : going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary <extraordinary powers>
b : exceptional to a very marked extent <extraordinary beauty>
Click to expand...

evidence n.

a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
Click to expand...


Pretty self-explanatory, really.

If you make claims that are exceptional to a very marked extent, then you must provide something that furnishes proof of those claims that is also exceptional to a very marked extent.

In other words, the ordinary claim, "I just ate a sandwich" might be adequately proven by producing the ordinary evidence of a plate with a few fresh bread crumbs, along with some empty wrappers from cold cuts and cheese. Of course we're all familiar with sandwiches, so the possibility of somebody eating one is in no way out of the ordinary. But for the claim, "I just took a ride on a flying saucer," you'll have to provide something more conclusive than, say, just your word-of-mouth and some flattened-down weeds in a field somewhere. Because that claim is exceptional to a very marked extent, the proof you provide must also be exceptional to a very marked extent, like for instance a piece of ET tech stolen off the flying saucer, or fingernail scrapings containing ET protoplasm.
 
Last edited:
Ordinary claim: "There's a shed at the bottom of my garden"

Evidence required: Minimal

Extraordinary claim: "There are fairies at the bottom of my garden"

Evidence required: A captured fairy to examine in a laboratory
 
John Albert said:
Pretty self-explanatory, really.

If you make claims that are exceptional to a very marked extent, then you must provide something that furnishes proof of those claims that is also exceptional to a very marked extent
Click to expand...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (ECREE).

So that would then be:

claims that are exceptional to a very marked extent require evidence that is exceptional to a very marked extent.

Can you define for us what exceptional to a very marked extent evidence is?

I have been contending all along that if we cannot come up with an adequate definition of extraordinary evidence that makes sense of ECREE, then ECREE is nonsense.

I have yet to see that definition. ECREE remains nonsense.
 
Rramjet said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (ECREE).
Click to expand...

That's a good start
Rramjet said:
So that would then be:

claims that are exceptional to a very marked extent require evidence that is exceptional to a very marked extent.

Can you define for us what exceptional to a very marked extent evidence is?
Click to expand...

Yes any evidence that would retract all evidence to the contrary

Rramjet said:
I have been contending all along that if we cannot come up with an adequate definition of extraordinary evidence that makes sense of ECREE, then ECREE is nonsense.
Click to expand...

If had an open mind and wasn't driven by an agenda you would have read this thread and if wasn't sure or didn't think that ECREE made sense you would have changed your mind but that's a normal person not you.

Rramjet said:
I have yet to see that definition. ECREE remains nonsense.
Click to expand...

There has been and you're a liar with an agenda that thinks semantics will make aliens real. Keep wishing tho It's funny in a pathetic kind of way.
 
A wheat field trampled into a geometric shape.

A flying saucer lands on the White House lawn and unloads a 9' silver creature that atomizes tanks with a laser.

Which is exceptional evidence for alien life?

Alternatively what Pixel42 said.
 
Rramjet said:
I have been contending all along that if we cannot come up with an adequate definition of extraordinary evidence that makes sense of ECREE, then ECREE is nonsense.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it's this ridiculous and unsupportable contention that lies at the bottom of all your problems. Why do you continue with it?


Rramjet said:
I have yet to see that definition. ECREE remains nonsense.
Click to expand...


How fortunate for the common good that demonstrating things to your satisfaction isn't even on the list of things required to demonstrate the sense of something, let alone in a position of prominence.
 
I thought we'd covered all that. You said the important thing is whether the claim matters to me, which is self-evidently a subjective matter. So if I regard a claim as extraordinary then I am right to demand evidence that I regard as extraordinary, no?
 
Good point. In other words, Rramjet:

Why should anyone be held hostage to your foolishly low standards of evidence for extraordinary claims?


You've never answered that. Until you do, your arguments are nonsense.

As Sagan so rightly said and it still applies, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
 
Rramjet said:
I have been contending all along that if we cannot come up with an adequate definition of extraordinary evidence that makes sense of ECREE, then ECREE is nonsense.

I have yet to see that definition. ECREE remains nonsense.
Click to expand...


The definition has been presented many, many times in many different wordings throughout the 111 pages of this thread, yet you claim not to have "seen" it.

Are you reading the thread with your eyes closed? Have you been ignoring the substance of the actual posts, or have you just stopped reading each one right at the point where the definitions are presented? Or are you simply lying to avoid serious discussion and perpetuate the debate for no reason other than to continue bickering over trivialities (a deliberately obtuse approach that many would consider trolling)?

If, on the other hand, your use of the phrase "I have yet to see," is meant to imply that the definitions that have been presented are inadequate in your opinion, then why don't you just come out and say that? Why put on this pretentious charade as if all the other posters in this thread have not presented any arguments at all?

Do you understand what I'm talking about? Those kinds of debating tactics are a big part of the reason why you catch so much mockery around here.


Anyway, here's my breakdown of the whole ECREE thing:

  • By "extraordinary claims," Dr. Sagan obviously meant paradigm-shifting assertions that, if true, would significantly alter our general understanding of the Universe.

  • Sagan specifically posited the scenario of ET visitation as an example, which I wholeheartedly agree would be a major turning point for the entirety of life on Earth.

  • Belief must be balanced against the available evidence. The more conclusive and positive the evidence, the more reasonable is the belief. The less positive and conclusive the evidence, the less reasonable is the belief. This is basic logic. No matter how many negatives you pile up, that does not equal proof for an arbitrary positive.

    Even if you were able to prove that x≠(1, 2, 3, 4) that offers nothing in the way of proof that x=999.

  • All evidence is not equal. This is not debatable. Some evidence is definitely more conclusive than other evidence; some is testable, verifiable and falsifiable, whereas other evidence is not. Evidence that is not testable, verifiable or falsifiable is useless for determining anything for certain.

  • By "extraordinary evidence," Dr. Sagan specified material evidence—an extraterrestrial body, piece of otherworldly technology like a raygun or the like—that can be objectively analyzed and confirmed to be of non-Earthly origin.

  • Obviously, mere word-of-mouth or easily-hoaxed or misinterpreted forms of "evidence" barely meet the basic criteria for evidence in the first place, so those can be disqualified right off the bat from being considered as "extraordinary."

  • The "extraordinary" characteristic of such evidence might be construed to mean the evidence is extraordinarily conclusive or convincing, or that the item(s) themselves are extraordinary by their own otherworldly nature (ie. something never encountered before on planet Earth), or both meanings.

ECREE makes perfect sense to me. It's just a basic premise of critical thinking.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
Extraordinary claim: "There are fairies at the bottom of my garden"

Evidence required: A captured fairy to examine in a laboratory
Click to expand...


Well ... not exactly.

One could find tiny footprints, molted wings, bones, etc.

All of these would qualify as evidence of fairies.

But I think people are getting too hung up on what was really a rhetorical flourish.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... is sufficient.
 
citizenzen said:
Well ... not exactly.

One could find tiny footprints, molted wings, bones, etc.

All of these would qualify as evidence of fairies.

But I think people are getting too hung up on what was really a rhetorical flourish.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... is sufficient.
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sagan was referring to the fact that credulous people were relying on the lowest forms of evidence to validate their beliefs in extraordinary things (UFOs as alien spaceships).

The lowest forms were easily hoaxed photos and unfalsifiable anecdotes.

"Claims require evidence" is clearly ... insufficient, as this thread is testament to.

The things you referred to, tiny wings, footprints, bones, etc. are also evidence of moths, hoaxes, mundane animals, etc. So while it may be semantically correct to say they are evidence of fairies, it would also be correct to say they are evidence for an unlimited number of other things, rendering the phrase meaningless.
 
Rramje said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (ECREE).

Precisely what is "extraordinary evidence"? Evidence is evidence. You either have it or you do not. Until anyone can actually define "extraordinary evidence" - and critically, provide an example of it - the phrase will remain nonsensical.

Of course the phrase has a certain emotional appeal, but such an appeal has no place in critical thinking, logic, or scientific discussion.
Click to expand...
.

1) Suppose a discovery is announced and it is not consistent with previously-accepted science. That would be an example of an extraordinary claim to me.

2) Suppose a discovery is announced and it is consistent with previously-accepted science. That would be an example of an ordinary claim to me.

3) I am a physicists. Suppose I decide to perform experiments to verify validity of Claim 1. That would be a case in which the extraordinary evidence is needed. Not only would I be looking into possible errors made by the first discoverer (that would be sufficient for Claim 2); I would also examine evidence on which previously-accepted science was based.

===============================
Breach of rule 6 removed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom