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

Buddha is back!

In this case, can anyone explain how the old favourite: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' works here?

These people have made some extraordinary claims, but do I require extraordinary amounts of evidence, or just evidence that is extraordinary in a subjective manner (For example, going 'Wow!' when presented with it)?

Is the correct (yet not very sexy) phrase 'Extraordinary claims require ordinary amounts of extraordinary evidence'? When someone says a deer has appeared in my garden, and shows a photo of a deer, I regard that as sound evidence and accept it. Yet if someone says an Alien appeared in my garden and backs it up with a photo, I regard that as not enough evidence. Isn't it unscientific to demand more evidence in order to establish it as correct, simply because my mind cannot accept something like that?
 
Last edited:
Isn't it unscientific to demand more evidence in order to establish it as correct, simply because my mind cannot accept something like that?

Good question. I don't honestly know the answer to that question but I would want to see evidence that he really does not eat or drink - in the form of a demonstration.
 

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