Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the discussion.

[Kuko 4000]

Ok, this has been bugging me a bit lately, and when I again saw it referenced in another thread I thought I'd finally open a new one just for this.

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

I wonder what people mean by this.

The way I see it, is that extraordinary claims require just the same amount of evidence to reach the same status than anything else. No more and no less. It's just the nature of the evidence that I would consider / require to be extraordinary not the quantity or the quality of it. And so, it seems almost trivial to include "extraordinary" to the latter part of the phrase. Of course, I recognize the aesthetics in a phrase like that (and who better to popularise it than Carl Sagan), and I like it, but sometimes the use of the phrase puzzles me.

Example #1.

Richard Wiseman.

The article that this quote is from is, in my opinion, full of crap, but anyways:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510762/Could-proof-theory-ALL-psychic.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced:[24]

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (...) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence." Richard Wiseman Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28-29

I just don't find Wiseman's position convincing. A short while ago I had a brief e-mail discussion with Richard and asked him to clarify a couple of comments from the above article that I found difficult to understand (suspecting that he might've been slightly misrepresented):

"..he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science.."

+

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven.."

But he was pretty clear that he agreed with those quotes and replied:

yes, i pretty much stand by that comment. of course, i also buy into the notion that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', so am not convinced by the existing database.
hope that makes sense

And to my further questions:

yes, it is different standards for different types of claims
so, a normal scientific claims requires a certain level of proof, but a paranormal one requires a higher level

I was a bit surprised by this, and then again asked for some studies that could convince me of all this and his reply was:

most of psychology!

At which point I didn't see it appropriate to keep asking the same questions again and again.

Now, this is the kind of use of the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" that I don't understand. Maybe someone here would like to share their knowledge and insights to the issue. I would also like to hear your thoughts about Richard's comments about remote viewing. I found them very surprising, not the conclusion that he is not convinced by the evidence base, but everything else. Thanks for all the help.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Suppose I'm testing a fairly plausible claim, like "people with highly symmetrical faces are more likely than average to be dating people who have highly symmetrical faces", and I get some data in which, when analyzed, shows that there is a correlation with would only have a 5% chance of arising from random chance. In scientific shorthand that's p=0.05, which is good enough for publication.

I could then go around saying "my research has confirmed that people with highly symmetrical faces are more likely than average to be dating people who have highly symmetrical faces". (I would not use the word "proven" however, I'd say confirmed. You never really get to prove things in science).

However if I was studying a really loopy hypothesis, like "people with red hair are accursed" or "I can make goats get sick and die by staring at them and wiggling my eyebrows", even if I got a p=0.05 result I wouldn't think I'd proven my hypothesis. Given that everything we know about the universe says that my hypotheses are bollocks, I'd tend to think that my result was almost certainly a fluke.

Only if lots more, really tightly controlled tests all supported these crazy hypotheses would I start to think they might actually be true. Even though the statistical strength of the evidence is the same in both cases, in the loopy case I am much more inclined to think that I'm looking at a statistical aberration rather than a genuine effect.

I'm guessing that's what Richard was trying to express.

 

[fls]

It may be that he was referring to something like prior plausibility. If prior plausibility is low, then a positive study is much more likely to be a false positive than a true positive (like 1000 to 1). But if the prior plausibility is high, then a positive study is less likely to be a false positive than a true positive (like 1 to 18).

Table 4 in this paper gives examples of how this can vary.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Linda

 

[Dancing David]

I feel that evidence is good enough, the uestion is always, does the evidence show what they are claiming.

Often there will be a statement 'there is an effect' , when in fact there is not. Many 'effects' do not rise above the level of statistical noise.

 

[Paul2]

I consider the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to merely mean that an extraordinary claim, being one that is opposed to a claim that has excellent evidence, requires sufficient (in this case, a whole lot, or an extraordinary amount or quality) evidence to be able to counter the great mass and weight of evidence already existing for the claim opposed to the extraordinary one.


order to counter the great weight of evidence that a widely accepted claim has (which would be the opposite of an extraordinary claim

 

[Sherman Bay]

Wiseman is being much too kind, and I think he should be ashamed of his statement. Remote viewing hasn't been proved by any reasonable scientific standard and cannot be replicated if the proper controls are in place.

With regard to the OP...let's say you tell me you own a red car. That is entirely possible. Red cars exist and people buy and own them. I don't need much proof, and although you might be lying, you aren't trying to convince me of something unusual or unlikely.

But if you tell me that an alien spacecraft landed in your back yard and you took a ride to Venus for lunch, I have a right to ask for more proof than just your claim. If it is true, it would rock our knowledge to a significant degree, and I have the right to disbelieve you until stronger evidence is available.

So extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Well, from the LE and Engineering background, let me just share this from my own experiences so lets break it down for analysis.

Back when I was in training, heres how "evidence" was broken down for us to learn what mattered in building a case and even tho it wasnt stated in this manner in college- the theory is pretty much the same.

A claim, in and of itself is either true or false. ( in the most literal sense, its one or the other) thus a claim has a potential value of 1 or -1 ( cant exceed 100% of anything)

Zero is in the middle and is basically null. ( it neither confirms or refutes)

Evidence is defined as something tangible that can be physically examined. ( Testimony is not evidence in this sense)

So, evidence is generic. There are 2 basic tests for evidence.
1) is the evidence itself true or false ( is it live or memorex)
2) can the evidence support or refute the fact ( incident) it is being used for.

Evidence can be both,either or neither of the above.

For example, lets use the PGF ( bigfoot film)

Its a 100% fact that the PGF is a real film with a film subject walking so the film is "true"

The next question is- does it or can it "prove" the film subject is a real live bigfoot.

If it could, then the fact being tested ( is BF real) would be brought to fruition and thus the fact is true ( 100%- case closed) but if it was proven false ( -1- absolute proof that the film subject was not a real BF) then it would also bring it to fruition, just negative. BUT if it was proven the film was false, that "fact" cannot be used against the global fact which is "does/did BF ever actually exist?" because the evidence doesnt address the fact being desired because its 100% possible that BF could be 100% real and the film be 100% fake. Theres no way to scientifically link the 2 except to prove the film subject is a real BF and thats not possible based on the film itself.

If it cannot, then which way can it go ( confirm or refute) or can it do neither ( have a zero value)

So, then its a matter of the weight of said evidence ( which is somewhat subjective)

For another example, I have a suspect with a 9mm and a victim with a 9mm bullet extracted. The bullet was too damaged to perform ballistics on.

Cant "prove" that weapon fired that particular round but the evidence supports it COULD have based on other bits of evidence.

Its also important to remember that people innocently but often want to use LEGAL definitions of evidence in a scientific case.

Law and science are LIGHT YEARS apart. A court bases its decision on what a person BELIEVES ( the right of the jury) and that person may not even have knowledge of the quality of "evidence". If courts were held to scientific standards- a conviction would be rarer than legitimate bigfoot evidence.

Conversely, science CANNOT operate to a legal standard because it would cease to function. ( many people "believed" the Titanic was unsinkable so run thru the ice field at flank speed- the results speak for themselves)

 

[MattusMaximus]

The way I see it, when addressing the criterion of "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence", you have to put it in a broader perspective. By this I mean that the claim cannot exist in a vacuum; there must be some relation to natural law in order for it to be examined scientifically. And, based upon what we understand about those natural laws, the claim can be placed into a certain hierarchy.

For example, does your claim violate the known laws of physics or go against the evidence on a particular topic which has been accumulated for decades? If you're claiming to be able to levitate yourself using only your mind, that's pretty damned extraordinary, so convincing the scientific community of the validity of your claim would, and should, require quite extraordinary evidence. That would be appropriate if you're proposing some paradigm-shifting claim which would upset our understanding of the universe.

If, however, your claim were something much more mundane, such as "a bird flew into the side of my house", then I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would really challenge the claim.

I know these are some extreme examples, but they illustrate my basic point: not all claims are given equal standing, for good reason.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I tend to agree but I see the issue a little differently.

Skepticism can be ( and has been in cases) as much of a problem as pure "belief" in the way they handle themseles. Both can be close minded to the extreme and base their logic on their core belief. Both often get bogged down in the show me proof argument ( cant prove it is- cant prove it isnt)

I think the first problem is "extraordinary"

Until one defines "ordinary" and establishes a boundary- there is no true basis to say something is "extraordinary"- they are both subjective the same way hot/cold or long/short is.

I would suggest to drill it down to the basics.

Make your claim ( whatever it is) then build a case for it. ( or against it)

The supporting evidence is still going to fall into 3 categories, you will still build a case of probability ( absolutes are rare) based on preponderance of valid evidence.

But, the benefit is- you dont get bogged down arguing semantics and trying to decide what "is" is- you can devote the energy to the problem

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

This is how "ECREE" should be understood: when someone tells you about something as amazing, incredible and unbelievable as, for instance, alleged psychic powers, an anecdote about a reading their friend or mother had or a story about how the alleged psychic solved a murder isn't "evidence".

When someone tells you about a claim like astrology (which would be mindboggling if true), a claim of an astrologer predicting bad weather or a life event like a wedding or birth isn't good enough.

You need some big evidence for that. Some really astonishing results. "She said she had a bad marriage that ended in an ugly divorce and she did!" doesn't cut it. "He knew it would snow!" isn't amazing enough.

 

[Erigena]

I agree with your observation. It is acceptable to believe that the method used to determine the validity of such a claim is accurate, but that the results are skewed. Therefore more rigid testing is required to confirm the accuracy of the results themselves.

 

[fls]

Until one defines "ordinary" and establishes a boundary- there is no true basis to say something is "extraordinary"- they are both subjective the same way hot/cold or long/short is.

That's why it seems to make more sense not to refer to ordinary or extraordinary, but merely establish some sort of prior plausibility (i.e. continuous rather than categorical).

Linda

 

[MattusMaximus]

That's why it seems to make more sense not to refer to ordinary or extraordinary, but merely establish some sort of prior plausibility (i.e. continuous rather than categorical).

Linda

Good point, Linda. I suppose this is what I was getting at in my post above.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm with LONGTABBER PE on this one. What's "extraordinary"? To some Christians, a miracle is "ordinary". I once saw a woman in a wheelchair stand up and walk around after a guy prayed at her. Was that "extraordinary"?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

In this issue, to me Extraordinary = something that, if true, would revolutionize our present knowledge, or would oblige to change/revise/reformulate the laws of nature.

For example, the facts that light trajectory is affected by strong gravitational fields or that the passing of time is dependable on speed, were extraordinary claims in Einstein's time. Scientists were skeptical, naturally, and asked for the extraordinary evidence. They found it.

 

[Tapio]

It's just the nature of the evidence that I would consider / require to be extraordinary not the quantity or the quality of it.

Maybe it's just semantics (probably is), but in order to understand your question (and the phrase) better I'd ask for you to elaborate on this a bit. The relationship between "nature" and "quality". How can something, ie. evidence, be of extraordinary nature without it being of extraordinary quality?

Can you give an example? Or is my question just completely irrelevant? Thanks.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Carl Sagan explains the phrase:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/carlsagan.html

I personally have been captured by the notion of extraterrestrial life, and especially extraterrestrial intelligence from childhood. It swept me up, and I've been involved in sending space craft to nearby planets to look for life and in the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence...

It would be an absolutely transforming event in human history. But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false, that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence. Precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful. There have been a few instances in the [past]. We thought we found something, and it always turned out to be explicable.

That's it, basically. That and my sig.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

most of psychology!

This was, I assume, the answer to Kuko's question asking for details regarding how science had already proven remote viewing. To me it seems like a very inadequate answer. And I don't see how "most of psychology" has proven remote viewing as I thought psychology deals "mostly" with other things other than remote viewing? It is such a peculiar style of answer to such an important question, and I do hope he was in a hurry and had other things on his mind when he wrote that.

Since Dr. Wiseman has come across proof, even if not "extraordinary", of remote viewing I do wish he would realize the value of writing some article about this and sharing it with the world, and then referencing inquirers such as Kuko to these reports. I do wish he would share.

 

[Ashles]

I was a bit surprised by this, and then again asked for some studies that could convince me of all this and his reply was:

Quote:
most of psychology!

That's a pretty damn poor response.

"Most of psychology" provides evidence for remote viewing?

If he couldn't be bothered to give a proper answer I don't know why he bothered responding.

Is he no longer a scientist and just a TV personality? Does he want to water down his answers to ensure he doesn't annoy anyone and thus keep getting the higher paying gigs?
That's very disappointing.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

And Dr. Wiseman just broke his own rule: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" by providing absolutely no evidence for his extraordinary claim that science had already proven remote viewing. I am so disappointed. I just hope he was very busy and preoccupied when he wrote his reply. Surely he can do better. So I'll still have faith in him as a great debunking Skeptic.

You guys don't think he can remote view, do you? What if he can? Oh no! He'll be watching me Ashles all day!

ETA b/c of this: Geez, I'm talking about Ashles. Let's start another thread where we talk about Ashles. It's all about Ashles, who posted something identical to what I just said right after I said it. Let's start another thread where Ashles posts things that other people just said.