When someone can offer me an objective division between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" in terms of claims or evidence, I'll accept that that pithy saying has some epistemological validity. Until then, however, I see no reason to use it as a metric for evaluating anything.
Logic and reason are not about pithy sayings; they are about rational thought based on hard, objective facts. Saying such as the above are a crutch, one that should be abandoned. Interpretations and arguments must be supported by evidence and non-contradictory logic; this is true whether a claim is "ordinary" or "extraordinary". Once you accept that, the distinctions lose all importance.
What's extraordinary about it?
People have claimed, in full seriousness and in educated societies, that particles can be in two places at once. People have claimed at least twice that I know of that what we thought were separate species were in fact components of a single entity. I have personally held in my hand the remains of an organism so weird that after a full century of studying them we have only just begun to understand their anatomy, and haven't the faintest grasp of their ecology. A colony of huge bipedal apes, unknown to science, living in Oklahoma is far less radical than ANY of those claims--or many more that are considered routine by today's scientists.
The reason to reject the claim about bigfoot--the only honest one--is that the evidence (the requirements for which are outlined in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) doesn't support it. Declare it extraordinary all you want--that doesn't change a single aspect of the argument, except to introduce an unnecessary emotional element into it.
Never said they weren't. However, you are failing to differentiate between data and evaluations. That they saw something is data. That they saw a large brown shape may also be data (though poor data, due to the subjective nature of both descriptors [look up Munsel's history or blacksmithing advice to see how subjective color can be]). "I saw bigfoot" is an interpretation, NOT evidence.
That has nothing to do with the lack of objective division between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" in terms of evidence or claims. My objection to your "explanations" is that they're Just So Stories--they are plausible-sounding stories you made up that don't contradict anything, but which are completely devoid of supporting data themselves. They are exactly as well-supported as "I saw bigfoot". And thus, they are exactly as wrong.
You seem quite intent on springing some sort of rhetorical trap on me. I'm sorry, but it won't work. I'm not saying that bigfoot sightings are plausible--I have given extensive reasons why they are not, in fact. What I am saying is that your explanations are unevidenced Just So Stories and therefore can--and should--be dismissed without further consideration until such time as you can provide evidence for them. I have used the phrase "Just So Stories" multiple times in this post for a reason: they are a particularly virulent petulance in science, one that any researcher should make themselves well aware of.
The problem is, humans stop looking once we have a plausible answer to a question. And unfortunately, that means that we'll often stop looking well before we discover the truth. If you merely wish to mock and belittle those who disagree with you, that's fine--the actual truth of the matter is irrelevant to such people (and yes, such people even exist within the skeptics community). If you're after the truth, however, such errors are devastating, and are to be avoided if at all possible. Look at the history of our understanding of tetrapod digits to see just how powerful and dangerous Just So Stories are. And you're walking into exactly that same trap--all the while claiming it's in the interest of reason!
~shrug~ If you want to ignore the history of science and the lessons it teaches, go right ahead. I have no respect for anyone who would do that, however. Skepticism is supposed to be about basing one's opinions on the available data--and in this, you are completely abandoning the data in favor of some feel-good fluff, in precisely the same manner as the worst wooster.
My apology for this late reply.
I have two concerns with your comments. First, in the context of cryptozoology, your disuse of the term “extraordinary.” Second, your insistence that skeptical explanations for cryptid sightings, without hard evidence, are versions of “woo.”
I’ll explain my concerns by employing the following example. Look at the famous William Roe sighting, an account that Green and Sanderson relied upon to make their initial case for the existence of the sasquatch, and the account that Daniel Loxton has recently stated was the first “modern” Bigfoot sighting. Here is the sworn affidavit by William Roe for anyone not familiar with it:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/roe.htm
The skeptical response to Roe’s story is that it is “unevidenced” (as you would put it.) Other skeptical rejoinders would note that eyewitness testimony is anecdotal and is a weakened form of evidence because of the possibility of dishonesty; the possibility of misperception or expectant anticipation coloring the event; the fact that eyewitness accounts are rooted in imperfect memory and not like exact videotape replays, etc.
These are good reasons to explain why we are not obliged to accept Roe’s account.
Here comes the rub: are we also obliged NOT to accept Roe’s account? Sure, it is unevidenced. Yes, eyewitness testimony has its faults. But, is there something about Roe’s story specifically that makes it
false? After all, if he came back with a moose sighting story, we would probably believe him, without collaborating evidence.
Someone might say Roe’s story is false because we have no good evidence for such a creature: we have no specimen; we have nothing like it in the North American fossil record; creatures like it have been reported in populated areas where its detection (and capture) would be a virtual certainty; its story seems like folklore, a cultural meme more than a wildlife fact; etc., etc.
The critic is basically saying Roe’s story cannot be true because of the following reasons…. (such as given above.) It follows that IF Roe’s story IS true, then, it is extraordinary because the story ought
not to be true, based on what we know (or think we know) about the world. This is what extraordinary means, at least, in the context of cryptozoology.
You point out that scientific concepts (the idea “that particles can be in two places at once”) or specifically biological questions (what constitutes a “species,“ “weird’” organisms we know exist but that are not fully explicable yet) are more radical concepts, more extraordinary, if you will, than the idea of giant, bipedal, apes, unknown to science, native to Oklahoma. Put that way, you’re right.
But, you say, “The reason to reject the claim about Bigfoot -- the only honest one --is that the evidence (the requirements for which are outlined in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) doesn’t support it.” If the evidence doesn’t support the belief that Bigfoot exist, then the claim it does exist is an extraordinary claim --
if it is true.
So, while I think claims for Bigfoot are extraordinary, I will agree with
The Shrike: “… the evidence required to prove Bigfoot would be decidedly ordinary: a piece of a Bigfoot would be the same standard applied to the description of any species.” And I go along with
Drewbot; “I agree however that we should modify the saying in question to : ‘An Extraordinary Claim requires Ordinary Evidence.’”
What about skeptical explanatory scenarios as “Just So Stories?” By your reckoning, if I argue, as I have, that the Ruby Creek sighting was a bear, then I have created a fiction every bit as erroneous as the sighting itself as a sasquatch account. See somewhere upstream on this thread for the Ruby Creek incident, and here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270486&highlight=bear+bigfoot&page=2
Since we are dealing with reports that are not repeatable, singular, and historical, we should not expect explanations based on hard evidence. By the very nature of sighting stories, the best we can do is offer possible solutions that take into account what we know about eyewitness testimony generally and about the events themselves. If we call every reasoned argument that cannot be proven concretely, Just-So-Stories, then a lot of what we think science supports would vanish (as science itself, it its deeper waters, is more provisional than certain.) And the provisional nature of such skeptical explanations for cryptid sightings separates them from the certitude of “woo-dom.”
If we say that William Roe lied in his affidavit and did not see what he swore he saw, are we really committing a fiction co-equal to Roe’s story itself? As you are on record as saying the existence of Bigfoot is “impossible,” then you discount his affidavit. So, why did he swear to his story? In your view, if you give an explanation at all to that question, are you committing a woefully “wooful” Just So Story, since any explanation would be just as unevidenced as saying he saw a space alien? There is something wrong in that approach, methinks.
This is another difference in my view and yours: you see nothing to explain in Roe’s story. It is false based on the fact that such a large land animal could not exist all this time and not be verified physically and through the fossil record. For you, end of story. Nothing to see here, ladies and gentlemen. For me, the Roe account, like the Ruby Creek story, still needs an explanation, theoretically.
You write, “The problem is, humans stop looking once we have a plausible answer to a question. And unfortunately, that means that we’ll often stop looking well before we discover the truth.” I would submit, with all due respect, that you have it upside down in our dispute. I am the one that thinks cases like Roe and Ruby Creek should be evaluated and explanations, however tentative, should be explored. How does examining Bigfoot (or other cryptids) stories to see what is provisionally plausible or possible in explanation turn into a “stop looking” exercise, while closing the book, because Bigfoot is “impossible,” helps us understand the Bigfoot phenomenon, Bigfoot sightings, and the human element that gives us such phenomena?
