Polycarp

When discussing many of the issues in this forum, there is a statement wielded by many skeptics as an argument against the claims of theists/Christians. The statement to which I refer is, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

What EXACTLY is meant by this statement? By this, I mean how is a claim determined to be “extraordinary” and what qualifies evidence as being “extraordinary”?

I’ll do my best to keep this thread on topic.

CX

This phrase was originally coined by Carl Sagan, I think. It is a fundamental principle of critical thinking. A critical thinker apportions belief in a proposition according to the nature of the proposition itself and the evidence. If you say you had corn flakes for breakfast I am not inclined to require much in the way of evidence. If on the other hand you claim that a man was executed 2000 years ago and resurrected from the dead I am apt to require substantially more evidence.

I would say I define as extraordinary any claims which contravene what we currently know about the operation of the universe. I would define as extraodinary evidence, that evidence which admits to no alternative conclusions and which is independently confirmable and or repeatable.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by CX: This phrase was originally coined by Carl Sagan, I think. It is a fundamental principle of critical thinking. A critical thinker apportions belief in a proposition according to the nature of the proposition itself and the evidence. If you say you had corn flakes for breakfast I am not inclined to require much in the way of evidence. If on the other hand you claim that a man was executed 2000 years ago and resurrected from the dead I am apt to require substantially more evidence. I would say I define as extraordinary any claims which contravene what we currently know about the operation of the universe. I would define as extraodinary evidence, that evidence which admits to no alternative conclusions and which is independently confirmable and or repeatable.

Let’s work with this, because I think you’ve phrased it in a succinct way and in one that most other skeptics will probably find agreement. Dissenters can voice their disagreements with CX.

Did you read my kangaroo analogy in another thread last week? I spoke of Europeans who had traveled to Australia in the 16th & 17th centuries. Upon their return to Europe, they spoke of creatures having the head of a deer, standing as tall as a human, and hopping like a frog. Needless to say, many Europeans refused to believe these travelers. Hallucinations, deceit, and honestly mistaken were all used to describe the “believers in kangaroos”.

Now, based on your definitions, only the people who actually traveled to Australia would be justified in believing in the existence of kangaroos. Can we agree on this?

As I stated in that thread, I believe very few skeptics here would have believed in kangaroos had they lived in 16th century Europe. This would be the case even if people claimed to have seen a kangaroo in Australia. Would you also agree with this?

Anyone can feel free to answer these questions.

CX

Here's the problem with your Kangaroo analogy. Despite being rather unusual a kangaroo like animal discovered in the 16th century would not in any sense contravene known laws. Furthermore the claim is easily verifiable since a 16th century European could theoretically go to Australia and see for him or her self. Likewise a representative of said animal could be brought back to 16th Europe as proof. Thus those claims are on a wholly different level than the claims of the Xian NT.

Wizardry

Nope. Even if I, as a 16th and 17th century European, had not actually seen a kangaroo myself, I could be perfectly justified in believing they exist on the basis of eyewitness testimony.

Europeans of this period would have been familiar with exotic wildlife on other continents (giraffes in Africa, for example), so they would already know that unusual animals can exist in other parts of the world. Also, the description of these kangaroos doesn't involve any special powers (the ability to fly without wings, for example), so it wouldn't involve the adoption of any radical premises in order to accept the conclusion.

The existence of kangaroos is not a particularly extraordinary claim, and depending on the circumstances, eyewitness testimony might be entirely appropriate.

It depends. If, after two centuries of expeditions, the only evidence for the existence of kangaroos was sightings by visitors, I might not be so quick to accept their claims. At some point, there needs to be a habeas corpus.

If I may, I would like to address the point I think you are about to make, namely that since people were (perhaps rightly) skeptical of the existence of kangaroos despite the factual existence of kangaroos that it might be acceptable to accept supernatural claims on similarly scant evidence.

I heartily disagree. Without proper evidence, there is no way to separate the kangaroos from the Bigfoots, no way to separate fact from wishful thinking.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by CX: Here's the problem with your Kangaroo analogy. Despite being rather unusual a kangaroo like animal discovered in the 16th century would not in any sense contravene known laws. Furthermore the claim is easily verifiable since a 16th century European could theoretically go to Australia and see for him or her self. Likewise a representative of said animal could be brought back to 16th Europe as proof. Thus those claims are on a wholly different level than the claims of the Xian NT.

Whoever said anything about the NT? I'm trying to demonstrate that by using your criteria, most 16th century skeptics would not believe in the existence of kangaroos.

You seem to be saying that believing in kangaroos would only be justified by traveling to Australia, but surely kangaroos exist whether a skeptic travels to Australia to confirm it for themselves.

It seems as though you are saying my kangaroo analogy does not constitute an extraordinary claim. Is this true? Otherwise, if it is an extraordinary claim, then it would seem that belief in kangaroos would only be justified by seeing kangaroos for oneself.

Kosh

Quit playing games, Polycarp. You posted this in the bib crit forum, and we know damn well what you're trying to sneak up on.

Your arguments are pathetic. Time for you to do some more studying.

That's true, he's right. It is NOT an extraordinary claim.

Family Man

In my view, your kangaroo analogy supports the skeptical viewpoint very well. A 16th century skeptic would have been perfectly justified in questioning the existence of an animal that was quite unlike anything they had known before (more on that later). However, they would have had to abandon their skepticism when solid evidence is put before them (i.e. a real, live specimen).

The reason theists dislike this claim is that they can't do what the Australian adventurers did so many centuries ago: provide an airtight case that what they say is true.

Having said that, I have to agree with others on this thread that the kangaroo claim would not be al l that extraordinary. They certainly knew that elephants and other unusual animals existed; why not kangaroos?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizardry: If I may, I would like to address the point I think you are about to make, namely that since people were (perhaps rightly) skeptical of the existence of kangaroos despite the factual existence of kangaroos that it might be acceptable to accept supernatural claims on similarly scant evidence. I heartily disagree. Without proper evidence, there is no way to separate the kangaroos from the Bigfoots, no way to separate fact from wishful thinking.

Help me to simplify your argument.

Does the kangaroo analogy constitute an extraordinary claim?

If it does not, then no extraordinary evidence is required. In addition, we would also have to conclude that the claim that Bigfoot exists is also not an extraordinary claim since the two scenarios are identical (belief or unbelief based on the claims of alleged eyewitnesses).

If the kangaroo analogy does constitute an extraordinary claim, then belief in kangaroos (in the 16th century) would only be justified if one were to see a kangaroo firsthand.

We can’t use 400+ years of hindsight to say, “Well, we now know that kangaroos exist.” We have to entirely transfer ourselves into the hypothetical scenario.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh: Quit playing games, Polycarp. You posted this in the bib crit forum, and we know damn well what you're trying to sneak up on. Your arguments are pathetic. Time for you to do some more studying.

If my arguments are pathetic, then don’t waste your time responding to them. Or do you enjoy wasting your time ?