Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лис 2023
- Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But is he right?
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
RESOURCES
(1) Original video: • These 54 mistakes are ...
(2) Resource Document from that video: docs.google.com/document/d/1S...
(3) My Springer book: (a) www.amazon.com/Existential-In... (b) link.springer.com/book/10.100...
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uN...
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/josep...
Basically, all claims require "sufficient evidence". What is sufficient depends on the perceived likelihood of the claim.
I agree.
Very well put
What about a claim that says there is an exterior reality outside the consciousness.
So, in other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
I kinda like putting it as something like "The claim and the evidence should equalize eachother". If the claim is too big, then the evidence will need to be too big. If the evidence is too big, your claim might be rather undetailed.
Thanks for the short and sweet video, Joe! Super great.
It's basically uncharitably interpreting the claim, which is worded sloppily, because it's unclear in what sense the evidence is understood to be extraordinary. Though that same sloppy phrasing is probably why the claim has caught on as a zinger.
Extraordinary claims means something that doesn't fit into our prior knowledge. Evidence would be demonstration of that claim.
@@ThatisnotHair If you're going that deep with "prior knowledge" then you don't know what credences are to assign any probabilities or update at all - and I agree it is all just a fiction we use to justify idealised rationality
It is in part a figure of speech. It is basically identical to another, similar saying: "Desperate people do desperate things". But I am not aware of anyone ever nitpicking that one.
If I claimed I had a fire-breathing dragon in my garage, that would be pretty extraordinary, but if I showed it to a skeptic face-to-face he would most definitely believe (once all other variables and probabilities are ruled out), but is that extraordinary evidence? Doesn't seem so to me, it just feels like regular evidence, which would have worked for any other ordinary claims but it does work.
Ok but if you just say you can hear it through the wall or you saw an imagine on the internet. That would also be ordinary evidence but clearly would not convince a reasonable person
Right, I think it all depends on how we're using 'extraordinary'. As I suggest in the video, so long as we understand 'extraordinary evidence' as evidence that raises the probability of an initially unlikely hypothesis to a sufficient degree (i.e., a degree that renders the hypothesis belief-worthy), then that evidence you mention *just is* extraordinary evidence 🙂
It is extraordinary in that you are providing a dragon face to face. How is that not extraordinary?
Extraordinary is meant in the sense "very strong" - you might say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary[ily strong] evidence. Not that the evidence should be magic or floating or something.
@@BigIdeaSeeker What would be the extraordinary evidence for, say, the resurrection of Jesus? I don’t think Christians are dumb enough to think they are worshipping a miracle for which the laws of logic can't let us defend
It also seems like there is another reason to require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims: Being wrong about a mundane claim is not likely to cause too much trouble for anyone but being wrong about an extraordinary claim could be world-altering.
The problem with the statement is that what counts as "extraordinary" is relative to the speaker. It's also relative to the culture and to history. UFOs, which were once considered an amusing fantasy, are now taken seriously, despite there being really no substantial or "extraordinary" evidence.
Yes, but It is in part a figure of speech. It is basically identical to another, similar saying: "Desperate people do desperate things". But I am not aware of anyone ever nitpicking that one.
this might be his longest video yet
Perfect video, very well explained and defended! And I would need extraordinary evidence indeed to change my mind on that.
Love the Simplicity!
What about a claim that says there is an exterior reality outside of the human consciousness?
Short, sweet and reasonable. Thanks for once again correcting the internet Joe!
Thanks Scott😁❤️
If an extraordinary claim is the one with low initial probability, then it seems that extraordinary evidence is not necessary. It would be sufficient to provide a lot of ordinary evidence (evidence, which increases the probability by a small amount).
Good observation - as I’m using ‘extraordinary evidence’, providing an array of ordinary (probabilistically weak) evidence *just amounts* to providing extraordinary evidence, ie, data that sufficiently raise the probability of the hypothesis to make the hypothesis believable🙂
This is an example where the definition of extraordinary is quite ambiguous. It seems that one could say that the totality of the evidence is extraordinary.
@@blamtasticfulI think here extraordinary means shocking or unusual. A fact that would shock your opposers. Just imagine presenting a dead organic body of an alien. That would completely blow the minds of UFO denier.
Same way Jesus used to treat lepers to prove his divinity. Something that people thought was impossible until then. It's the shock or novelity factor that moves people.
Well, given the solution of the *"Linda Problem/conjunction fallacy" ["Quickie: The Linda Problem"* by Shane Killian ( ua-cam.com/video/lAo3feLRK_8/v-deo.htmlsi=sPaVeJE0-sXE_--x )] the probability of the conjunction of a lot of evidence is lower - more extraordinary - than the probability of each single evidence from that conjunction.
So in that sense one might steel man or specify more the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." into the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary conjunctions.".
Lets see, how about fine tuning ? Its that count extraordinary evidence?
Can you give us an example for an " extra ordinary" claim?
Anything that Atheists, and those who follow Scientism, don't want to admit is true.
I just want see the alien/ET for myself - the actual creature. Some people might feel that to be an uneasonable demand, not just extraordinary - but the subjective requirement is just a personal judgment
How a single man (you) seeing an ET would count as extra ordinary evidence. Isn't ETs even extra ordinary claim with a universe with over 6 sextillion systems? Seems more extra ordinary to say we are the only people in the cosmos.
"It's not going to bite you" haha !
This is one of the most concise and obviously correct points you've made, Joe. I have a suggestion: It'd be cool to make a major contribution to critical thinking and intro to logic courses, a kind of updated "principles of reasoning or "informal fallacy" list that includes this and many of the other mistakes you highlight, and that goes over many common *misuses* of informal fallacies. I dunno. An open source textbook, a paper or two, some blog entries....some way of circulating this kind of stuff out there.
Too many textbooks include the same boring old list of things like "slippery slope" and "ad hominem," and I haven't seen anyone collate and clearly describe lots of the ACTUAL mistakes people make.
Btw, did THIS one make it onto your list: "You can't compare X to Y!" Often people make this claim when you compare two things that are very different or have major salient similarities or differences that are unrelated to the similarity or difference relevant to your comparison. It's extremely common, and a very serious mistake. More generally, people struggle a lot with comparisons, often completely missing the point of analogies, comparisons, and so on. I think this is worth attention from both philosophers and psychologists.
Thanks, Lance :)
You're spot on: *so many* of these common mistakes, common misuses of fallacies, etc. are ignored in almost all critical thinking/logic/philosophy textbooks. And it would be nice to write an open source textbook compiling *genuine* mistakes people frequently make about all this stuff. (If only I had more time...)
And YES, that one made the list!! See 1:55:41 (Mistake #32) of part 1 of the series:
ua-cam.com/video/ThHsjYx-oEs/v-deo.htmlsi=02zneplSdnqXC92_
@@MajestyofReason Nice. Well, if you or anyone else starts working on that book, let me know. I'd be happy to throw in a few contributions.
@@lanceindependent interestingly, if I don’t end up getting a tenured job in philosophy (which is not improbable, given how atrocious the philosophy job market is), I plan to work on projects exactly like this - eg, open access textbooks about critical thinking (covering mistakes that really matter and that are really made frequently)
@@MajestyofReason In that case, since I think such textbooks are really important, then I wish you the worst and hope you don't get a job!
(I'm kidding! I hope you get exactly the job you want.)
@@lanceindependent A textbook? classic appeal to authority fallacy
What do you think about transcendental argument? Are you familiar with Jay Dyer?
darth is more popular than dyer
@@Contagious93812 well Jay seems more informed and more intelligent.
@@bilal535 darth vs dyer needs to happen
Well, I never thought I'd see people willing to get slammed on a mat full of thumbtacks, but I was proven wrong there. Many times. Reality is strange.
the question is , how much evidence that considered extraordinary evidence ?
Of course, assigning prior probabilities is its own kind of beast.
I think extraordinary is about novelty and uniqueness. Demonstration of something that no one has seen before and only expected under your hypothesis. Opposite of ordinary, which is something that ussualy seen before and no one is shocked of it.
The slogan turns on the ambiguity of the second use of 'extraordinary' as force of evidence or quantity of evidence. It's mostly used to shut down argumentation not encourage it.
Some extraordinary claims are just fine with ordinary evidence. Trinidad just beat Brazil 11-1 in the World Cup! My evidence for this astonishing claim? The sports page which just reports the score without any extra investigation or diligence though the score is so shocking.
How extraordinary is the claim though? And how unextrordinary I'd the evidence? Given the popularity of the sport the news reporting the score is incredibly convincing evidence.
It all depends on how we're using 'extraordinary'. As I point out in the video, so long as we understand 'extraordinary evidence' as evidence that raises the probability of an initially unlikely hypothesis to a sufficient degree (i.e., a degree that renders the hypothesis belief-worthy), then that evidence you mention just is extraordinary evidence 🙂
Maybe it depends on the sports page (and that it’s not April 😅). If the score was published in “the onion”, which is known for making false claims for entertainment , would it then be extraordinary that they published it given their credibility and the believability of the event? On the other hand, if it’s published in The NY Times- it would be comparatively more extraordinary because- given the quality of those two sides (TNT and Brazil)-you’d never expect a “presumably” reputable sports page to print that (before they hypothetically did). If I found the claim in the Onion, I would look for more evidence; In The NY Times, probably not.
Well sure but if I tell you 'what a shocking upset I read about on the sports page' you don't say 'well did you interview the people at the match'? 'Did you personally contact the reporters at the event and double check with them? Did you investigate whether the match might have been staged by actors? No, you accept the sports page as the ordinary venue for verifying such a claim. At most, you might wonder if the Brazilians were paid off not whether the match happened as reported. This is because ordinary social practices and institutions are generally enough even with claims that seem astonishing.
And I am fine with that so long as one admits that 'to a sufficient degree' is a judgment call. Given an extraordinary event like a lopsided upset in soccer then any evidence at all seems to contribute something to raising its probability. Then we will have a debate about when the 'sufficient for belief' criterion has been fulfilled. But, I'm more worried about the subjectivity inherent in classing a claim as 'extraordinary' because that is based on background knowledge and background assumptions. The result of the football match may NOT be extraordinary to the Trinidadian manager who drew up the perfect game plan for beating Brazil. @@MajestyofReason
👍👍 Truth.
Can one please get the entire document?
Patrons have access to the entire document 🙂
No but two can!
"It's not gonna bite you." Let me hope you know that there are people who are trying to make extraordinary claims for example that someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago wholeheartedly hate that slogan.
I disagree Joe, I'd argue that the reasonableness of belief in a claim must also take the circumstances in to account. Let me explain (this hypothetical isn't original with me):
Imagine you are trekking a snowy mountain, following the path, then suddenly an extreme snow storm rolls in. You are blinded of the path almost completely, only getting subtle glimpses of what you think MIGHT be the path, but you can't be sure. The likely outcome is that you are gonna die in this storm and the claim that you will survive is extraordinary. You have a decision to make. You could stay where you are and wait for the storm to pass, but you don't know if it will pass before you freeze to death. Or, you could work with those subtle glimpses and start walking with the hope that you will walk out of the storm, but you could walk off a cliff to your death. Which ever option you choose is going to require belief.
In this situation, you can't remain skeptical. If you are skeptical of the option to walk, and skeptical of staying where you are, then you won't do either. But then what? I'd argue it wouldn't at all be unreasonable to have belief in one of the extraordinary claims and hope for the best, despite the lack of extraordinary evidence.
If you're dealing with deities that are, by definition, operating outside of the realm of natural law, it would follow that you would need proof that also operates outside of natural law.
All the miracles and the very creation of the world/universe and all in and of it cannot be explained using natural law. If that is possible, they aren't miracles in the definition of the word (but can still remain "miracles" in a sentimental sense).
Extraordinary evidence needs to support what cannot (otherwise) be explained, otherwise it would be ordinary evidence and actually explain what can be explained.
Any example of how people making mess of this slogan? Thank you!
It would have been useful if you had given examples of how people have misused the principle.
they're too painful😭
@@MajestyofReason Agreed
Extraordinary: anything that goes beyond the ordinary . For instance, if someone claims they have a magic unicorn in their garage, this claim is quite beyond the ordinary. So, the only evidence i would accept would be seeing the unicorn with my own eyes, because seeing an unicorn is also very beyond ordinary. So, seeing the unicorn would be the extraordinary evidence.
Also, some image or even personal testimony would not be extraordinary evidence, because i've already seen multiple times very realistic but fake images of unicorns, and also already seen many people lying about what they saw.
@@gabri41200 they are extroardinary evidence for them, not for you. You said it yourself so i doubt you disagree.
But seeing an extraordinary claim come to pass is sufficient evidence to believe the extraordinary.
@@keithbirdwell that's exactly my point
@keithbirdwell only seeing would do it for me, the claim alone has very little weight
I disagree with what he said about evidence of ETs
Am I irrational for disagreeing?
yes. Or no. Maybe you just have a lack of knowledge that means you cannot evaluate the supposed evidence rationally and arrive at the correct conclusion about it.
I agree with the
low probability use of understanding this Term but for things like the Existence of a God who created the universe how can you Quantify the probability of that? And I’m not talking about the Christian God for anyone who read this Comment take that out of your head when Approaching this particular question. I asked that because what I see on the Screen is actually the word “Improbable” and even Atheists who doesn’t believe there is a God would say it’s “Improbable” for God to exist and this claim is Normally used for that Specific debate….Other things like The resurrection claim I can understand why you would say that is Extraordinary so cool, but then you said Those type of Extraordinary evidence would need “Significant Evidence” to overcome the low probability but with that you kinda went in a circle by avoiding the word extraordinary in favor of significant evidence because if I were to ask for “You” personally what would Significant evidence look like to “You” for the evidence of the Resurrection claim then that significance of Evidence would look different to different people….Let me Give you an example Matt Dilahunty said if he Saw a man with his own eyes get beheaded then they saw that same guy walked out of the Room he got beheaded I alive he still wouldn’t believe in miracles even though that would be Significant to many people you see that Some people will either downplay the significance or just plainly say that wasn’t significant. So meanwhile you can say some claims are extraordinary by way of low probability the second part of evidence being extraordinary should be Ruled out because that is heavily dependent on the person…I can Hear someone that I trust tell me something and that’s extraordinary while some people needs to see for it to be extraordinary, Others like Richard Dawkins says even if he Saw or heard it for himself he would say he is Hallucinating. Like I said the second part of the argument shouldn’t be considered.
I feel like people tend to dig too deep into this quote. The extraordinary part is where people tend to get caught up. What I feel he means is that if you're putting a far fetched claim out there you better bring receipts. Look at it from the perspective of General Relativity. Lots of extraordinary claims put forward and yet the evidence keeps backing it up. All the evidence for general relativity isn't "extraordinary" but it is more than the sum of its parts.
If (what we may call) Saganian evidentialism is true, then surely the hypothesis that the Bayesian interpretation of Saganian evidentialism is the ONLY satisfactory interpretation itself should be supported by evidence/reasons rather than merely asserting it by fiat 😅
E.g, if something is supernatural or nonmaterial, it must demonstrate those properties, and not just make a claim like religion.
It's ordinary (high probability). It's extra ordinary (low probability). Marty got in a DeLorean and drove around the shopping center in 1985 (ordinary). Marty got in a DeLorean drove around the shopping center in 1985, and was chased by Libyan terrorists, and ended up in 1955 (extraordinary). It ain't hard to understand.
The issue is that the definition of extraordinary is somewhat ambiguous-
I’ve seen some Christians strawman non-Christians who use this and say NO amount of evidence will convince you.
Is this possibly because they believe the Bible is worth infinite evidence, or another reason?
My guess is becasue most christians just regurgitate what they heard without trying to understand the point. Most dont even factcheck the claims they hear about the bible against the bible itself.
They probably just say it out of frustration or give a justification as to why someone people are atheists.
I bet CC is not happy with this one 😁
No
Fuck yeah he was correct!
was he? :/
Emerson Green put it well, IMO, "Of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if they didn’t, then in whwt way are they extraordinary?"
Claims can be extraordinary in themselves and proven with sufficient evidence while still being extraordinary.
@@keithbirdwell Yes, the point is, that the "sufficient" evidence would still be, in some way, "extraordinary" be that in its quality or quantity, or some other measure.
For instance, in quantum physics, claims are not considered proven until they are tested to the 5 sigma point, the tests themselves may not be extraordinary (though those that might consider particle coliders ordinary are the kind of people I want to meet), but the amount of it required before stating that "this is true" most certainly _is._
@@EarnestApostate all you need is a lottery ticket with winning numbers to show that you won the lottery. You need enough evidence to prove the point is what I am saying. Which Christianity sufficiently has.
Why do politicians avoid answering so many questions? Why is it so hard to change someones mind sometimes? Why do some people get so easily offended? Is anyone willing to spend some time reading something and and giving their opinion on it? I just want to help people and find a way to make human communication better and want to know if I am on the right track.
If you have 12 minutes the first basic part I will go over is about fast/slow thinking. If you want there is a 12 minute video by veritasium called "the science of thinking" that will explain it very well. I think this is knowledge that can really benefit people if they do not know about it. The next part though I dont know any videos for and I dont know if anyone really had the idea I have before.
The knowledge of the fast/slow mind is what is relevant from that video and I think a good starting point for the discussion. The video also gives examples of people doing it live, but it most likely will work on you as well so that is how I will show you. I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter.
A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost?
You might have an answer flash in your head right away with fast inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time.
The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it.
The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation.
Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones.
Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not exempt from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long.
Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it.
The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used.
So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point.
Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even.
So was this understandable or confusing?
if you understand it, do you think its possibly true?
Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
Aint no one reading this
@@DigitalGnosis >>>Aint no one reading this""
Hmmmmm, interesting how I have conversations about it then with people who have. I guess you are a mind reader and know what ever single person thinks so we should all just trust you?
@@DigitalGnosis Maybe you should go laugh at the russian muslim guy again because you and pinecreek cant even understand his perspective with your mind reading abilities. He asked you over and over again how the shroud proves jesus resurrected as he did not know it was a burial shroud and though it was just clothes jesus wore while alive and none of you picked up on that and laughed at him and posted the video about it. It was pretty sad to see you treat someone like that. But looks like you might just be an arrogant prick anyways.
Why? how is any of this relevant to this video (I did not read most of it) if you want someone to talk to you really think a UA-cam comment section is the best place.
@@sandman4068 >>Why?""
Why what?
>>how is any of this relevant to this video (I did not read most of it) if you want someone to talk to you really think a UA-cam comment section is the best place.""
Why is it so hard change the mind of someone who has an extraordinary claim with no good evidence when they dont even accept lots of empirical evidence contrary to the claim?
For example, in debates with christians or muslims where sagans quote often gets used.
Never said it was the best place, but its really not a bad place. Just have to find the right people, the ones who are not too intellectually lazy to take 5 minutes to read something and consider it. I have had some really good conversations already about what I said there, is that not evidence I can talk to people in YT comments about it? But I do realize there are lots of intellectually lazy people out there who will try and put others down to feel better about themselves while not realizing they are doing it. Books much be completely out of the question for you if that comment was too much to read for you. Could have just ignored it, but you admittedly did not even read it so why even bother making a comment?
The claim made in the video is amorphous, and peculiar. To wit:
_"Extraordinary claims are those with a very low prior probability. (Prior to looking at the evidence, that is.)"_ (see 2:12)
In this specific case, the "very low prior probability" isn't real, but merely apparent. Because, it isn't the lack of evidence that requires amendation, but rather man's ignorance of said evidence.
Is probability correctly understood to refer to material facts of reality, or rather man's _perception_ of those material facts?
The author of the claim would have it be the latter. A peculiar conception of probability, indeed, imho.
To be honest, Sagan made this argument for everyday experiences who are quite subjective not in a baysian sense. So it is no more than a slogan not interested in the philosophy of evidence. At worse it is an attemp for logical positivism since Sagan was a physicist.
Any claim needs just efficient ( data that raise its likewood ) evidence. Evolution was considered an extraordinary claim but it needed only ordinary evidence, a host of them but ordinary none the less. We didn't need a time machine to see animals evolving over eons to realize it is true.
Can you give me an example of extra ordinary evidence in reality. Because it is very subjective.
No. There’s no such thing as “extraordinary evidence”
Believe the lesser miracle.
when you stack shit high enough it doesn't become a mountain of gold, it's just a very large pile of shit
There are better ways to talk dude, don't be such an online atheist
Note, though, that lots of very weak evidence can collectively amount to very powerful evidence! Admittedly, weak evidence isn't sh*t :)
Or evidence that is put forward as evidence but does zero to move you toward an hypothesis, and actually renders alternative hypotheses more likely because the person being offered the evidence now considers it and updates on it.
Or in as Craig once said, if some evidence gives you 20% of being convinced and another gives you 10%, you are at 30% of being convinced.... Just ignore the 80%+90% of being unconvinced.
Spot on Carl!!!!
I always understood "extraordinary" to mean, quite literally, "outside of ordinary", and what is ordinary (and also extraordinary) is dependent on the individual in question
for something to be outside the ordinary, it must be unlikely, that is, it must have a low probability of occuring
@@porteal8986 within your experience, sure
Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.
I think the problem is a misunderstanding of what "extraordinary evidence" means.
I'm not sure that's the "common" interpretation. Here's a counterexample: suppose I shuffle a standard deck of playing cards and I report via simple written eyewitness testimony the exact order of the 52 cards. The prior probability that this exact order would obtain is mind-bogglingly small, approximately 1 in 8×10⁶⁷. Yet written eyewitness testimony is quite "ordinary" evidence in the common sense of the term.
Right -- that's why I stipulated a sense of 'extraordinary evidence', said the principle *so understood* is true, and noted that every other understanding of the slogan that I've come across is either confused or mistaken in some way :)
According to Bayes: P(hypothesis H|evidence E)=P(H∩E)/P(E)=P(E|H)·P(H)/P(E)
and P(H|E)/P(¬H|E)=P(E|H)/P(E|¬H)·P(H)/P(¬H).
*Hypothesis H is extraordinary, if and only if P(H) is sufficiently low for example as low as "one in a million"* ( ua-cam.com/video/dthx9KueYhY/v-deo.htmlsi=dV1RORjF9dJXdJQ4 ) *or even lower than that.*
So if hypothesis H is extraordinary (let's just say P(H)≤0.000001) and if P(H|E)>0.5 or P(H|E)/P(¬H|E) > 1,
then P(E) < 2·P(H∩E) ≤ 0.000002·P(E|H) ≤ 0.000002 [as P(E|H)≤1] or P(E|¬H)/P(E|H) < P(H)/P(¬H) ≤ 0.000001/0.999999≈0.000001 [or P(E|H)/P(E|¬H) > 999999].
So yeah extraordinary claims/hypothesis H do indeed require extraordinary evidence E [P(E) < 0.000002] in order to be convincing as long as an evidence E is extraordinary, if and only if P(E) is sufficiently low for example as low as "one in a million" ( ua-cam.com/video/dthx9KueYhY/v-deo.htmlsi=dV1RORjF9dJXdJQ4 ) or even lower than that.
@@MajestyofReason
At 1:00 to 1:05 you say the slogan is true "on quite natural interpretations of these terms." By my lights, I think my counterexample of the playing cards suggests that this isn't quite the case; such simple written eyewitness testimony doesn't seem to be "extraordinary evidence" on a _natural_ interpretation of the term.
@@MaverickChristian it does not seem extraordinary on *one* natural interpretation of that term; I agree. But that doesn't mean it doesn't seem extraordinary on *any* natural interpretation of that term. And, indeed, it does seem extraordinary -- to me, at least! -- on at least *one* natural interpretation, namely, in the sense of being incredibly powerful/strong
@@MaverickChristian Question for Bard:
"Is a simple written eyewitness testimony capable of appearing to be an "extraordinary evidence" on a natural interpretation of the term "extraordinary evidence"?"
Answer from Bard:
_"Whether or not a simple written eyewitness testimony can be considered "extraordinary evidence" depends on the context in which it is presented and the specific details of the testimony itself. In general, eyewitness testimony is considered to be a form of subjective evidence, meaning that it is based on the personal perceptions and recollection of the witness. As such, it is not always considered to be as reliable as physical evidence or expert testimony._
*_However, there are certain circumstances in which eyewitness testimony can be considered to be extraordinary evidence. For example, if an eyewitness testifies to something that is highly unlikely or even impossible, such as seeing a UFO or witnessing a miracle, their testimony may be considered to be extraordinary. Additionally, if an eyewitness's testimony is corroborated by other evidence, such as physical evidence or the testimony of other witnesses, it may be considered to be more credible and therefore more persuasive._*
*_Ultimately, whether or not a simple written eyewitness testimony is considered to be extraordinary evidence is a matter of judgment. In some cases, such testimony may be considered to be highly credible and persuasive, while in other cases it may be dismissed as unreliable or even false. It is important to consider all of the relevant evidence and circumstances before making a judgment about the credibility of eyewitness testimony._*
_Here are some additional factors to consider when evaluating the credibility of eyewitness testimony:_
_- The witness's level of perception and attention to detail_
_- The witness's memory and ability to recall events accurately_
_- The witness's potential biases or motivations_
_- The consistency of the witness's testimony with other evidence_
*_In conclusion, while simple written eyewitness testimony may not always be considered to be extraordinary evidence, it can still be a valuable source of information in certain cases. It is important to carefully evaluate the credibility of eyewitness testimony before making any decisions based on it."_*
I'm a pathetic and dishonest Christian apologist but I think the slogan is fine so long as it doesn't get stretched into no amount of human testimony can overcome a low prior but that's just merging Sagan and Hume which gets you David Sagume or Carl Hugan and no one wants that.
I’ve wondered about this: are there any synthetic a posteriori claims which no amount of human testimony can overcome? Ex. If I went back in time and all the human testimony I encountered said the earth was flat or that the first law of inertia was wrong. I might be justified in dismissing all available human testimony because of my experiences in the future. Furthermore, it seems that there will always be a finite amount of independent human testimony. Why is it necessarily the case that there will be enough independent testimony to overcome every non-zero prior?
"I'm a pathetic and dishonest Christian apologist"
Preach brother preach, you follow the Thou Shalt Not Lie commandment perfectly 🤝
I am THE GOD. I can be killed in this human form. But I will just go back home to HEAVEN where I will judge you. You can't prove me wrong. So, if you don't think this extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence to prove, then worship me and send me all your money because I demand it.
I disagree. Am I confused or mistaken...or neither? When someone says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", my first response is that's quite the extraordinary claim! And then we need to recognize that extraordinary evidence is not really a thing. Is an eyewitness ordinary or extraordinary evidence? How about a photo? How about a video? These are all incredibly ordinary. And they all are sufficient for an extraordinary claim. If a friend of mine told me he saw three humpback whales breach at the same time, I would believe him. I've never heard of that happening before (aka extraordinary claim), but I also have no need or reason to think he's lying simply because his claim is extraordinary. And if he happened to get a photo or video, then no one should doubt his claim. And that photo or video would be quite ordinary.
It's ordinary evidence in one sense -- namely, it's quite normal and commonplace -- but it's extraordinary evidence in another sense -- namely, it's very powerful, very strong, very significant evidence for the relevant proposition -- so much so that it increases its probability from a very low prior to a very high posterior. The slogan, interpreted using *this* sense of 'extraordinary evidence', is uncontroversially true :)
@@MajestyofReason I definitely disagree. Your definitions are very subjective, as people will differ on what they think is extraordinary, strong, and powerful. And evidence cannot increase the probability that something happened. It either happened or it didn't. When people tell me that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I often ask them to give me examples of "extraordinary evidence". And every answer given (when I get an answer) is just normal, every day, ordinary evidence. 🤷♂ So IMO this claim is simply a device used by skeptics, which has no real possibility of ever being satisfied. I think the burden lies on the person making the claim to give actual examples of "extraordinary evidence" that they would accept, so as to not send everyone else on a wild goose chase.
@@willcd my definitions are stipulative, not subjective; I'm simply *stipulating* how I'm using the terms 'extraordinary claims' and 'extraordinary evidence'. Given how I stipulated them in the video, the slogan (so understood) is true; it simply follows from Bayes' Theorem. I also note in the video that every other understanding of the slogan that I've come across is confused or mistaken. So if any skeptic you talk to doesn't understand the slogan in the sense in which I've articulated it, then you and I agree: that skeptic is mistaken, and the slogan, *as they use it* , is mistaken
Hey, Will, I have a paper here, that says black on white, that you, Will Duffy, owe me, Zsolt Nagy, 1000000 (US)$.
To which point in time are you intending to finally give that amount of money to me?
@@zsoltnagy5654 in any dispute such as this one, a court of law would require something very ordinary to settle the dispute. And that is my signature. Until you guys are willing to give us examples of "extraordinary evidence", I must reject your claim. I don't think "extraordinary evidence" is even a thing. And the hesitancy for those making the claim to give me examples is evidence that I'm right.
Joe continues to make videos that he will regret uploading when he's a bit more mature.
Unfortunately, regardless of how quickly you spit out your stance on this atheist meme, those very atheists/non-believers, do NOT use it like that.
And whenever theists try to explain theorems and probability calculous and so on, it's just dismissed, because the non-believer is just not educated enough or just simply is not interested in dialoguing with an open mind.
So, really, you should be prefixing this little video that it's for any idiots who can't be bothered to engage and use it as a meme/slogan to espouse their moronic ideology.
No. Carl Sagan was not right. All he was interested in was self promotion.
when someone is saying every argument is somekind of Fellacy what kind of fellacy he's committing?
Not sure what kind of fallacy they are committing, but just ask what fallacy are they accusing you of committing, and explain how you didn't commit it.
Fallacy fallacy.
never confuse fallacious with fellatious.
@@bengreen171 LOL
@@macmac1022 It is not the fallacy fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one asserts that, because the premises do not lead to the conclusion because the argument has a fallacy, the conclusion is false. After all, the conclusion could still be true, even if the argument fails to secure that.