Extraordinary Claims DO NOT Require Extraordinary Evidence

[tyder001]

Paul your post made me think. You make a really good point. Still, I have to disagree with you. Evidence that supports the paranormal does not have to be anymore extraordinary than any other evidence. For instance Rupert Sheldrake and J.B. Rhine and others have amassed evidence that stands up. It's not a dog and pony show. It isn't a dead body rising from the ground or a space ship with space brothers. But it is a cause to look farther. In the end some of us will believe (as I do) that we are more than a glob of brain and an unintended consequence of it. On the other hand I'm no fundi and I always question because I don't have all the answers. I try to be honest with myself and others. There are times when the paranormal is very frustrating. To be honest if all I had was the "evidence" and no personal experience or inner life I'd more than likely be more than a mere skeptic. I'd be an atheist. But, I'm not and I don't hate people who are. I just have my reasons (an agnostic friend calls it my story) But it is my story and I"m sticking to it. Peace.

 

[NTS]

I agree that it's intellectually dishonest to try and reason away unwelcome scientific evidence, if in fact it's well-founded.

It's not dishonest to decide that there are other considerations that trump the scientific evidence. This is especially true if the scientific evidence is being used (as it often is) to push what are actually philosophical/religious/political/cultural agendas. There's nothing wrong with having agendas. We probably all do to some extent. But we should be honest with ourselves and each other about what our agendas are and what we are ultimately trying to accomplish.

 

[tyder001]

I think the guy's name is Brain Josephson who is a well respected scientist but goes against the grain of the uber materialist. I read a great forward in a book published by Scientifc American (not a proponent of woo woo in any way.) The editor there took the amazing randi to task with a very dry cut down for questioning the right of Doctor Josephson to come to certain conclusions. Thing is we all have our world views and we all fight for em. I will never be a reductionist and I can't go back to the fundlementalist fold. (or spell worth a crap for that matter) But, I do think I have enough "evidence" in my own life to keep seeking until the day I go back to where I belong. (again)
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]

 

[Kieran]

I do not see how believers could ever produce the evidence required by skeptics, truly honestly. Well you can't buy the evidence in a store for 2.99, in whatever currency, you use, or go outside and shout out, and the top of your lungs, by chance, would you mind if i could borrow one of those machines and take it for a spin, i need to show it to the Skeptics Society!! Physical evidence, which will confirm Visitation from other worlds, will not be easily found or discovered easy. Even finding Physical evidence, still would not satisfy everyone.

I believe there is many reasons, for why we not being told, we are being visited, and on the flip side, there must be, many reasons, the UFO phenomenon keeps the majority of the world population in the dark? For that is profound reason to believe the UFO phenomenon is a single source based Phenomenon. The other side, is inhabited by a number of non human intelligences. If we had twenty groups coming from different places, it is very unlikely, they would be on the same page, and just hide out. These groups would have different agendas and plans that being the case, if they were from different planets and systems.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Even finding Physical evidence, still would not satisfy everyone.

Nothing will ever satisfy everyone - imagine how the USAF feels about Roswell, and Mogul, and all the people that remain unsatisfied with that?

Physical evidence - preferably in the form of a flying saucer or an alien - would satisfy almost all scientists, however. They're not people who want to disbelieve; rather, in the vast majority of cases, they are people who need to be convinced. So far, the paranormal research "field" has done a pretty poor job.

 

[Kieran]

Nothing will ever satisfy everyone - imagine how the USAF feels about Roswell, and Mogul, and all the people that remain unsatisfied with that?

Physical evidence - preferably in the form of a flying saucer or an alien - would satisfy almost all scientists, however. They're not people who want to disbelieve; rather, in the vast majority of cases, they are people who need to be convinced. So far, the paranormal research "field" has done a pretty poor job.

That is what is so frustrating. How can the ordinary person who claims a sighting produce an "Alien" or even a craft of non human design? We are only observers not the owners!! I would not mind borrowing one of those triangles for a spin though Paul lol In all seriousness. To convince everyone does indeed require much more then witness testimony, but i wish the world was different and more scientists got involved in figuring out what this phenomenon might be!!

 

[tyder001]

If they are nuts and bolts beings and ships then they are not paranormal. If they are some kind of energy being then I guess they are paranormal. Or some other plane of existence. If they are from the future then it's possible they are us. I really am more into the possibiltiy that they are not simply nuts and bolts. I don't acutally beleive in beings from other planets visiting earth. Not saying they couldn't just not a big proponent of it.

 

[Kieran]

If they are nuts and bolts beings and ships then they are not paranormal. If they are some kind of energy being then I guess they are paranormal. Or some other plane of existence. If they are from the future then it's possible they are us. I really am more into the possibiltiy that they are not simply nuts and bolts. I don't acutally beleive in beings from other planets visiting earth. Not saying they couldn't just not a big proponent of it.

What is Paranormal for us is probably normal everyday stuff that they experience everyday. I have to research and find out this, it beyond my understanding. But stuff coming from Different realities or from a reality near to us, why can't those craft be simply nuts and bolts.

 

[tyder001]

Maybe they could be. I don't know. I have come to the conclusion in my life that all life from spirit to matter evolves. I think what we call life and death are part of the same coin. Of course I'm kind of partial to reincarnation but I don't really know. All, I know is I am skeptical about people from outer space and yet I do think it's a possibility. I've seen one or two things in the sky I couldn't explain. One in Alabama not to long ago. But, I didn't and still don't buy the people from another planet explanation. But, it was weird.

 

[Red]

I stopped looking for incontrovertible proof some time ago when it comes to the UFO phenomenon. I like the forum here because if people think that someone is drinking the kool-aid, they call it out, and disagree with one another.

What really interests me are the aspects of perception and consciousness. I like listening to the more reputable researchers on the paracast because they make me think about how the world may actually work.

My conclusions (how I personally approach this):
1. There will never be full disclosure, even with Steven Greer.
2. There probably won't be any headway as to the nature of the phenomenon (extraterrestrial, extra-dimensional, etc.)
3. To any primitive society, exposure to highly advanced technology is going seem magical to the primitive society.
4. In the scenario in #3, primitive societies will also probably lack the true means technologically that would allow them to obtain evidence as to the nature of the advanced technology.
5. Researchers should still use the scientific method, but do to #4, they may not have a lot of success.

 

[Red]

Fixed that for you.

Thanks for the help! LOL

 

[ArchieBedford]

I agree that it's intellectually dishonest to try and reason away unwelcome scientific evidence, if in fact it's well-founded.

It's not dishonest to decide that there are other considerations that trump the scientific evidence. This is especially true if the scientific evidence is being used (as it often is) to push what are actually philosophical/religious/political/cultural agendas. There's nothing wrong with having agendas. We probably all do to some extent. But we should be honest with ourselves and each other about what our agendas are and what we are ultimately trying to accomplish.

Interesting point, NTS.

I recently re-read Jacques Vallee's 1965 book Anatomy of a Phenomenon: Unidentified Objects in Space-A Scientific Appraisal after several decades. Vallee tackles the overly emotional and unscientific reaction from many scientists when confronted with UFO evidence. The process of normal interpretation employed by science is, Vallee observes, "to distort a set of unknown phenomena until it is recognisable by ordinary standards:" i.e. UFOs cannot be of intelligent non-human origin because this hypothesis doesn't fit in the current box of what is possible and what not possible, so the way to deal with the evidence psychologically is to either ignore it completely, or else distort it until it fits and can be explained away using current dogmas. This he identifies as the core issue: evidence of the extraordinary is plentiful and compelling, but dogma and emotionalism, rather than science, buries the issue because of its challenge to current paradigms.

He terms this mind-set "The syndrome of resistance to the future." It reminds me of one of the chapters in Allen Hynek's excellent book "The UFO Experience: a Scientific Enquiry." The chapter is titled "Science is not always what scientists do" - similar observations to those made by Vallee. Emotionalism & belief systems usually trump true scientific method.

 

[Ron Collins]

Not from me they won't.

We might like to think that all things are equal, but they're not. Take the law, for example. There are two different burdens of proof. In civil law, you only have to meet the standard of "on the balance of probabilities," meaning that it's more likely than not that what you assert happened as you claim. With the criminal law, however, the standard is much higher - beyond a reasonable doubt - because the stakes are much higher, namely the loss of your liberty, perhaps even your life in some cases in those countries that still insist on imposing capital punishment, as opposed to the monetary penalties usually imposed in a civil case. This is as it should be, and it's exactly the same kind of thing that Sagan was properly talking about when it comes to extraordinary claims of the paranormal. And yet, paranormal die-hards seem to go in the opposite direction - not only do they not offer extraordinary evidence for their claims, as Sagan required (let's call that "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but in most cases they offer less than even the baseline standard of "on the balance of probabilities."

You know, I never looked at it that way. I have always thought that "extraordinary evidence" was not needed, mere "evidence" would suffice. But I do see the argument a bit differently now. So how does this play into the anecdotal portions of the testimony?

Often a case is classified as unreliable if only supported by witness testimony. Many are quick to point out that this is enough to find a murderer guilty but apparently not good enough to suggest something of a paranormal nature. How would this be treated if it were a Capital Punishment case? How do we reconcile the apparent loss of weight in witness testimony as a function of subject matter?

 

[NTS]

There's a difference between 'explain' and 'explain away'. It may well be that science can explain why people fall in love or like sunsets. After that we would still fall in love and like sunsets. But when it comes to 'paranormal' or other strange experiences, the idea seems to be that if science can explain them then they are to be trivialized and dismissed (i.e explained away). The difference between the two cases isn't really a scientific one. It's one where (on other grounds) we've decided love and sunsets are good and strange experiences are bad, and we're trying to use science to destroy whatever impact the strange experiences might have on people.

 

[Ron Collins]

There's a difference between 'explain' and 'explain away'. It may well be that science can explain why people fall in love or like sunsets. After that we would still fall in love and like sunsets. But when it comes to 'paranormal' or other strange experiences, the idea seems to be that if science can explain them then they are to be trivialized and dismissed (i.e explained away). The difference between the two cases isn't really a scientific one. It's one where (on other grounds) we've decided love and sunsets are good and strange experiences are bad, and we're trying to use science to destroy whatever impact the strange experiences might have on people.

But, once satisfactorily explained they cease being "strange experiences" and become regular "experiences". Albeit the nature of the explanation itself and the frequency of the experience may still set it apart. However, I would also argue that it will loose a significant portion of it's charm by being solved.

 

[NTS]

"...it will loose a significant portion of it's charm by being solved."

It might, if its 'charm' came largely from it being unsolved. I'm not convinced that's always the case.

 

[Michael Allen]

Not from me they won't.

We might like to think that all things are equal, but they're not. Take the law, for example. There are two different burdens of proof. In civil law, you only have to meet the standard of "on the balance of probabilities," meaning that it's more likely than not that what you assert happened as you claim. With the criminal law, however, the standard is much higher - beyond a reasonable doubt - because the stakes are much higher, namely the loss of your liberty, perhaps even your life in some cases in those countries that still insist on imposing capital punishment, as opposed to the monetary penalties usually imposed in a civil case. This is as it should be, and it's exactly the same kind of thing that Sagan was properly talking about when it comes to extraordinary claims of the paranormal. And yet, paranormal die-hards seem to go in the opposite direction - not only do they not offer extraordinary evidence for their claims, as Sagan required (let's call that "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but in most cases they offer less than even the baseline standard of "on the balance of probabilities."

Again, balance of probabilities probably (even with a well-defined probability metric)only makes sense in an adversarial model. The model for the scientific is not that of a courtroom with two diametrically opposed entities--but of a coherence-building project involving many actors\researchers bringing their data and analyses forward and subjecting it to peer review. Perhaps an inquisitive model of "justice" would better fit your attitude on this subject, though I doubt seriously we can draw isomorphisms between the legal system and the scientific method.

I hope my original post isn't taken as a defense of leaving out evidence--as anti-scientific as it the title may appear, the purpose is not a dismissal of evidence. I am talking about the subjectivisation of evidence into grades that are more akin to the researchers bias than what is reflected in reality. Reading between Sagan's lines, one might conclude that Sagan dismissed a huge body of evidence by proclamation. Who gets to declare whether the statement "Intelligent beings came from another world to visit the Earth" is "extraordinary?" Who gets to declare the evidence of the "Shroud of Turin" as "extraordinary" (a hoax).

So for Sagan, it is all to easy to pooh-pooh an entire field of inquiry by de facto declaration that the evidence isn't extraordinary enough...well the response is "does the extraordinary evidence stand in ordinariness--or does it require an even more extraordinary analysis and explanation?"

That was the gist of my post--not to dismiss evidence or the scientific method, but to further illustrate Carl Sagan's gaffe against the scientific method.

 

[Ron Collins]

!!!!!!!!!
Image Removed

I don't get it. If this is boring you, stop reading.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So for Sagan, it is all to easy to pooh-pooh an entire field of inquiry by de facto declaration that the evidence isn't extraordinary enough...well the response is "does the extraordinary evidence stand in ordinariness--or does it require an even more extraordinary analysis and explanation?"

That was the gist of my post--not to dismiss evidence or the scientific method, but to further illustrate Carl Sagan's gaffe against the scientific method.

You're probably in the minority in thinking that, but I guess I would need evidence to prove that. Carl Sagan was all about the scientific method, I don't see a gaffe there. Paul put it better in his post that you referred to by what Sagan meant by "extraordinary evidence."

With regards to:

Who gets to declare whether the statement "Intelligent beings came from another world to visit the Earth" is "extraordinary?" Who gets to declare the evidence of the "Shroud of Turin" as "extraordinary" (a hoax).

Since no intelligent extra-terrestrial being has been proven to have come to Earth ever, that would easily be classified as extraordinary. No one has anything proving it to be true. A lot of people would like it to be true, but for now, we can't be definitive about it.

 

[Michael Allen]

Paul put it better in his post that you referred to by what Sagan meant by "extraordinary evidence."

I'll agree temporarily with your statement

Recap Paul:

With the criminal law, however, the standard is much higher - beyond a reasonable doubt - because the stakes are much higher, namely the loss of your liberty, perhaps even your life in some cases in those countries that still insist on imposing capital punishment, as opposed to the monetary penalties usually imposed in a civil case.

We are talking about criminal law here, not science. Why are we equivocating courtroom skepticism with scientific skepticism?

(1) Adversarial system: state and prove your case
(2) Scientific system: check the evidence

I have already explained why this model is inappropriate--why we cannot consider a criminal or civil law definition of evidence as a measuring stick. The "balance of probabilities" firstly requires a notion of "probability" defined on the events in question--as well as an understanding of why the "slightest tip" either way is statistically or probabilistically significant. In a court of law the "slightest tip" "baseline standard" is a pragmatic way to streamline the resolution of civil cases. Such streamlining would be ridiculously draconian when life and death (capital crimes) are in the balance.

(Aside: Wikipedia)This idea originated with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827), a French mathematician and astronomer who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."

The "weight" of this evidence is known once the proposition is established--how much evidence is required to convince an individual depends on their understanding of the evidence, which is not factored objectively as "weight" but lies within the education\knowledge state of the examiner of the evidence. There is no ontological foundation for "weight" in scientific evidence--19th century metaphysical pretensions should not be the basis for 21st century science.

This is as it should be, and it's exactly the same kind of thing that Sagan was properly talking about when it comes to extraordinary claims of the paranormal. And yet, paranormal die-hards seem to go in the opposite direction

Is that what Sagan meant? Sure, I'll buy that...it was a gaffe after all...and perhaps he had the same misconception (isomorphism between legal skepticism and science).

not only do they not offer extraordinary evidence for their claims, as Sagan required (let's call that "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but in most cases they offer less than even the baseline standard of "on the balance of probabilities."

Again, what constitutes "extraordinary evidence?" Do we look backward from an "extraordinary claim" in order to make this designation? Are we assigning this predicate after the fact based on our former (subjective) understanding of strangeness? What if the evidence itself is normal (certainly light from a sun or star is "normal," yet its components in the form of a spectrograph reveal specifics of the physical makeup--how extraordinary it must be for astonomers, physicists and opticians to spend so much of their time extracting "extraordinary" evidence for the "ordinary" ubiquitous periodic table found in distant stars. Again--what's the weight of the "extraordinary" evidence of a meteorite--no doubt extraordinary enough a few centuries ago to be much greater than its "weight" today.

By the way...the weight is usually something of the order of a few grams to a few thousand pounds -- or more.