Extraordinary Claims DO NOT Require Extraordinary Evidence

[Angel of Ioren]

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).

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.

You're really arguing semantics here. Let's make it nice and simple. If someone wants another to believe that aliens are coming here and interacting with people, the onus is on the claimant to prove it through evidence that is indisputable. Same thing goes for someone claiming psychic powers. That's the impression I got after reading Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World." I don't see that he made any sort of gaffe, however, you can think so if you wish.

 

[Ron Collins]

God, so much piffle!

The concept is quite easy to explain. If you make a claim that changes everything known about an existing scientific concept, you need to back that claim up with solid and overwhelming evidence. Otherwise people just point and laugh. As they do with UFO's.

The "extraordinary" part could mean:

1. A proof previously unconsidered yet so solid in construction that it sways opinion easily.
2. A large collection of clear data that all support the claim and sway opinion.
3. The replication in several labs of the claimed thesis and the gradual acceptance of these results.
4. Real world demonstrations of the claim and subsequent acceptance over time.
5. Other methods that non-morons find convincing and overwhelming.

But by all means don't bother to shoot for extraordinary evidence. Why not call for crappier evidence! I can't imagine a better field to embrace such a standard.

Lance

So to your mind we should throw out or ignore ALL witness testimony not accompanied by hard physical proof like a ship or guys from wherever? Why is witness testimony in a murder case enough to place a person on death row? The comparison is not drivel. It is very relevant and remains a valid question. How do we reconcile the apparent loss of weight in witness testimony as a function of subject matter?

If I see a murder take place yet they cant find a body or murder weapon it can still hold enough weight to convict. If I see a UFO then I must be a poor observer either hoaxing or misidentifying the object. Why is this acceptable?

 

[Michael Allen]

So, "solid and overwhelming" is the same as "extraordinary?" Why wouldn't the claim be more believable as a result of the "ordinariness" of the evidence?

In other words, "ordinary claims require ordinary evidence" would have just as much meaning, and would make more sense to the scientific process. More likely "extraordinary claims" are reduced to a system of interrelated "ordinary" evidence.

Why not simply "claims require evidence?"

Better question: why do Sagan (and others) think the extra-terrestrial Hypothesis is so extraordinary? Even better, why are the many "nuts and bolts" UFO/Saucer/Craft reports not considered "extraordinary" in their own right?

 

[Ron Collins]

So, "solid and overwhelming" is the same as "extraordinary?" Why wouldn't the claim be more believable as a result of the "ordinariness" of the evidence?

In other words, "ordinary claims require ordinary evidence" would have just as much meaning, and would make more sense to the scientific process. More likely "extraordinary claims" are reduced to a system of interrelated "ordinary" evidence.

Why not simply "claims require evidence?"

I think we would do better to debate the content rather than the language in this case. Degrees of "extraordinary" are too subjective and need specific context to truly appreciate their uniqueness anyway.

Better question: why do Sagan (and others) think the extra-terrestrial Hypothesis is so extraordinary? Even better, why are the many "nuts and bolts" UFO/Saucer/Craft reports not considered "extraordinary" in their own right?

Distance. They can not imagine that a race of beings can get from their to here because of the vast and overwhelming distances involved.

 

[NTS]

"Distance. They can not imagine that a race of beings can get from their to here because of the vast and overwhelming distances involved."

This certainly was the general view when the scientific Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) projects were getting started in the 1960s and 70s. It was largely for this reason that SETI has focused on using radio telescopes and discounts UFO reports. In a way it acted as a sort of firewall between what was considered legitimate science and fringe stuff.

But even with our limited current technology, the possibility of interstellar flight is now being discussed by scientists and engineers. In the future when greater sources of energy may be available it could become a doable project. In any case we can no longer just dismiss it out-of-hand.

Of course the average person who sees a UFO still has no idea of what it is or where it's from, so UFOs are not direct evidence of interstellar craft. It just means it's not completely unreasonable to think they could be.

 

[Michael Allen]

Angel,

I can see why you would think this--its my fault that I haven't articulated or communicated my points very well. I assure you I am not arguing mere semantics....but now that you've brought up the subject, I do see a potential misconception brought about by a gross misuse of language which would require delving into the subject of active meaning and semiosis. I'll leave that for another time...

For now I must distinguish the "onus" proposition from " balance of probabilities" -- the balance of probabilities assertion is fundamentally not stating anything about who's obligated to present the evidence (however these ideas may be artificially connected in legal discourse). The "balance of probabilities" assumes (1) A space of events with an assigned probability metric (beyond what is assumed or forced in adversarial courtroom drama) and (2) a pragmatic need to churn through cases using the "slightest tip" criterion for disposal. It should not be state that physicists rest on a mere tip to 49 to 51 % or vice versa to "adjudicate" scientific propositions. Again, these methods may work in legal and political discourse (of which Paul is no stranger), but they are not adequate terms for addressing scientific issues.

 

[tyder001]

So to your mind we should throw out or ignore ALL witness testimony not accompanied by hard physical proof like a ship or guys from wherever? Why is witness testimony in a murder case enough to place a person on death row? The comparison is not drivel. It is very relevant and remains a valid question. How do we reconcile the apparent loss of weight in witness testimony as a function of subject matter?

If I see a murder take place yet they cant find a body or murder weapon it can still hold enough weight to convict. If I see a UFO then I must be a poor observer either hoaxing or misidentifying the object. Why is this acceptable?

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/claim.html

 

[Keiko]

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

I believe it was Budd Hopkins who 'challenged' Sagan about this quote when they were both guests on a radio program.

Budd H turned it around by saying 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigation'.

I think that was pretty good for a spontaneous rebuttal...and I agree

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angel,

I can see why you would think this--its my fault that I haven't articulated or communicated my points very well. I assure you I am not arguing mere semantics....but now that you've brought up the subject, I do see a potential misconception brought about by a gross misuse of language which would require delving into the subject of active meaning and semiosis. I'll leave that for another time...

For now I must distinguish the "onus" proposition from " balance of probabilities" -- the balance of probabilities assertion is fundamentally not stating anything about who's obligated to present the evidence (however these ideas may be artificially connected in legal discourse). The "balance of probabilities" assumes (1) A space of events with an assigned probability metric (beyond what is assumed or forced in adversarial courtroom drama) and (2) a pragmatic need to churn through cases using the "slightest tip" criterion for disposal. It should not be state that physicists rest on a mere tip to 49 to 51 % or vice versa to "adjudicate" scientific propositions. Again, these methods may work in legal and political discourse (of which Paul is no stranger), but they are not adequate terms for addressing scientific issues.

You talk all smart 'n stuff. I must say that although I don't agree with everything you've said in this thread, you do use nice language. You just have to be careful of not coming off sounding pretentious though.

 

[Michael Allen]

You talk all smart 'n stuff. I must say that although I don't agree with everything you've said in this thread, you do use nice language. You just have to be careful of not coming off sounding pretentious though.

Apologies. I'll try to sift these apparitions of "self-importance" out of my rhetoric

 

[Paul Kimball]

Angel,

I can see why you would think this--its my fault that I haven't articulated or communicated my points very well. I assure you I am not arguing mere semantics....but now that you've brought up the subject, I do see a potential misconception brought about by a gross misuse of language which would require delving into the subject of active meaning and semiosis. I'll leave that for another time...

For now I must distinguish the "onus" proposition from " balance of probabilities" -- the balance of probabilities assertion is fundamentally not stating anything about who's obligated to present the evidence (however these ideas may be artificially connected in legal discourse). The "balance of probabilities" assumes (1) A space of events with an assigned probability metric (beyond what is assumed or forced in adversarial courtroom drama) and (2) a pragmatic need to churn through cases using the "slightest tip" criterion for disposal. It should not be state that physicists rest on a mere tip to 49 to 51 % or vice versa to "adjudicate" scientific propositions. Again, these methods may work in legal and political discourse (of which Paul is no stranger), but they are not adequate terms for addressing scientific issues.

You should explain that to Michio Kaku then, because at a lecture I saw him give in London last year, he referred more than once in the Q & A, when discussing things that would be considered "far out," to whether it was more probable or not, which is the very essence of the balance of probabilities.

 

[Michael Allen]

You should explain that to Michio Kaku then, because at a lecture I saw him give in London last year, he referred more than once in the Q & A, when discussing things that would be considered "far out," to whether it was more probable or not, which is the very essence of the balance of probabilities.

I can certainly try--if he even cares.

And at any rate--argument from authority.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------

Paul,
How does one determine if a proposition is established under the criterion of BoP?

 

[Paul Kimball]

I can certainly try--if he even cares.

And at any rate--argument from authority.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------

Paul,
How does one determine if a proposition is established under the criterion of BoP?

It's not an argument from authority. You're arguing that BoP has no place in scientific investigation, and I'm telling you, from one of out foremost scientists, that he seems to think that it does, particularly when discussing technologies that may or may not someday happen.

No offense, but between you and Kaku, I choose to go with Kaku.

As for BoP itself, the simplest way of looking at it is by asking: "is this more likely than not?

I would argue that when discussing the unkown and unexplained, in tandem with theories about them, the evidential standards to which I refer are really the only useful way to look at it.

 

[Michael Allen]

And I am saying, without an appropriately defined event space and probability metric, you can't even answer the "more likely than not" question.

Perhaps a clarification is in order: BoP organizes itself around the statement P and its negation ~P. But first you have to show an actual event space mapping that is one-to-one to this proposition.

Aside: Unfortunately, you have to exclude the propositional attitude thrown in by the word "extraordinary"

In an adversarial system of justice, simplifying the event space to fit in with the plantiff (i.e. court action) vs. defense works wonders--BoP is amenable to this system when the system of interconnected statements regarding an actual event can be boiled down to summary judgement (i.e. a stance) regarding two diametrically opposed entities.

Unfortunately, the "law of the excluded middle" cannot be exploited when the total event space is unknown. Kaku (and others) can't reasonably expect researchers to begin an assessment of probabilities when the event space partition isn't settled. The "more likely than not" question must be antecedent to the question of whether the target question is actually meaningful. Indeed, one might get an answer out of the BoP calculus (i.e. with the usual parameters and constraints) to a meaningless question and then later try to present the findings as meaningful. So BoP(X,Y,Z....), as a function, can act as a malicious multiplier and propagator of counterfeit "facts."

At best, one can try to implement a Bayesian approach, but even then one has to (as best as possible) outline a complete partition space of alternatives. Unfortunately, as Dawkins shows in "The God Delusion" there are serious flaws in any Bayesian approach that doesn't address the actual reasoning behind one's choice of categories (partition space).

At best, we have a "more likely than not" based on our current accepted (i.e. a choice of which is NOT TRIVIAL and not subject to the same concurrent probabilistic analysis!) partition of event space

 

[justcurious]

If I see a murder take place yet they cant find a body or murder weapon it can still hold enough weight to convict. If I see a UFO then I must be a poor observer either hoaxing or misidentifying the object. Why is this acceptable?

The resistance toward the evidences in favour of the ufo phenomenon is probably due to a cultural mental block. It is mostly present in western cultures, where Christianity has had centuries to hammer in its "man-at-the-centre-of-the-universe" paradigm, among others.

And fear, possibly.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The resistance toward the evidences in favour of the ufo phenomenon is probably due to a cultural mental block. It is mostly present in western cultures, where Christianity has had centuries to hammer in its "man-at-the-centre-of-the-universe" paradigm, among others.

And fear, possibly.

And lack of solid proof.

 

[Ron Collins]

And lack of solid proof.

Maybe but again, how do you reconcile the apparent double standard in credibility of witness testimony as it applies to subject matter? I think this is the 3rd time in this thread I have asked this question and nobody seems to want to address it. Am I missing something or is it the 2 ton elephant in the corner? (Unless that is what is going on with the BoP sub-discussion. Legalese confounds me so!)

 

[justcurious]

And lack of solid proof.

You still haven't got my comparison with the late acceptance of meteorites it seems.
BTW the same mental block must have been operating there too...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Maybe but again, how do you reconcile the apparent double standard in credibility of witness testimony as it applies to subject matter? I think this is the 3rd time in this thread I have asked this question and nobody seems to want to address it. Am I missing something or is it the 2 ton elephant in the corner? (Unless that is what is going on with the BoP sub-discussion. Legalese confounds me so!)

No no Ron, you're not missing anything. The thing is, with these phenomena like UFOs and the paranormal, the human race is being asked to completely alter conventional ways of thinking. Witness testimony is reason enough to see if there is something going on, but evidence is necessary before changing how we view reality.
Example: With alien abductions, there's no real proof to show that actual aliens are taking people. It seems more likely that people are having some sort of psychological experience. That's what I think after hearing a lot of what people have said on the subject. However, if someone brings back proof (say they have footage of being abducted), or the abduction is witnessed (and maybe filmed) by multiple sources, well I'll have nothing to say except "holy shit, aliens are kidnapping people."

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

You still haven't got my comparison with the late acceptance of meteorites it seems.
BTW the same mental block must have been operating there too...

But there is solid proof of meteorites. That's the type of proof we need.

 

[NTS]

"...with these phenomena like UFOs and the paranormal, the human race is being asked to completely alter conventional ways of thinking..."

Not necessarily. If (say) Bigfoot was found and it turned out to be a previously unknown species of animal, that wouldn't require a great revision in our understanding of biology. The same with UFOs. If they are "nuts and bolts" spacecraft we might be amazed at the technology but the underlying physics could be compatible with what we already know. On the other hand the more exotic claims about ghosts, visitors from other dimensions etc. really would drastically alter our view of reality.