Extraordinary evidence

[Chucky]

Most extraordinary claims are disproven by ordinary evidence.

The theory of relativity is a good example of what was a seemingly extraordinary claim at the time it came about but it provided the extraordinary evidence that showed it is true. Look at the pile of evidence it needed to be convincing.

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by Minarvia

Now, if I can only work up the nerve to ask people to explain to me "begging the question"! I just don't quite grasp that one. Oh! Or, what exactly solipsism is. *sigh* I'll have to do more lurking! I read the definitions, but until I see them in action, so to speak, I don't really grasp them.

Begging the question, is (as Neil said too) when you assume the person's premise only to raise the issue further.

It goes hand in hand with that adage "produces more questions than it does answers".

Best example I can give, is a discussion between Tom and Sally.
Italic parts can be replaced with "which begs the question"

Quote:

Tom: I believe there are UFO's watching us.
Sally: Assuming that I believe that too, where would they come from?
Tom: Another galaxy. Maybe even another universe.
Sally: Lets say they do come from another galaxy, how did they get here?
Tom: By using faster-than-light travel!
Sally: But even if they did it that way, how would they survive the 100's and thousands, even millions of years of travel, even at twenty times the speed of light?

As you can see, begging the question, is merely another way of saying "If -that were true, then answer the following logically next-step question"


Solipsism is hard to explain so simply. Its more of a philosophical term used to demonstrate that you cannot be sure of anything, other than that your thoughts/mind/consciousness exists.
You cannot possibly be sure that the sky is blue, other than you know it to be true.
But you cannot trust that either, for your mind can be lying.
The only thing you can be sure of, is that you are perceiving the sky as blue.
And for that matter, that also could be due to other influences.
So, the only real thing that you can be sure of, is that you perceive.
But then again, you can't be so sure. How do you know you are deaf if you were born deaf? Because others told you so? What if you weren't deaf but believed you were because you were told?

So... at the end of that almost-infinite string of one thing upon the other, it ends with "The only thing you can be sure of, is that your thoughts exist."
In a sorta ****** way, The Matrix was a rudimentary play on this idea.

[OCaptain]

Originally Posted by MrQhuest

Lets say I told you I went to Starbucks for a coffee. Do you believe me? Do you ask to see my receipt? Do you ask me about my car? What route I take? How I can afford said beverage? No. This is an ordinary claim. At most you may ask to see my receipt to prove my purchase. That would be an ordinary amount of evidence. Everything else about the claim is so mundane you would normally accept it at that point.

Now lets say that I told you I went to Starbucks on the Moon. I show you a receipt that tells you I purchased my coffee at "Starbucks: The Moon." I am presenting you with the same amount of evidence. Do you accept my story? No? Why not? This is an extraordinary claim, that will need additional evidence before being accepted. How did I get there? How could I afford it? When did they build a Starbucks on the moon? Why haven't you heard about the franchise before? Even If I gave you reasonable answers to each question, you would probably still not believe me. You would require extraordinary amounts of evidence.

Hope that helps.

MrQ

Now, since I don't have a Starbucks nearby. I need to go to Tim Horton's for a coffee...

So, the deck is inherently stacked against any new theories or observations if they depart "too far" from what we've observed up to this point.

I can see problems with this already in the soft sciences where much is based on academic opinion. Much of archaeology and anthropology is built around informed guesses.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

The reason people are having trouble with this is that they are defending a chiasm. A chiasm is a literary device, kind of like a poem. A rhyme. It has appeal because of the symmetry in using extraordinary twice: ABAC . Another example is a preacher saying "Control your lust beore your lust controls you..." which is the form ABBA.

In short: it sounds catchy. But it is also a tautology. Stray Cat drew the tautology for us in a picture: The evidence that would cause us to believe in UFO's would be extraordinary. By definition: it is "extra" or out of the ordinary. For example, a space ship landing in front of the White House with a diplomatic team - that would do just fine as evidence. Any evidence you can think of that would convince you is going to be extraordinary. Ergo, it is tautological.

So it is a catchy tautology skeptics use sometimes without knowing that they are employing a literary device that is deceptive, imparting the illusion of power or truth because "extraordinary" rhymes with itself. Unfortunately,it presents woo-ists with a special pleading accusation. They're victim of your unreasonable demands.

Sandwiched in-between the superfluous poetry is "Claims require evidence". (Form BC) Let's take that as a given, shall we? Now put any word in there twice (A):

Optimal claims require optimal evidence. Now it is a poem: ABAC, also true by construction. Blue claims require blue evidence etc.

[Minarvia]

Wheunis - (((HUGS))) That was genius! I get it now. Whew! Years of not understanding it, and today, between you and NeilC, I totally get it! Well, maybe I should be skeptical of that?

That really make sense, tho, the "If that were true, then..." really makes all sorts of statements I've read in the past make sense. I can feel the pieces clicking into place in my mind.

Solipsism, however, I think I get the gist of. I have seen where people (the woo) drone on and on and bring up nothing credible, and then somebody tells them to not engage in solipsism. In that context, the term now has some meaning to me.

Now, off to read the thread recommended to me!

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

Minarvia, this might interest you:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/reso...fallacies.aspx

Here's another - http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Yuri

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by Minarvia

Solipsism, however, I think I get the gist of. I have seen where people (the woo) drone on and on and bring up nothing credible, and then somebody tells them to not engage in solipsism. In that context, the term now has some meaning to me.

Well... sorta...
See, solipsism itself is a philosophical thing. A tool to develop upon thinking itself.

When used in the manner as you indicated above, "don't engage in" or "you are now engaging in", it is used more as Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd) in order to serve the skeptical hypothesis.

In summary: In accordance to Solipsism, where (at its most basic form) nothing exists but the self (Solipsism [Latin] = alone self), the common thread is to ignore the presence of other minds, as it concerns itself only with the personal beliefs/experiences/views/thoughts.
And since personal experiences are private and ineffable, another being's experience can be known only by analogy.
Analogy =/= proof for existence.

Solipsism is actually one of my few recreational mind exercises. It can get very weird really fast though...

[CORed]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

For something like a saequatch or a UFO, a photograph or simple video or eye witness testimony is not enough evidence to consider the existence of UFOs or sasquatch usually.

One needs very compelling and especially blatant evidence to demonstrate something that is supernatural or very improbable.

Because of how improbable extraordinary things are, when it comes to the improbable, you have to keep in mind that one can pretend to simulate improbable things using probable and mundane treachery. So you cannot rely on mundane evidence like simple anecdote, first hand experience.

You will need to see something as evidence that could not simply be accepted as evidence based on supposition.

Believers in woo will often ignore the possibility of mundane explanations and mundane evidence and favor extraordinary conclusions. Not only do they find voices in random feedback and call them EVPs, they become agitated at the mundane possibilities you posit as alternative examples and act as if it is out of the question to even consider such as a sensitive recording device to feedback and radio noise.

Funny how on ghost shows the EVP investigators use a tape recorder and play it later, while the whole thing is being filmed at the same time. Yet the EVP does not show up on the audio being recorded on camera, only on the tape recorder which has poor quality sound.

While I agree with you point, I think one of your examples is not the best. Proving the existence of a sasquatch doesn't require extraordinary evidence. All it requires is very ordinary evidence, i. e. a sasquatch, or a big enough piece of a dead sasquatch to establish that it is a hitherto unknown large hairy biped. It is the complete dearth of this very ordinary evidence that makes the existence of the sasquatch extremely unlikely. For animals (land animals anyway) that actually exist, even fairly rare ones, this sort of evidence shows up all the time. They get hit by cars, shot by hunters, or people find the remains of dead ones in the woods, or somebody manages to capture one alive. For sasquatch, all we have is stories, fake footprints, and fuzzy photos, movies and videos.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by wheunis

Begging the question, is (as Neil said too) when you assume the person's premise only to raise the issue further.

It goes hand in hand with that adage "produces more questions than it does answers".

Best example I can give, is a discussion between Tom and Sally.
Italic parts can be replaced with "which begs the question"



As you can see, begging the question, is merely another way of saying "If -that were true, then answer the following logically next-step question"

This is a common but incorrect use of the term "begging the question." It would be more accurate to say "raises the question" there.

To beg the question is to make an argument that only makes sense if it were already true. There are entire webpages devoted to clarifying this distinction.

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

This is a common but incorrect use of the term "begging the question." It would be more accurate to say "raises the question" there.

To beg the question is to make an argument that only makes sense if it were already true. There are entire webpages devoted to clarifying this distinction.

Like I said, and as your linked site also says:

Quote:

When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

Like I said...
"Sally: Lets say they do come from another galaxy, how did they get here?"
ie: treating the assumption that they do come from another galaxy, as true.
Thus - begs the question.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

This is a common but incorrect use of the term "begging the question." It would be more accurate to say "raises the question" there.

To beg the question is to make an argument that only makes sense if it were already true. There are entire webpages devoted to clarifying this distinction.

I tend to agree with the above. To me, the traditional, original use of begging the question would be:

Tom: I believe there are UFO's watching us, because the aliens on board told me so by telepathy.
Sally: That's begging the question. What actual evidence do you have?

[Minarvia]

Originally Posted by Yuri Nalyssus

Here's another - http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Yuri

Oh, that one's great, too, and covers 20 quite simply. That's just what I needed! I also F/B'd it. Thank you!

[Minarvia]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

This is a common but incorrect use of the term "begging the question." It would be more accurate to say "raises the question" there.

To beg the question is to make an argument that only makes sense if it were already true. There are entire webpages devoted to clarifying this distinction.

Just took a peek at that page and it says the problem is (as it was with me) to think that 'begging the question' means there is a literal question. I was very confused on that, but their example of "I believe he is ugly because he is unattractive" 'begs' the question in the sense that it makes us wonder WHY he is unattractive, when the stater of the observation merely restated the premise without any valid assertion.

Right?

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

This is a common but incorrect use of the term "begging the question." It would be more accurate to say "raises the question" there.

To beg the question is to make an argument that only makes sense if it were already true. There are entire webpages devoted to clarifying this distinction.

Please note that this argument about the "true meaning" of begging the question is itself a case of begging the question. Basically, it boils down to claiming "the phrase 'begging the question X' is wrong because the Internet tells me so." There's several other fallacies in the claim (like the "more accurate" part, which ignores the clear distinction in meaning between "begs the question X" and "raises the question X" which anyone without a tin ear and an agenda can spot), but the core argument is a clear case of begging the question.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by wheunis

Well... sorta...
See, solipsism itself is a philosophical thing. A tool to develop upon thinking itself.

When used in the manner as you indicated above, "don't engage in" or "you are now engaging in", it is used more as Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd) in order to serve the skeptical hypothesis.

In summary: In accordance to Solipsism, where (at its most basic form) nothing exists but the self (Solipsism [Latin] = alone self), the common thread is to ignore the presence of other minds, as it concerns itself only with the personal beliefs/experiences/views/thoughts.
And since personal experiences are private and ineffable, another being's experience can be known only by analogy.
Analogy =/= proof for existence.

Solipsism is actually one of my few recreational mind exercises. It can get very weird really fast though...

How does it feel in that world all by yourself where everything you see is a product of your own mind?

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by CORed

While I agree with you point, I think one of your examples is not the best. Proving the existence of a sasquatch doesn't require extraordinary evidence. All it requires is very ordinary evidence, i. e. a sasquatch, or a big enough piece of a dead sasquatch to establish that it is a hitherto unknown large hairy biped. It is the complete dearth of this very ordinary evidence that makes the existence of the sasquatch extremely unlikely. For animals (land animals anyway) that actually exist, even fairly rare ones, this sort of evidence shows up all the time. They get hit by cars, shot by hunters, or people find the remains of dead ones in the woods, or somebody manages to capture one alive. For sasquatch, all we have is stories, fake footprints, and fuzzy photos, movies and videos.

At heart it's a semantic argument. A dead sasquatch would be extraordinary.
But Sagan was only saying this in the first place in the interest of creating an eloquent sort of catchphrase that is somewhat poetic or catchy. It's not intended to be logical law.

Just as there is not really such thing as a difference between extraordinary evidence and normal evidence, there is also not really such a thing as a difference between normal events and extraordinary events.

Normal and extraordinary are subjective and arbitrary concepts dependent upon the observer's subscription to what is mundane and what is extraordinary.

The claim is basically you need more than what you would find acceptable evidence to believe I am having a garage sale next week than what you would need in order to believe I am going to travel to an alien planet next week. You need more rigorous standards of evidence for claims which are out of the ordinary.

Here are some older posts I made in regard to this subject:

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

It's funny how Dr Sagan only used this semantic thorn in Ramjet's paw when repeating his well known quote in the context of a saying that is intended to roll off the tongue and communicate an idea with attractive linguistic rhythm.

When he actually discusses the topic without using a catch phrase, he ceases to use the word "extraordinary evidence". He actually refers to this extraordinary evidence frequently in interviews when people asked what he meant when he said that.

Quite simply, he has stated he means it as a rigorous standard of evidence. It's really that simple. "Rigorous and severe standards of evidence". You can find him explaining it in multiple places.

How the notion could be mistaken that anything but rigorous and severe standards of evidence was what Dr Sagan intended to convey is quite the testament to the strength of the arguments people like Ramjet will posit. But I suppose it's absolutely to be expected from a person who actually responds to a claim like "you may have created the most extensive semantic argument outside of a linguistic lecture" with:

"That's an assertion!"

Well gee, yes. It is in fact an assertion.

So sayeth he, Saint Sagan from upon high with gilded wings:

"And my second point is that to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations, those investigations must be true to the spirit of science. And that means highly skeptical, demanding, rigorous standards of evidence. And it's not a hint of that from alien abduction enthusiasts ... I think that the alien abduction enthusiasts understand the need for physical evidence. It's the pathway to some degree of respectability. And for 40 years, they've been telling us that real evidence is just around the corner, it's about to be released, it's being studied at this moment - and nothing ever comes of it."

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Is it really that difficult to understand that you should expect a different degree of evidence than you would need to prove to someone that you once ate a popsicle than if you wanted someone to believe you ate a popsicle with Ahura Mazda while orbiting Saturn?

Sagan was using language in an abstract way, a figure of speech in a sense.

I think this is clear to everyone really who isn't hung up on pedantic hair splitting. He could have said better evidence, he could have said more convincing evidence, he could have said more evidence, but that isn't as catchy and it is not as memorable a quote.

I did not make my last post as a response to your questions Ramjet, nor am I making this one in an effort to refute your argument. This is commentary.

Here's another assertion. That a mind is mired in debating this quote speaks volumes of this mind's underlying agenda.

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

It's clear he used the word "extraordinary" only as a catchy phrase. All he is saying is that you should require more than the usual evidence you would require for something casually claimed, something certainly more than circumstantial evidence.

The problem is, all the believers of the things Sagan is cautioning against, these believers believe out of an acceptance of purely circumstantial evidence.

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by tsig

How does it feel in that world all by yourself where everything you see is a product of your own mind?

Powerful, actually.
If you indulge deep/long enough, it starts to become extremely overwhelming.

Fueled by a modicum of imagination, it really is the epitome of discovery into the whole human condition.

In this little world of Solipsism, I can kill you with a mere thought. Some thoughts are harder to "kill" than others. And while you're killing off thoughts, finding out which ones you can kill off easy and which one's are harder, you do indeed discover quite a bit about yourself.
Your biases and preferences really start to show themselves.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

The reason people are having trouble with this is that they are defending a chiasm. A chiasm is a literary device, kind of like a poem. A rhyme. It has appeal because of the symmetry in using extraordinary twice: ABAC . Another example is a preacher saying "Control your lust beore your lust controls you..." which is the form ABBA.

In short: it sounds catchy. But it is also a tautology. Stray Cat drew the tautology for us in a picture: The evidence that would cause us to believe in UFO's would be extraordinary. By definition: it is "extra" or out of the ordinary. For example, a space ship landing in front of the White House with a diplomatic team - that would do just fine as evidence. Any evidence you can think of that would convince you is going to be extraordinary. Ergo, it is tautological.

So it is a catchy tautology skeptics use sometimes without knowing that they are employing a literary device that is deceptive, imparting the illusion of power or truth because "extraordinary" rhymes with itself. Unfortunately,it presents woo-ists with a special pleading accusation. They're victim of your unreasonable demands.

Sandwiched in-between the superfluous poetry is "Claims require evidence". (Form BC) Let's take that as a given, shall we? Now put any word in there twice (A):

Optimal claims require optimal evidence. Now it is a poem: ABAC, also true by construction. Blue claims require blue evidence etc.

Absolutely. You'd think this would speak for itself.

[NeilC]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

Neil, did you check the thread I linked about ECREE (it's not a long thread, don't worry)? It was especially motivated by my email exchange with Wiseman, and you can read the actual exchange from this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...9&postcount=29

It seems to me that Richard was genuinely confused about the use of ECREE, and hadn't really thought about the slogan in more detail before. Either that or he was being VERY sloppy in the interview AND when replying to my question about the interview.

No I hand't seen that, thanks. Funny how we've both had the same questions sparked off by the same incident.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by CORed

While I agree with you point, I think one of your examples is not the best. Proving the existence of a sasquatch doesn't require extraordinary evidence. All it requires is very ordinary evidence, i. e. a sasquatch, or a big enough piece of a dead sasquatch to establish that it is a hitherto unknown large hairy biped. It is the complete dearth of this very ordinary evidence that makes the existence of the sasquatch extremely unlikely. For animals (land animals anyway) that actually exist, even fairly rare ones, this sort of evidence shows up all the time. They get hit by cars, shot by hunters, or people find the remains of dead ones in the woods, or somebody manages to capture one alive. For sasquatch, all we have is stories, fake footprints, and fuzzy photos, movies and videos.

Sure, Sagan's ECREE can be abused and was never intended to be used as a law. It must be considered within its original context, its original intents. To date, fringe subjects' proponents consistently failed to produce reliable evidence to back their claims. Their run-of-the-mill products are unreliable informations (anecdotes, questionable images, etc.). Reliable evidence backing fringe subjects are quite rare, unexpected, uncommon, extraordinary.

Well, I, for one, would consider a bigfoot specimen as something quite extraordinary... Its not like a bear specimen. Yes, "its just a specimen" or just a bit of evidence, but would be a quite rare, unexpected, uncommon, extraordinary one.

Another example: If I showed you a real specimen of a silicon-based alien lifeform, would you consider it as ordinary? Its just atoms, just a bunch of silica polymers?

Same would be valid for images say, of UFOs. There are terabytes or petabytes of UFO images flying around the net. None reliable evidence for the presence of alien spacecrafts on Earth. They are all questionable. Dubious provenance, too blurry, etc. Now, a razor-sharp image of a real alien spacecraft, an image with no evidence of tampering and whose provenance could be taken for granted (say, NASA, ESA, etc.), well, that would be something unexpected, uncommon, extraordinary.

So, for most useful purposes, ECREE works pretty well as a rule of thumb, a general reminder regarding claims and evidence. Unless one wants to enter in to deep semantics and/or take it out of its original context and intents. Or, of course, unless someone considers a bigfoot living in the backyard and silicon-based aliens as common things.

[Beelzebuddy]

I'm finding it somewhat surreal to have to defend the existence of a simple logical fallacy here. Facebook or 4chan, sure, but I thought we were better informed round these parts.

Originally Posted by wheunis

Like I said...
"Sally: Lets say they do come from another galaxy, how did they get here?"
ie: treating the assumption that they do come from another galaxy, as true.
Thus - begs the question.

No. To beg the question is to do that in your own argument. What you're describing is just a manner of responding.

I dug up a few snappy examples on the nets:

Quote:

"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

Affirmative Action can never be fair or just. You cannot remedy one injustice by committing another.

Murder is morally wrong. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Originally Posted by Minarvia

Just took a peek at that page and it says the problem is (as it was with me) to think that 'begging the question' means there is a literal question. I was very confused on that, but their example of "I believe he is ugly because he is unattractive" 'begs' the question in the sense that it makes us wonder WHY he is unattractive, when the stater of the observation merely restated the premise without any valid assertion.

Right?

Almost. The "question" refers to the matter under debate itself; you don't have to wonder about it.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The term was translated into English from Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, petitio principii, can be interpreted in different ways. Petitio (from peto), in the post-classical context in which the phrase arose, means "assuming" or "postulating," but in the older classical sense means "petition," "request," or "beseeching."[10] Principii, genitive of principium, means "beginning," "basis," or "premise" (of an argument). Literally petitio principii means "assuming the premise" or "assuming the original point," or, alternately, "a request for the beginning or premise;" that is, the premise depends on the truth of the very matter in question.

Originally Posted by xtifr

Please note that this argument about the "true meaning" of begging the question is itself a case of begging the question. Basically, it boils down to claiming "the phrase 'begging the question X' is wrong because the Internet tells me so." There's several other fallacies in the claim (like the "more accurate" part, which ignores the clear distinction in meaning between "begs the question X" and "raises the question X" which anyone without a tin ear and an agenda can spot), but the core argument is a clear case of begging the question.

No it isn't. It would be begging the question if I argued that wheunis was wrong because he was incorrect. I instead argued that he was wrong, deal with it, in the hopes that he would. I am disappoint.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I'm finding it somewhat surreal to have to defend the existence of a simple logical fallacy here. Facebook or 4chan, sure, but I thought we were better informed round these parts.

The poster in question made it one day before I put him on ignore. Omnicience seems to preclude learning.

[Spektator]

As the Israelites were trying to leave Egypt, a volcano erupted on a Mediterranean island hundreds of miles to the north. Atmospheric dust settled out of the air, turning the Nile red as blood Frogs fled the poisoned water. In their absence flies multiplied. Older children, the first born, played in the red water. They were poisoned and died. Later an earthquake associated with the eruption caused a tsunami. As is well known, the earliest sign of a tsunami is the retreat of water. In this phase the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, but the tsunami rolled in and drowned the pursuing Egyptians.

But this pseudoscientific explanation of events in Exodus begs the question by assuming the events actually happened to begin with. There is no extra-biblical evidence that the plagues and the parting of the sea occurred.

[Arouet]

I'm going to quote myself from my post over on the Skeptiko forums:

Originally Posted by Arouet

Really, ECREE has it reversed. It should be Less important claims merit less scrutiny for pragmatic reasons. The default is: demonstrate all claims to a very high degree of confidence. But that's not practical, so we have lesser standards, and we accept higher error bars. But some claims should stay near the top, due to the far reaching implications. The subjects being studied by parapsychology, which have enourmous implications on our studying of how the universe works must be near the top.