Extraordinary Claims: Aaronk1994 vs Carl Sagan

[TakNomed]

Ya'll need to just get laid already.

Seriously.

problem???

[wizkid2000]

oh god... "extraordinary claims require extraordinarily evidence". The most meaningless and vapid mantra to come out of the "free thinker".

By what objective standard do claims or evidence become "extraordinary"? How mindless a catch phrase.

[trick0171]

@wizkid2000

The claim that "There is a dog in the room over there" without bringing a person into the room or displaying evidence that there is a dog in the room is not "extraordinary"...the claim that "there is a leprechaun in the room" under the same circumstances IS an extraordinary claim. It is a claim that is out of the ordinary.

(MORE 1)

[trick0171]

We know that dogs exist and that one could reasonably be in the room, we don't know that leprechaun's exist and therefore it requires more proof that one is in the room.

These are obvious differences, and even though we cannot be sure that either is in the room without evidence...one requires much more than the other. We may even be able to take the first on the face of it if we trust the person claiming it...but to take the second on the face of it is what should never be done.

(END 2)

[wizkid2000]

@trick0171

Where does the extraordinary part come from? No where.

the evidence is the same for the dog and leprechauns are the same. Go in the room and see if its there. So seeing a dog is good enough but seeing a leprechaun isnt? That's Retarded.

[trick0171]

@wizkid2000

We are talking about prior to any evidence such as going into the room.

Prior to going into the room I would be willing to bet a person a very large amount of money that a real leprechaun is not in a room. In regards to a dog...I don't think I would at all. This is all BEFORE going into the room. If you cannot see that one has a higher probability of likeliness...that sir...is retarded.

[wizkid2000]

@trick0171

No we are not. We're talk about evidence not lack of evidence. Claims require evidence. This tacking on the word extraordinary if meaningless bullshit. Your subjective belief in the probability of leprechauns is completely irreverent.

This is what I hate of some of the dumber atheist on YouTube. They treat science like a religion but have no clue how it works.

[trick0171]

@wizkid2000

No, the claim that a dog is in a room does not require the same evidence. We do not have to go into the room to believe in the likeliness of such a claim being made. We do, however, have to go into the room for the leprechaun claim.

Imagine if you will a room that we cannot get to for some reason...with the two claims being made. We can hear noises in the room...ruffling around. One person tells us he was in the room and the noise is a dog.

(MORE 1)

[trick0171]

Another tells us he was in the room and it is a leprechaun making the noise. With only the ruffling sound we can give much more credence to it being a dog than we can it being a leprechaun.

And no I do not treat science like a religion. I am a philosopher and think both induction and deduction important epistemological standards.

Thanks.

(END 2)

[thunderbolt94]

The problem I have with Carl Sagan's quote is that it really has become subjective. As a principle idea, sure, I have no problem with the idea Sagan was going for, but many people just use this quote as band wagon catch phrase, which is annoying as hell.

[LinkMEP]

I do agree for the most part. However, isn't Sagan's entire point hindered by the fact that whether a claim is extraordinary or not is subjective to personal opinon?