Theroy to me is a way to quantify or classify something or someone that to your knowlage your not sure about yet. But the scientific definition also applies in my book. So in some way i go both ways.
Hell i've come up with sevril theroies if not trying to find something to explain them. So yeah, i can agree with "extrodanary claims require extrodanary evidince." Regaurdless i still go for the quantum theroies due to there draw of a philosophcial nature in most cases.
The problem with that broken down record nonsense, is the potential for lies and assumptions to demand extra ordinary evidence for something that is actually simple or natural, ends up causes the wrecking havoc on proving the natural existing.
I find that Occam's Razor/Law of Parsimony fails because most people don't quite understand the context of "simplest" in this case. Often falling on "God did it" being the 'simplest' answer but not understanding that it has no explanatory power.
With Sagan's quote you have a clear definition of what one is trying to achieve. In simpler terms "put up or shut up" in that everyone can understand.
I think this is less a theory and more of a qualification
For example, if I say I'm wearing a blue shirt, you'd probably take me for my word because it is an ordinary claim, and you have no reason to think otherwise unless you're willing to come visit me and verify that my shirt is indeed blue (which would be ridiculous).
But if I say that the universe arose from a bubble that separated itself from the foaming mouth of a cosmic sea monster, every one who hears it is going to be demanding I go out there and PROVE IT! They will not believe me until I come back with heaps and heaps and heaps of solid evidence, scientific studies, and a written not from the serpent himself....and then they still probably won't because it's such a strange illogical thing to say.
What constitutes "extraordinary" for either claims or evidence? Moreover, how does one discern whether or not a given eventuality is causally connected to another? How might one calculate the conditional probability in the case of unique events? I think that this is a question that one has to be able to answer in order to make use of the aphorism under scrutiny here. Now before dismissing this as some obvious, tautological, pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, please allow me a brief defense of my statement. The need for "extraordinary evidence" is usually demanded for some kind of endeavor that ultimately relies on an absolute, objective view of "the truth," such as science, medicine, or law. Although an objective and (where possible) quantitative account is required for these types of analytics, it inevitably must fall to a subjective, qualitative, and normative opinion by "experts" to determine the sufficiency of proof where there is considerable prior doubt. This problem is further confounded by the fact that the same individuals that must make this judgement almost always do not have an unbiased stance on the matter. For instance, dogmatism prevails in science, because the "old guard" can dismiss new theories that appear to contradict established one under the "extraordinary claims" banner. Without a system for determining levels of "extraordinariness," it is impractical and improper to use this credo as a standard for any rigorous endeavor. I do not dispute that there may be ways of doing so--only that they are rarely put into practice or are used in some unprincipled fashion.
brainninja11Featured By OwnerDec 7, 2012Student General Artist
To me, it means that if you are going to claim that a man who was his own father and is also a ghost will judge you and send you to this evil place that he kinda made anyway if you don't obey him, then you have to do more than just tell me to have faith.
That fully depends on the context. What the person saying it means is fairly obvious, but objectively, extraordinary is a very subjective adjective. Different views see the same theories completely differently. IE creationists: Abiogenesis is an extraordinary claim. Atheist Evolutionists: Genesis is an extraordinary claim.
But I do believe there is an objective base. And from that base I have come to believe that an Atheist scientific world model based in evolution has quite a lot of extraordinary evidence for it. Most of it was contructed from the extraordinary evidence in fact. Whereas competing models have virtually no proof whatsoever.
It's self-explanatory. When I hear it, I also hear the other side: ordinary claims require ordinary evidence. It bugs the shit out of me when people try to be hyper-sceptical and insist on tonnes of evidence for the most insignificant of facts. Those people don't get it.
Every theist does that whenever I bring it up even with the 'ordinary evidence' bit they just can't or won't understand. Often I feel because they realize that they can't provide the evidence for their beliefs so they have a need to deflect or project the argument off of the fact. Or claim personal experience.
When someone makes a statement like that, it sounds to me like they're not open to things that might change the way they view the world. Then again, what is ordinary or extraordinary may vary from person to person. For example, the idea of God is extraordinary to some people and ordinary to others.
It means that you need a pretty rock solid foundation of experimental or field evidence to back up any claim that goes against established and substantiated scientific models. I mean, we wouldn't want to throw out the old science if the new discovery was actually wrong.
Any new claim needs to be able to explain all the old evidence just as well as the new evidence, and make testable predictions that distinguish it from the old models.