Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Carl Sagan was wrong: ordinary evidence is enough (alt opinions about platitudes)

#1
C C Offline
https://iai.tv/articles/carl-sagan-was-w...-auid-2348

EXCERPTS: . . . Nevertheless, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is a favourite saying of scientists, sceptics, and debunkers of all stripes. It was made famous by the astrobiologist and science communicator, Carl Sagan, who probably borrowed it from the sociologist Marcello Truzzi...

Unfortunately, the famous dictum about extraordinary claims (sometimes known as Sagan’s dictum or Sagan’s standard) is often wielded in a rather less insightful way. It’s a good slogan: the repetition of “extraordinary” gives it a nice formal symmetry, which makes it seem almost self-evident, requiring no further thought or justification.

But as we have just seen, at least some extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. We proved the claim about Caesar’s last breath with just a little textbook knowledge and a bit of arithmetic. You might object that this particular claim was not extraordinary in the right way for Sagan’s dictum validly to apply. But what is the right way? What does it take for a claim to be so “extraordinary” that it requires “extraordinary evidence” for us to take it seriously? What, indeed, is “extraordinary evidence”?

[...] To think about this clearly we should start by recognising that “extraordinary” is a slippery word with multiple meanings. If we treat any proposition that seems out of the ordinary as an “extraordinary claim” then Sagan’s dictum becomes little more than a distillation of bias or prejudice; an excuse for not thinking harder. In that case, we would be better off without it...

[...] Usually, however, neither hypotheses nor lines of evidence come with unequivocal probabilities attached to them. What is the probability that ghosts exist? It is not obvious how to answer this, but that doesn’t mean that Sagan’s dictum is useless here...

[...] Now we can see why some extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and some don’t. Those that do are either highly improbable (requiring highly unambiguous evidence) or counter to a weight of evidence that seems to rule them out (which the new evidence must somehow be reconciled with); those that don’t are simply out of the ordinary or counterintuitive, like the claim about Caesar’s last breath...

[....] True scepticism aims to follow the evidence as diligently as possible, not simply to exclude radical or outlandish conclusions in advance (Truzzi called that “pseudoskepticism”). Sagan knew this better than anyone, arguing that science must balance “the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny” with “an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be”. Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the more bizarre, counterintuitive, and extraordinary it seems to be... (MORE - missing details)
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
Could have saved a lot of writing and just said "extraordinary claims require either extraordinary evidence or such an extraordinary amount of ordinary evidence that the claim becomes ordinary."
Reply
#3
Magical Realist Offline
I totally agree with this article. To me the slogan is an attempt to raise the bar on extraordinary phenomena so that no evidence for it is ever accepted. But what is extraordinary evidence and how do we get it? Would a direct firsthand encounter meet the bar for UAP's?
Would reproduction of effects in a lab suffice for telekinesis? I think anomalous phenomena has it's own sort of evidence that we must attend to. It is extraordinary and non-repeating and rare and must be approached in that way.
Reply
#4
Syne Offline
I just answered that. Again, extraordinary evidence is either something, itself, extraordinary...like an actual UFO or alien body to be examined by many experts...or such an extraordinary amount of ordinary evidence that the thing so evinced, itself, becomes completely ordinary...like erstwhile technological wonders such as the smart phone or jet planes.

It's really not hard to understand.
Reply
#5
confused2 Offline
Maybe being caught making a false claim is more damaging to the credibility of 'science' then missing a few possibilities. Maybe should have been "Extraordinary claims require overwhelming evidence" but that doesn't have the same click-bait appeal.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article We must put an end to scientism (philosophy of mind alt proposal) C C 0 65 Feb 20, 2024 08:47 AM
Last Post: C C
  alt-views: "Why psychology is failing men" + Mimic China's promotion of masculinity C C 19 445 Mar 6, 2023 04:40 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Vacuum energy in alt black hole model as source of dark energy's acceleration role C C 0 89 Feb 18, 2023 07:26 PM
Last Post: C C
  Bigfoot has a very simple explanation, scientist says (alt theory) C C 0 70 Feb 1, 2023 08:35 PM
Last Post: C C
  Value pluralism -- the alt theory to both moral relativism & absolutism C C 0 88 Jan 3, 2023 07:28 PM
Last Post: C C
  What do longtermists want? (alt to short-term, current altruism & special interests) C C 0 123 Oct 31, 2022 05:46 PM
Last Post: C C
  Phthalate fears may be premature (alt perspectives) C C 0 73 Mar 24, 2022 09:33 PM
Last Post: C C
  Propagandist foretold Putin's justification for Ukraine invasion (alt manipulation) C C 0 64 Mar 12, 2022 06:30 AM
Last Post: C C
  Meat-eating extends human life expectancy worldwide (alt to it's unhealthy, immoral) C C 1 110 Feb 25, 2022 08:02 AM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  The "what science writing owes to its religious origins" alt proposal C C 0 100 Jan 7, 2022 08:52 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)