Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is only half...?

Question

true. Ordinary explanations also require evidence. So many times, we hear of unusualy sightings in the sky being explained as swamp gas, weather baloons, etc. Are ordinary explanations for extraordinary happenings immune from requirements of proof?

Answer 1

I enjoy my paaranormal experiences and love figureing them out along with God's help.

I don't Need to prove anything to anyone since I know what I see is what I saw and so does God.

But if you are saying you want others to believe it...then help them know how to See.

Answer 2

First, there is no philosophy, rule or principle in all of science that states "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This was a phrase made famous by the late (and excellent scientist) Carl Sagan that readily admitted his unwillingness to accept claims of the paranormal (thus his famous quote). There were other scientist before him that also expressed beliefs of this nature.

This stance is required for skeptics to stay in business because as Jessica Utts concludes in her government sponsored evaluation of Remote Viewing:

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud."

(link below)

Second, yes an explanation must fit the circumstances to be a  good explanation that is not immediately falsifiable.

For instance hypnogogic/hypnopompic sleep state hallucinations are not an explanation for an alien abduction experience while a person is driving a car (versus being in bed).

Also, if you read carefully many parapsychology experiments are analyzed/critiqued with equally bad logic where results are dismissed because of "possible flaws" without evidence of an existing flaw. Further, when these flaws are taken into account the effect most often would not entirely reduce the results to below the statistically significant (in the positive direction) threshold.

So, skeptics are not immune from practicing good science even in their evaluations of people that conduct actual research in parapsychology.

Answer 3

Perhaps. But even the "ordinary" requires a little Faith; so to does the extraordinary. I speak not of "God" but just a firm belief in what is perceived as *real*.

Answer 4

Like i've told many people before without substantial proof to back up claims you can't prove really something exists that is out of the ordinary in this case "Paranormal", there are many claims and ways to debunk those claims ,  other wise it becomes legends etc. i don't want to write you a book lol ...... so i will stop there and say i hope i answered your question for the most part with my answer

Ryan ~Paranormal Investigator/Researcher~

www.theprosonline.com

Answer 5

You are ignoring the probability factor.  When someone offers natural explanations for reported incidences there isn't necessarily more evidence in support of such an incident being normal, but there is considerably more probability that such an incident was ordinary and therefore has a normal explanation.  That's the gist of that quote.

It's when a person provides an extraordinary explanation--one that has no precedence in normal every day life--that the quote you refer to comes into play.  An ordinary explanation has precedence and doesn't require as much explaining as the extraordinary.

Answer 6

Of course I would need evidence to prove something exists...to a stranger. If I see something, and other people with me see the something, then I know there is something. We can rule out crazy.

Now how do you prove this something that is suppose to be impossible? Don't go by the rules, especially the rules of science.

I can prove anything is impossible. Take for example, mathematics. Our whole foundation of mathematics is nothing more than rationalizing the irrational aka reality. Its nothing more than a theory. One day, we might find out that its wrong and broken. But then, people will create new equations to make it unbroken and work. Infinite.

This means the answer to your question is no. Ordinary things are just as extraordinary as extraordinary things. Ultimately, there is no proof because the reasons things work as they do is endless and can be the complete opposite as to what we percieve. Both possible and impossible things need proof, but solid proof is impossible for either one. This is why there is religion.

So if everything is impossible, then that means anything is possible. All you can do is rely on perceptions, thats the truth.

Answer 7

If you've got no proof one way or the other, it makes much more sense to assume it was something that is well known to exist - a plane, weather balloons, etc - than something that has never been shown to exist.

Answer 8

indeed

its like saying there are no absolutes in this world

but that statment is a absolute in itself,

ofcourse many of the things in the sky are  most of them actually no alien space scrafts,

on i see a grown man scream ufo aliens  when seeing a b2 traingle shape bomber who was practicing for air show,

but that not nagets the fact that the aliens  are here and have been here since the begining,  and indeed some of those lights are aliens and itnerdimsinal ships

Answer 9

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an albeit simple but essential idea behind all of scientific investigation. Strangely enough, you might hear something like "there is no philosophy, rule or principle in all of science that states extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" from non-scientists, however this plain bad logic and is much like how the religious right will claim that "separation of church and state" never appears in the First Amendment. Technically it does not, but it is a simple phrase commonly used to denote the legal and political principles that DO appear in the First Amendment. Likewise, the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" itself does not constitute a scientific law but it is a simple bite-size description of the philosophy absolutely intrinsic to scientific investigation and reasoning.

So, you're right, the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" doesn't capture all there is to know about how evidence is accumulated and used in science. Since this phrase is such a simplified "version" of scientific philosophy, it leaves much out. Ordinary explanations indeed require evidence as well, just as you said.

To get down to the root of it, any claim requires evidence to support it. What is an extraordinary claim? It is one that calls upon a number of assumptions or poorly supported hypothesis that must first be accepted before the claim itself can be accepted. Each of those assumptions or hypothesis require evidence first before they can be scientifically accepted, so you can see that an extraordinary claim is really a set of many claims that each require evidence. This is why extraordinary claims requires much more evidence than a claim based on already established science.

It should also be noted that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is also simplistic because it ignores a few things that would impact the acceptability of a hypothesis. While evidence is key, it isn't the only consideration. You'd also have to consider how the new theory meshes with the old theory, the degree of reproducibility, etc.

So, to sum up -- it's a simple phrase meant to denote a more complex idea, so much is lost in the simplification.

As far as requirements for proof, anybody making a positive claim bears the burden of proof. If someone claims that a UFO was actually swamp gas, then you have the right to call them on it and say "okay, support your claim".  However, a skeptic can also say, "it COULD have been swamp gas", and then the skeptic only bears the burden of showing that the physics would allow such an explanation, not that it MUST have been swamp gas. The other side of the coin is that if you claim it was NOT swamp gas, then you bear a similar burden to show that it could not have been swamp gas.

Below is a link on bearing the burden of proof and how it works in science. Sorry for the length of my reply!