Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
We may all know this famous quote (meme)--popularized by Carl Sagan--better than we know our own language and logic. It is in fact an erroneous claim at best--meaningless at worst. It is a claim for which the entire scientific establishment provides an ongoing counterexample.
Extraordinary claims are reduced to the ordinary framework of observation via the scientific method. Physical evidence is ordinary in the sense that it is intelligible (fits without the framework of human normality). The astronomical evidence for the theory of relativity came through ordinary events/observations which made better sense in a new framework of hypotheses. The precession of the perhelion of Mercury was an ordinary observation, and thus did not constitute "extraordinary" evidence for Einstien's theory of relativity. The "ordinariness" of the phenomenon was precisely what allowed for the interpretation of the same into an extraordinary framework of explanation. Had the phenomenon been "extraordinary" further tests would have been required to reduce the observations to a singularity of ordinary (i.e. tested and established) phenomenon. Even so, the reduction of extraordinary phenomena to the ordinary is precisely the work of science.
If Carl Sagan was right, there would be no such thing as the scientific method.
"Ordinary" is entirely subjective according to the researcher's point of view with respect to their object of study--by extension so is the notion of "extraordinary." However it is through the scientific method that societies come to grips with a point of view that can be dubbed "ordinary." Each passage through the trial and error of observation, experimentation, and guessing presents the scientific community with a new point of view concerning what is "ordinary." Thus, the claim that "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" is misleading. It is not a scientific claim, for there is no other method other than through trial, error, estimation and revision regarding the elucidation of what is subjectively determined as "extraordinary" with respect to the body of principles and bylaws of the universe. Thus the very method which Carl Sagan champions is shackled (unintentionally) by a philosophy which confines scientific development into the extraordinary. If the "evidence" of a claim is "extraordinary," then how does the researcher find ties into the body of bylaws and principles which are already established--presumably ordinary. How does the very revision of the bylaws of physics occur when all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
The discovery of scientific principles through ordinary methods is the way of science, because science assumes a framework of unity in the laws of nature and the universe.
Ernest Rutherford's gold foil experiment demonstrated that the positive charge and mass of an atom is concentrated in a small, central atomic nucleus, disproving the then-popular plum pudding model of the atom (1911)
Robert Millikan's oil-drop experiment, which suggests that electric charge occurs as quanta (whole units), (1909)
Arthur Eddington leads an expedition to the island of Principe to observe a total solar eclipse (gravitational lensing). This allows for an observation of the bending of starlight under gravity, a prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. It was confirmed (although it was later shown that the margin of error was as great as the observed bending) (1919)
Source: List of experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What was so extraordinary in these experiments was the manner and ingenuity for which the evidence was collected--in other words, the manner for which the observational data was forced into something ordinary and intelligible by the experimenter. Had the final evidence had been as "extraordinary" as the claims, no actual scientific discovery would have occurred. The "extraordinary" evidence would be as dubious as the claim.
The scientific method is often viewed by the subject as a conduit from the extraordinary (or even unexplained) to the ordinary (explained). But this is not a scientific statment, but a subjective claim about the researcher's relationship to what they know and do not know.
A nuclear physicist would require far less evidence of a recent nuclear detonation than a scientist of the 19th century--i.e. a geiger counter vs. a full exposition and explanation of nuclear physics as well as the mechanics of the instrument to the 19th century scientist. Certainly the evidential requirement of the 19th century researcher would far surpass a simple measurement backed by 50-100 years of advanced future research.
Scientists should avoid predicating the notion of "extraordinary" or "ordinary" to their own findings. To do so casts a pretentious shadow over a particular field of inquiry and investigation.
Extraordinary claims are reduced to the ordinary framework of observation via the scientific method. Physical evidence is ordinary in the sense that it is intelligible (fits without the framework of human normality). The astronomical evidence for the theory of relativity came through ordinary events/observations which made better sense in a new framework of hypotheses. The precession of the perhelion of Mercury was an ordinary observation, and thus did not constitute "extraordinary" evidence for Einstien's theory of relativity. The "ordinariness" of the phenomenon was precisely what allowed for the interpretation of the same into an extraordinary framework of explanation. Had the phenomenon been "extraordinary" further tests would have been required to reduce the observations to a singularity of ordinary (i.e. tested and established) phenomenon. Even so, the reduction of extraordinary phenomena to the ordinary is precisely the work of science.
If Carl Sagan was right, there would be no such thing as the scientific method.
"Ordinary" is entirely subjective according to the researcher's point of view with respect to their object of study--by extension so is the notion of "extraordinary." However it is through the scientific method that societies come to grips with a point of view that can be dubbed "ordinary." Each passage through the trial and error of observation, experimentation, and guessing presents the scientific community with a new point of view concerning what is "ordinary." Thus, the claim that "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" is misleading. It is not a scientific claim, for there is no other method other than through trial, error, estimation and revision regarding the elucidation of what is subjectively determined as "extraordinary" with respect to the body of principles and bylaws of the universe. Thus the very method which Carl Sagan champions is shackled (unintentionally) by a philosophy which confines scientific development into the extraordinary. If the "evidence" of a claim is "extraordinary," then how does the researcher find ties into the body of bylaws and principles which are already established--presumably ordinary. How does the very revision of the bylaws of physics occur when all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
The discovery of scientific principles through ordinary methods is the way of science, because science assumes a framework of unity in the laws of nature and the universe.
Ernest Rutherford's gold foil experiment demonstrated that the positive charge and mass of an atom is concentrated in a small, central atomic nucleus, disproving the then-popular plum pudding model of the atom (1911)
Robert Millikan's oil-drop experiment, which suggests that electric charge occurs as quanta (whole units), (1909)
Arthur Eddington leads an expedition to the island of Principe to observe a total solar eclipse (gravitational lensing). This allows for an observation of the bending of starlight under gravity, a prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. It was confirmed (although it was later shown that the margin of error was as great as the observed bending) (1919)
Source: List of experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What was so extraordinary in these experiments was the manner and ingenuity for which the evidence was collected--in other words, the manner for which the observational data was forced into something ordinary and intelligible by the experimenter. Had the final evidence had been as "extraordinary" as the claims, no actual scientific discovery would have occurred. The "extraordinary" evidence would be as dubious as the claim.
The scientific method is often viewed by the subject as a conduit from the extraordinary (or even unexplained) to the ordinary (explained). But this is not a scientific statment, but a subjective claim about the researcher's relationship to what they know and do not know.
A nuclear physicist would require far less evidence of a recent nuclear detonation than a scientist of the 19th century--i.e. a geiger counter vs. a full exposition and explanation of nuclear physics as well as the mechanics of the instrument to the 19th century scientist. Certainly the evidential requirement of the 19th century researcher would far surpass a simple measurement backed by 50-100 years of advanced future research.
Scientists should avoid predicating the notion of "extraordinary" or "ordinary" to their own findings. To do so casts a pretentious shadow over a particular field of inquiry and investigation.
.
Thank you. 
