-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Extraordinary Claims DO NOT Require Extraordinary Evidence
- Thread starter Michael Allen
- Start date
Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
There was probably solid proof of meteors (in the form of meteorites) long before any solid consensus or acceptance of the same.
It would be interesting (I'll have to hunt around) to read a history of the scientific reaction to previously anomalous phenomena that are now accepted, like rocks from the sky or rogue waves. As has been pointed out here, there was solid evidence for these. Actual meteorites, ships that required months of repair, not just unsupported eyewitness accounts of things falling from the sky or big waves. But it nevertheless seems as though it took scientists a long time to decide that there was something worth investigating.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
The scientific method is intended to be a dispassionate and unbiased study of the evidence. Therefore all claims should require the same standard of evidence. The only exception would be if the evidence needs to bridge some psychological barrier to accepting it as true. For example certain religious people who contend that the Earth is only a few thousand years old may need extraordinary evidence ( like God himself ) to convince them otherwise. If however we were to remove their religious bias, an ice core sample dating back over 700,000 years should be sufficient to convince them that they are wrong. So the bottom line is that the evaluation of evidence should be based on unbiased dispassionate logic and not what we want to believe, and therefore anyone, including any scientist, who demands "extra" evidence is only revealing his or her bias.
So what does this mean with respect to Sagan? Like I always enjoy pointing out, Sagan was a very interesting character in the history of ufology. Contrary to popular skeptical opinion, Sagan was far from being anti-UFO. All the evidence indicates that Sagan was working on the on the problem of alien contact from within the system. He was also far from being a stupid man and therefore he knew exactly what he was saying when he made the statement, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Although it made a great sound byte for his critical peers, he must have known that smart people would recognize that it was double edged. It's as much a comment on the bias of the skeptical community with respect to UFOs as it an admission that nobody would be happier than him if we were being visited by aliens. To some skeptics this probably sounds like a gross exaggeration, but let's consider Sagan's famous quote in its full context:
Our first question when told that," What counts is not what sounds plausible", is to ask, "counts to whom" and we're given the answer right away; It's the skeptics. Notice that Sagan doesn't say "scientifically examined". He is very specific in his use of the words "skeptically examined". Also notice that he uses the phrase "not what one or two witnesses claim". This is essentially his queue to those who know how to read between the lines to start digging because Sagan knew that there are far more whitenesses out there than just "one or two". This can be confirmed by the fact that he had firsthand knowledge of thousands of witnesses through his involvement with the USAF Scientific Advisory Board, had personally participated in an evaluation of the USAF's program for investigating UFOs, and recommended that the program be given scientific support. So what's all this nonsense about "one or two witnesses"? Clearly Sagan is delivering another mesage here for those who actually have actually "rigorously and skeptically examined" the evidence.
So what does this mean with respect to Sagan? Like I always enjoy pointing out, Sagan was a very interesting character in the history of ufology. Contrary to popular skeptical opinion, Sagan was far from being anti-UFO. All the evidence indicates that Sagan was working on the on the problem of alien contact from within the system. He was also far from being a stupid man and therefore he knew exactly what he was saying when he made the statement, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Although it made a great sound byte for his critical peers, he must have known that smart people would recognize that it was double edged. It's as much a comment on the bias of the skeptical community with respect to UFOs as it an admission that nobody would be happier than him if we were being visited by aliens. To some skeptics this probably sounds like a gross exaggeration, but let's consider Sagan's famous quote in its full context:
Carl Sagan said:
Our first question when told that," What counts is not what sounds plausible", is to ask, "counts to whom" and we're given the answer right away; It's the skeptics. Notice that Sagan doesn't say "scientifically examined". He is very specific in his use of the words "skeptically examined". Also notice that he uses the phrase "not what one or two witnesses claim". This is essentially his queue to those who know how to read between the lines to start digging because Sagan knew that there are far more whitenesses out there than just "one or two". This can be confirmed by the fact that he had firsthand knowledge of thousands of witnesses through his involvement with the USAF Scientific Advisory Board, had personally participated in an evaluation of the USAF's program for investigating UFOs, and recommended that the program be given scientific support. So what's all this nonsense about "one or two witnesses"? Clearly Sagan is delivering another mesage here for those who actually have actually "rigorously and skeptically examined" the evidence.
Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
Of course the belief part requires a subject taking the proposition as true as well as the "indicating" which begs the question "to whom?"
Evidence could be "a body of information indicating a proposition should be accepted as true or false," however this leads to the unhappy conclusion that a body of information without indication is not evidence. Indication is pointing and the decision to "point" or not to "point" based on some underlying fixation or mental state of the subject is the crucial link between a body of information and its role in the full information-subject control system.
I like to think we could make an analogy of this control system to a simple program or algorithm that requires input variables in order to fully process a "meaningful" output. A good algorithm tests its input variables for validity before processing, if it doesn't then uncaught exceptions, infinite loops or crashes occur--or even print output that is garbage or meaningless. I like to remember however that the GIGO principle applies for us, but not necessarily for the algorithm, since the existence of the output shows that there's an internal consistency of logic "to it" that allows such an output. This is often forgotten in systems analysis that GIGO principles can often prove meaningful when interpreted through some kind of transformation (meaning consistency of error brings about a pattern of similarity to the consistency of truth). This is interesting and is why we are able to find meaning in climate models (sorry, I have to throw this in) even when they are "off the rails" so to speak.
In the case of the algorithm, it is a proposition spread out over time and space -- and expansion of the standard human proposition which simply plugs in the evidence (input variables) to the proposition and links it with other statements to provide a truth output. So the human evaluation of the truth (or falsity) of a statement and its evidence is clearer when thrown into a framework of usage.
As our understanding of the complexity of the world increases, more and more processes will lie at the edge or beyond our understanding and yet remain in the extended framework of mechanized cognition, and our notions of evidence will eventually fall behind the new realities brought to light by the same.
Evidence could be "a body of information indicating a proposition should be accepted as true or false," however this leads to the unhappy conclusion that a body of information without indication is not evidence. Indication is pointing and the decision to "point" or not to "point" based on some underlying fixation or mental state of the subject is the crucial link between a body of information and its role in the full information-subject control system.
I like to think we could make an analogy of this control system to a simple program or algorithm that requires input variables in order to fully process a "meaningful" output. A good algorithm tests its input variables for validity before processing, if it doesn't then uncaught exceptions, infinite loops or crashes occur--or even print output that is garbage or meaningless. I like to remember however that the GIGO principle applies for us, but not necessarily for the algorithm, since the existence of the output shows that there's an internal consistency of logic "to it" that allows such an output. This is often forgotten in systems analysis that GIGO principles can often prove meaningful when interpreted through some kind of transformation (meaning consistency of error brings about a pattern of similarity to the consistency of truth). This is interesting and is why we are able to find meaning in climate models (sorry, I have to throw this in) even when they are "off the rails" so to speak.
In the case of the algorithm, it is a proposition spread out over time and space -- and expansion of the standard human proposition which simply plugs in the evidence (input variables) to the proposition and links it with other statements to provide a truth output. So the human evaluation of the truth (or falsity) of a statement and its evidence is clearer when thrown into a framework of usage.
As our understanding of the complexity of the world increases, more and more processes will lie at the edge or beyond our understanding and yet remain in the extended framework of mechanized cognition, and our notions of evidence will eventually fall behind the new realities brought to light by the same.
Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
I thank you for changing the font size
Not sure if you meant that as sarcasm (which indicates I need to increase the font size) or if it was real thanks so that my long winded post would fit on the screen. I wagered that it was sarcasm as you can see...I have changed it to a larger size.
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
I'm late, but I felt the need to point out that lance's initial appeal to Sagan as an authority on the topic of science and evidence is fine. Appeal to authority isn't a fallacy. Appeal to incorrect authority is a fallacy. Appeal to authority is a type of argument that is rarely fallacious -- otherwise, citation of folks not in the sciences, but still academic authorities, would be impossible.
Appeal to authority as a blanket fallacy is a common misconception, though.
Appeal to authority as a blanket fallacy is a common misconception, though.
Jeff Davis
Paranormal Adept
I think appealing is appalling for the sake of taking the cautious skeptical path. But it would be better to have a direct example to go on.
This is a great example (in the sense of it's logical efficiency) of consciousness proceeding matter. Matter in this case being "the evidence of things not seen".
Aptitude and inclination will always get more real results in terms of actuated discovery than any amount of authority can guide you to. Authority is more often a form of resistance because it tends to negate humility both in the student and the teacher. It has a distinct tendency to thwart more than it inspires. Teaching can either facilitate potential or reduce it. Taken to the full measure of either depends on aptitude and inclination, not faculty. A down to Earth term for as much is "natural talent". A teacher is as reliant on as much as is the student. False authority teaches while focusing on, and thereby directing back, on the tried and proved. Real authority and productive teaching uses knowledge as a platform from which the student by virtue of their aptitude can be inspired according to inclination. In this sense both teaching and learning are instinctive. There is no more powerful driver in application. False authority smacks of an unhealthy dependence on the overt embellishment of order. Routine. Humans aren't tin cans waiting to be productively filled and labeled in some factory, and yet that's just the way the Empire does it.
As a follow up thought with respect for what Michael nails down above, think about this. Two physically very similar babies are born via typical biological processes. One is what is commonly referred to as a prodigy, or at least used to be. I believe I have heard this same attribution referred to lately by the pop term "indigo children". The other a normal healthy baby with respect to it's mental capacity and instinctual orientation. If we put the babies each on either side of balance shortly after birth, they weigh roughly the same weight. If we measure either in length they are almost identical in this sense as well. When each baby grows to 5 years old, we find that the prodigious child has the ability to sit down to a piano and play any song note for note in it's entirety having only listen to the piece of music one time all the way through. Sometimes the same child can sit down and play along with the masters without even having heard the music. There are many such cases. The other is adjusting to his first day at Kindergarten quite nicely.
20 years later both are healthy adults. However one has an IQ of roughly 165 and the other 75-80. Our prodigious young friend is now considered an authority and indeed a musical genius as he sells out concerts one after another across the globe. Giving royal command performances are almost routine. Well, it doesn't take a genius to know which young adult is being welcomed to Mensa this week, right? Wrong. The real authority in this case is the young man that scored a 78 on his IQ test. That's because IQ testing is a false authority while at the same time being accepted quite graciously around the globe as being anything but. By appealing to authority we often fail to recognize authority's real virtue.
Consciousness proceeds matter, and in the case of the prodigious, often times knowledge proceeds learning. Thus logically confirming the principle idea.
This is a great example (in the sense of it's logical efficiency) of consciousness proceeding matter. Matter in this case being "the evidence of things not seen".
Aptitude and inclination will always get more real results in terms of actuated discovery than any amount of authority can guide you to. Authority is more often a form of resistance because it tends to negate humility both in the student and the teacher. It has a distinct tendency to thwart more than it inspires. Teaching can either facilitate potential or reduce it. Taken to the full measure of either depends on aptitude and inclination, not faculty. A down to Earth term for as much is "natural talent". A teacher is as reliant on as much as is the student. False authority teaches while focusing on, and thereby directing back, on the tried and proved. Real authority and productive teaching uses knowledge as a platform from which the student by virtue of their aptitude can be inspired according to inclination. In this sense both teaching and learning are instinctive. There is no more powerful driver in application. False authority smacks of an unhealthy dependence on the overt embellishment of order. Routine. Humans aren't tin cans waiting to be productively filled and labeled in some factory, and yet that's just the way the Empire does it.
As a follow up thought with respect for what Michael nails down above, think about this. Two physically very similar babies are born via typical biological processes. One is what is commonly referred to as a prodigy, or at least used to be. I believe I have heard this same attribution referred to lately by the pop term "indigo children". The other a normal healthy baby with respect to it's mental capacity and instinctual orientation. If we put the babies each on either side of balance shortly after birth, they weigh roughly the same weight. If we measure either in length they are almost identical in this sense as well. When each baby grows to 5 years old, we find that the prodigious child has the ability to sit down to a piano and play any song note for note in it's entirety having only listen to the piece of music one time all the way through. Sometimes the same child can sit down and play along with the masters without even having heard the music. There are many such cases. The other is adjusting to his first day at Kindergarten quite nicely.
20 years later both are healthy adults. However one has an IQ of roughly 165 and the other 75-80. Our prodigious young friend is now considered an authority and indeed a musical genius as he sells out concerts one after another across the globe. Giving royal command performances are almost routine. Well, it doesn't take a genius to know which young adult is being welcomed to Mensa this week, right? Wrong. The real authority in this case is the young man that scored a 78 on his IQ test. That's because IQ testing is a false authority while at the same time being accepted quite graciously around the globe as being anything but. By appealing to authority we often fail to recognize authority's real virtue.
Consciousness proceeds matter, and in the case of the prodigious, often times knowledge proceeds learning. Thus logically confirming the principle idea.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Pretty much any doctor of whatever who knows next to nothing about UFOs can beak off about them as if they were experts, only to have the skeptics cheer. They have no problem invoking appeals to authority when it suits them, but anyone who is actually more qualified to evaluate UFOs opposes them, suddenly their opinion doesn't count. This has been th norm in the skeptical community for decades, and when faced with the kind of argument you made, it's been my experience that rather than admit their bias, they simply hand wave or change tactics.
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
It gets tricky when you're dealing with the paranormal. It's difficult to decide who's an expert.
There is so much contradictory lore, coming from people who have spent equal amounts of time studying various cases, that it's difficult to choose who the expert is. It's unlike any other field of study.
As much as some people would have others believe, scientists don't generally have huge wars over the facts of a matter. The facts generally point everyone to the same consensus, with one or two underdog hypotheses that all but mirror the accepted working theory. Even in theoretical physics, M-Theory is essentially the union of all the different branches of string theory. There is a lot more to work with in the sciences when it comes to picking an expert.
There doesn't seem to be a nonbiased way to pick an expert of UFO's, for instance. Do we decide the guy with the 50 years of UFO research, authorship and case studies under his belt is the expert, even though he thinks UFO's are most likely not from other planets, based on his work? Or, is the guy with thirty years of the same research, authorship and case study under his belt the expert, even though he says UFOs are from other planets, based on his work? What about the other guy with the same experience, but who thinks UFO's come from underground? It's almost an arbitrary decision, based mostly on personal bias -- everyone's looking at the same stuff, but coming up with different answers. It's easy to say, "the prevailing theory is X," but it's not necessarily true. I listen to four paranormal podcasts, none of the hosts of those shows are on board with outer space aliens as an explanation. If space aliens are the prevailing theory, it doesn't seem to be supported by many who serve as the face and voice of the field -- that kind of thing makes it all very problematic. There is no recognized panel to make that decision, so an expert is, basically, whoever agrees with you.
This is because everything in the paranormal fields is theoretical in the colloquial sense. Everything is speculation -- there's not much else to work with. That's how ten different experts on the topic of UFO's can have just as many hypotheses concerning any aspect of the topic.
What we're left with, then, is the raw data (what little we have) and the science behind it. For that, we turn to experts of the sciences. The status these people have isn't arbitrary. There is a reason they don't have wildly differing opinions regarding their fields. They are academically and objectively masters of their chosen trades and schools of thought. They've spent their lives studying honed and focused disciplines that advance, largely thanks to them, with every passing year. When these guys talk about UFO's and the paranormal, they're doing it from that angle. All they speak to is the science, and, if the science isn't there, they call foul (which is when someone might claim an appeal to an inappropriate or unproven authority).
I think it doesn't make any difference. My point to Michael was that Carl Sagan, a professional scientist, objectively recognized throughout academia as an expert of his chosen science, and, as a result, the processing of evidence in the sciences, is just dandy as a reference when it comes to science and the processing of evidence within it. He is a recognized authority who taught and studied recognized academic information. Appealing to that authority is fine -- that's what he's there for.
If I were to lose my mind and argue with someone concerning the origin of UFO's, however, would it be fair of me to appeal to Gene? Gene has everything I described in my fourth paragraph. Half a century worth of study, authorship, interviews and case studies. He has a strong feeling UFO's are from other dimensions. If I'm arguing with a guy who says they come from space, is my appeal fair? Who decides?
My opponent is likely to do one of two things. He's going to appeal to a different authority, who agrees with his spacemen angle; or, he's going to start busting out the science, trying to explain how my multi-universe idea doesn't hold up. He read that science in a book. It was put in that book by an authority on the subject. Someone like Carl Sagan, for instance -- maybe Stephan Hawking or Edward Witten. That person would be completely insane to then turn around and claim that appealing to such authorities -- people who are the source of every piece of academic knowledge they possess -- is a fallacy. The authorities of science, though, have to have the facts on their side to be authorities. They have to prove their expertise. That's why their work always provides the strongest argument.
Everything every one of us knows came from an authority. But, as I've said before, science is one of the few fields where your expertise is earned by more than the years under your belt and the books you've read. Science makes you prove what you think. When someone is an authority of the sciences, they've earned it and proven it.
The Sagan appeal was fine.
There is so much contradictory lore, coming from people who have spent equal amounts of time studying various cases, that it's difficult to choose who the expert is. It's unlike any other field of study.
As much as some people would have others believe, scientists don't generally have huge wars over the facts of a matter. The facts generally point everyone to the same consensus, with one or two underdog hypotheses that all but mirror the accepted working theory. Even in theoretical physics, M-Theory is essentially the union of all the different branches of string theory. There is a lot more to work with in the sciences when it comes to picking an expert.
There doesn't seem to be a nonbiased way to pick an expert of UFO's, for instance. Do we decide the guy with the 50 years of UFO research, authorship and case studies under his belt is the expert, even though he thinks UFO's are most likely not from other planets, based on his work? Or, is the guy with thirty years of the same research, authorship and case study under his belt the expert, even though he says UFOs are from other planets, based on his work? What about the other guy with the same experience, but who thinks UFO's come from underground? It's almost an arbitrary decision, based mostly on personal bias -- everyone's looking at the same stuff, but coming up with different answers. It's easy to say, "the prevailing theory is X," but it's not necessarily true. I listen to four paranormal podcasts, none of the hosts of those shows are on board with outer space aliens as an explanation. If space aliens are the prevailing theory, it doesn't seem to be supported by many who serve as the face and voice of the field -- that kind of thing makes it all very problematic. There is no recognized panel to make that decision, so an expert is, basically, whoever agrees with you.
This is because everything in the paranormal fields is theoretical in the colloquial sense. Everything is speculation -- there's not much else to work with. That's how ten different experts on the topic of UFO's can have just as many hypotheses concerning any aspect of the topic.
What we're left with, then, is the raw data (what little we have) and the science behind it. For that, we turn to experts of the sciences. The status these people have isn't arbitrary. There is a reason they don't have wildly differing opinions regarding their fields. They are academically and objectively masters of their chosen trades and schools of thought. They've spent their lives studying honed and focused disciplines that advance, largely thanks to them, with every passing year. When these guys talk about UFO's and the paranormal, they're doing it from that angle. All they speak to is the science, and, if the science isn't there, they call foul (which is when someone might claim an appeal to an inappropriate or unproven authority).
I think it doesn't make any difference. My point to Michael was that Carl Sagan, a professional scientist, objectively recognized throughout academia as an expert of his chosen science, and, as a result, the processing of evidence in the sciences, is just dandy as a reference when it comes to science and the processing of evidence within it. He is a recognized authority who taught and studied recognized academic information. Appealing to that authority is fine -- that's what he's there for.
If I were to lose my mind and argue with someone concerning the origin of UFO's, however, would it be fair of me to appeal to Gene? Gene has everything I described in my fourth paragraph. Half a century worth of study, authorship, interviews and case studies. He has a strong feeling UFO's are from other dimensions. If I'm arguing with a guy who says they come from space, is my appeal fair? Who decides?
My opponent is likely to do one of two things. He's going to appeal to a different authority, who agrees with his spacemen angle; or, he's going to start busting out the science, trying to explain how my multi-universe idea doesn't hold up. He read that science in a book. It was put in that book by an authority on the subject. Someone like Carl Sagan, for instance -- maybe Stephan Hawking or Edward Witten. That person would be completely insane to then turn around and claim that appealing to such authorities -- people who are the source of every piece of academic knowledge they possess -- is a fallacy. The authorities of science, though, have to have the facts on their side to be authorities. They have to prove their expertise. That's why their work always provides the strongest argument.
Everything every one of us knows came from an authority. But, as I've said before, science is one of the few fields where your expertise is earned by more than the years under your belt and the books you've read. Science makes you prove what you think. When someone is an authority of the sciences, they've earned it and proven it.
The Sagan appeal was fine.
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
I feel the need to make this clear a lot, but I'm not saying any of that is evidence of UFO's being one thing or another, including nonexistent. I'm just saying there are good appeals, there are bad appeals, and there are appeals that are somewhat tricky to determine.
If Carl Sagan says, "there is no such thing as a UFO, period," that's not really something you can appeal to. However, if Carl Sagan says "UFO's aren't probably from space, because," then lays down the science, you can appeal to that -- as that is his expertise. If Carl Sagan says something about bottle-nosed dolphins, that's not really something you can appeal to, as he's not a recognized, academic authority on dolphins, zoology, oceanography or wild-life. So, while Carl Sagan might not be, say, an authority on alien visitors, he is an authority on the known universe and the physics therein. If he uses those physics to argue against alien visitors, that's something you can appeal to.
In this specific case, he's talking about science, in general, and the way evidence is handled in science. He is an academically recognized authority of science and how it works as a process, including the way in which evidence is treated and studied, so Lance's appeal works. It would certainly have been better illustrated by laying out some of the reasons Sagan gave for his idea of "extraordinary claims vs extraordinary evidence," but, what are ya' gunna' do?
If Carl Sagan says, "there is no such thing as a UFO, period," that's not really something you can appeal to. However, if Carl Sagan says "UFO's aren't probably from space, because," then lays down the science, you can appeal to that -- as that is his expertise. If Carl Sagan says something about bottle-nosed dolphins, that's not really something you can appeal to, as he's not a recognized, academic authority on dolphins, zoology, oceanography or wild-life. So, while Carl Sagan might not be, say, an authority on alien visitors, he is an authority on the known universe and the physics therein. If he uses those physics to argue against alien visitors, that's something you can appeal to.
In this specific case, he's talking about science, in general, and the way evidence is handled in science. He is an academically recognized authority of science and how it works as a process, including the way in which evidence is treated and studied, so Lance's appeal works. It would certainly have been better illustrated by laying out some of the reasons Sagan gave for his idea of "extraordinary claims vs extraordinary evidence," but, what are ya' gunna' do?
5tomidnite
Paranormal Maven
That is an interesting article. I think when discussing bias in science it is best to use examples in accepted sciences before reaching out into less accepted fields of research like those delving into the paranormal.