Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

  1. Top | #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76
    Rep Power
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    I was hoping for, say, a justification or explanation of the aphorism, not a mere assertion that it is true.
    Some, including WLC and his fans, have taken Bayes' Theorem as a means of talking about evidence.

    The idea is that extraordinary things have low probability. According to Bayes' Theorem, if some supposed evidence (eye-witness claims) is likely under a hypothesis (Jesus rose from the dead), one should increase their belief in the likelihood of the hypothesis (Jesus rose from the dead) to the extent that the evidence (eye-witness claims) has lower probability than the hypothesis. In other words, if the hypothesis is extraordinary, then one should only count extraordinary evidence towards it.

    WLC agrees with this, but says that the atheist's prior probability that Jesus rose from the dead has been biased low by materialism. He also thinks that the behaviour of the apostles after the resurrection is extraordinary.

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,850
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.
    Can you justify or explain that? I was hoping for more than a mere assertion.

  3. Top | #23
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,459
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.
    Can you justify or explain that? I was hoping for more than a mere assertion.
    I'm not asserting anything. I'm asking you to demonstrate that your axiom makes any sense whatsoever.

  4. Top | #24
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,459
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by A Toy Windmill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    I was hoping for, say, a justification or explanation of the aphorism, not a mere assertion that it is true.
    Some, including WLC and his fans, have taken Bayes' Theorem as a means of talking about evidence.

    The idea is that extraordinary things have low probability. According to Bayes' Theorem, if some supposed evidence (eye-witness claims) is likely under a hypothesis (Jesus rose from the dead), one should increase their belief in the likelihood of the hypothesis (Jesus rose from the dead) to the extent that the evidence (eye-witness claims) has lower probability than the hypothesis. In other words, if the hypothesis is extraordinary, then one should only count extraordinary evidence towards it.

    WLC agrees with this, but says that the atheist's prior probability that Jesus rose from the dead has been biased low by materialism. He also thinks that the behaviour of the apostles after the resurrection is extraordinary.
    Pehaps you could explain how you are assigning these "probabilities". From what set are they derived?

  5. Top | #25
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,850
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.
    Can you justify or explain that? I was hoping for more than a mere assertion.
    I'm not asserting anything. I'm asking you to demonstrate that your axiom makes any sense whatsoever.
    You baldly asserted that simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.

    I should let you know that I may not be able to dwell on the merits or otherwise of your assertion at length today, and perhaps not for a little while. I was badly bitten by a pink and orange-spotted triceratops yesterday while mowing the lawn, and am recuperating in hospital, on Venus, as it happens, in the year 3019 CE. I hope you can readily understand that this unfortunate but entirely plausible and believable situation restricts my participation here, for a number of reasons.

    On top of which, the original aphorism has been elaborated upon, both by me and others, in this thread, including in my factual report of my current predicament above. Also, the video posted is only 6 minutes long in 'earth-time'. So I am wondering why you are still asking for more justification and explanation. Why are you still asking?
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 07-25-2019 at 11:30 AM.

  6. Top | #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76
    Rep Power
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Pehaps you could explain how you are assigning these "probabilities".
    No. That's as much as you'll get from me. I don't care much for the Bayesian take, but it is an attempt to formalize the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  7. Top | #27
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,459
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    I'm not asserting anything. I'm asking you to demonstrate that your axiom makes any sense whatsoever.
    You baldly asserted that simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.

    I should let you know that I may not be able to dwell on the merits or otherwise of your assertion at length today, and perhaps not for a little while. I was badly bitten by a pink and orange-spotted triceratops yesterday while mowing the lawn, and am recuperating in hospital, on Venus, as it happens, in the year 3019 CE. I hope you can readily understand that this unfortunate but entirely plausible and believable situation restricts my participation here, for a number of reasons.

    On top of which, the original aphorism has been elaborated upon, both by me and others, in this thread, including in my factual report of my current predicament above. Also, the video posted is only 6 minutes long. So I am wondering why you are still asking. Why are you still asking?
    I can easily demonstrate that popular aphorisms are not always true. Do you need me to?

  8. Top | #28
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,850
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    I can easily demonstrate that popular aphorisms are not always true. Do you need me to?
    Maybe not. But then I'm not going to be obtuse.

    Laters, sorry, I must fly. Literally (to the operating theatre). I can only hope that you find a way to understand the aphorism in due course. There may be some reason, that I could only guess at, which makes it tricky for you.

  9. Top | #29
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,850
    Rep Power
    15
    ps

    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    I'm asking you to demonstrate that your axiom makes any sense whatsoever.
    That the adage/axiom/aphorism makes no sense whatsoever is, imo, quite a strong claim, so I am going to have to ask you to provide some good evidence to support it.

    Or is it just the semantics which bother you? How about 'unusual claims require unusual amounts of evidence' (noting that merely 'unusual' could be deemed to cover 'unusual amounts' because unusual amounts could themselves be called unusual, as in uncommon, because of the quantity)? Because that is what it effectively means, albeit it's arguably too pithy for its own good, using the same word ('extraordinary') twice when it doesn't always mean exactly the same thing (but can mean slightly different things). Iow, the aphorism/axiom/adage as it stands (in the OP) can and does make sense if we allow that the word 'extraordinary' can have slightly different meanings. But this has been explained several times already.

    I'm assuming you only object to the semantics, but not the underlying point or intended meaning.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 07-25-2019 at 01:09 PM.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,883
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,727
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    I'm not asserting anything. I'm asking you to demonstrate that your axiom makes any sense whatsoever.
    You baldly asserted that simply repeating an aphorism is not establishing it as true.

    I should let you know that I may not be able to dwell on the merits or otherwise of your assertion at length today, and perhaps not for a little while. I was badly bitten by a pink and orange-spotted triceratops yesterday while mowing the lawn, and am recuperating in hospital, on Venus, as it happens, in the year 3019 CE. I hope you can readily understand that this unfortunate but entirely plausible and believable situation restricts my participation here, for a number of reasons.

    On top of which, the original aphorism has been elaborated upon, both by me and others, in this thread, including in my factual report of my current predicament above. Also, the video posted is only 6 minutes long. So I am wondering why you are still asking. Why are you still asking?
    I can easily demonstrate that popular aphorisms are not always true. Do you need me to?
    Yes. Such a claim will require extraordinary evidence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •