Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

  1. Top | #51
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,754
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    And you've never met a scientist apparently. We don't go around citing each other's reputations, we ask about the data that supports the conclusion. We're querents, not priests.
    Nice try, but whatever way you slice it, and however scientists talk about each other or don't, it's not an argument from authority fallacy. That's the point. It might loosely be called a 'fallacy' on your part to claim that it is, but I'll let that slide.

    In any case, do carry on explaining why he was talking a load of horse shit. A fairly extraordinary claim, imo, not least for being such a high bar for you to get your case over.
    I've explained abovd already. Applying different standards of evidence in different cases based on your subjective bias concerning the "ordinariness" of the claim is irrational, unscientific, and an obvious prelude to being taken advantage of by a skilled rhetorician.
    If I were to be very generous, I would say that at best you may have identified some flaws, I'm not sure how serious or damaging they are, to the use of the maxim. That would not bother me too much, since I tend to think all such maxims, perhaps especially the very pithy ones, are not necessarily 100% applicable in all situations or that there are not at least some pitfalls with using them. Despite this, such a phrase may be appropriate and applicable generally and in the main, if carefully used.

    What I think you are doing though, is that you are way over-egging your claim. See: calling the maxim 'unsupportable bullshit'. And I do not know why you would enter a thread on the topic to attempt to do that. Because it's not going to pan out for you, imo.

  2. Top | #52
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,333
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    I've explained abovd already. Applying different standards of evidence in different cases based on your subjective bias concerning the "ordinariness" of the claim is irrational, unscientific, and an obvious prelude to being taken advantage of by a skilled rhetorician.
    If I were to be very generous, I would say that at best you may have identified some flaws, I'm not sure how serious or damaging they are, to the use of the maxim. That would not bother me too much, since I tend to think all such maxims, perhaps especially the very pithy ones, are not necessarily 100% applicable in all situations or that there are not at least some pitfalls with using them. Despite this, such a phrase may be appropriate and applicable generally and in the main, if carefully used.

    What I think you are doing though, is that you are way over-egging your claim. See: calling the maxim 'unsupportable bullshit'. And I do not know why you would enter a thread on the topic to attempt to do that. Because it's not going to pan out for you, imo.
    Because I hate it when supposed science fans peddle antiscientific dogma.

  3. Top | #53
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,754
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Because I hate it when supposed science fans peddle antiscientific dogma.
    Antiscientific dogma and unsupported bullshit, eh? You're cranking it up now.

    Look in the mirror. Your overstatements, aside from being unconvincing, are themselves arguably dogmatic.

    In the final analysis, what you probably hate, imo, and the underlying reason as to why you are overreacting, and what's really at stake here for you, is that it's often applied to the sort of antiscientific and antiskeptical claims that inform the dodgy supernatural beliefs that are part of your own personal worldview. So you're trying, not very successfully, to have a cheap shot at skepticism because you're not really much of a skeptic when it comes to certain core personal beliefs that you cherish.

    But more to the point, you haven't come close to demonstrating yet, and imo won't be able to by any reasonable standard, that it's either antiscientific dogma or unsupported bullshit.

    And one more thing. It's an aphorism regarding rational skepticism and philosophy generally, whether as part of formal science or not. You'll notice that the thread is in the philosophy forum. Hence the emphasis on the word 'claim' and examples such as 'I have a billion dollars in pennies in my pocket'. Yes, it may also inform the thinking that underlies and precedes application of the scientific method, but arguably isn't a core part of the scientific method itself. So calling in unscientific is missing the point to some extent. The main issue is philosophical, and especially to do with rational Skepticism, albeit that does inform science.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 07-27-2019 at 09:44 AM.

  4. Top | #54
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,333
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Because I hate it when supposed science fans peddle antiscientific dogma.
    Antiscientific dogma and unsupported bullshit, eh? You're cranking it up now.

    Look in the mirror. Your overstatements, aside from being unconvincing, are themselves arguably dogmatic.

    In the final analysis, what you probably hate, imo, and the underlying reason as to why you are overreacting, and what's really at stake here for you, is that it's often applied to the sort of antiscientific and antiskeptical claims that inform the dodgy supernatural beliefs that are part of your own personal worldview. So you're trying, not very successfully, to have a cheap shot at skepticism because you're not really much of a skeptic when it comes to certain core personal beliefs that you cherish.

    But more to the point, you haven't come close to demonstrating yet, and imo won't be able to by any reasonable standard, that it's either antiscientific dogma or unsupported bullshit.

    And one more thing. It's an aphorism regarding rational skepticism and philosophy generally, whether as part of formal science or not. You'll notice that the thread is in the philosophy forum. Hence the emphasis on the word 'claim' and examples such as 'I have a billion dollars in pennies in my pocket'. Yes, it may also inform the thinking that underlies and precedes application of the scientific method, but arguably isn't a core part of the scientific method itself. So calling in unscientific is missing the point to some extent. The main issue is philosophical, and especially to do with rational Skepticism, albeit that does inform science.
    I don't know why you think that I'd be any more fond of, say, the Creationist rhetoric aimed at in the OP and several subsequent posts. I don't think any outcome based on the worship of one's own prejudices is apt to be a good one. You realize fundamentalist yahoos of all stripes agree that one should be more skeptical of things they don't already believe than of the things they do? The only difference is the content of the dogma, not the mental hangup that underlies it. You'll never meet anyone more "skeptical" than a Creationist confronted with the "extraordinary" claim of Darwinism. Or an "inside jobber" presented with the "extraordinary" claim that a plane crashing into it might cause a building to fall over. They will demand a very high standard of evidence indeed. Credulous people are only credulous about the specific thing they're credulous about, they're the burliest skeptics ever when it comes to new ideas.

    Calling this "philosophy" just to avoid criticism is switching the goalposts, but I oppose antiscientific philosophy just as adamant, so no worries. Not everything falls within the province of science, but if your epistemology actually opposes or undermines science, it is a poor jab at seeking knowledge at all, let alone loving it. Say, for instance, encouraging people to use their personal judgement of whether or not something is "ordinary" to decide whether to be skeptical about the evidence for it or not. You're idolizing the malfunction of the brain, not its refinement. What sort of philosophy is that?

Posting Permissions

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