What Constitutes an Extraordinary Claim?

To grasp what qualifies as extraordinary, one must delve into the origins of this phrase. The philosopher David Hume addressed this concept in his 1748 essay, Of Miracles, which is part of his broader work, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Hume articulates that extraordinary evidence stems from our experiences, and the laws of nature are established through repeated observations. He contended that a miracle, defined as a "violation of the laws of nature," necessitates extraordinary proof because these laws are grounded in countless experiences.

For instance, Hume describes a scenario where a piece of lead remains suspended in the air when dropped. If our experience shows that lead consistently falls, believing in such a miracle demands an overwhelming number of contrary observations.

Hume's argument illustrates that extraordinary refers to the volume of evidence available. An extraordinary claim is one that is already supported by substantial evidence against its truth.

The first video titled "Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" discusses the philosophical underpinnings of this assertion and its implications in modern skepticism.

Debunking the Rhetorical Trick

The true sleight of hand lies in mislabeling a claim as extraordinary when the term should apply to the evidence instead. There aren't fundamentally different types of claims; rather, they exist along a spectrum of evidence. Some claims may be well-supported, allowing for easy verification, while others may lack sufficient evidence, warranting a more agnostic stance.

Despite this nuanced understanding, Sagan's slogan is often misappropriated to dismiss any claim that appears to lack scientific backing. This misapplication shifts the focus from healthy skepticism to dogmatism.

It's essential to distinguish between phenomena that defy the laws of nature and those that are simply beyond our current scientific understanding. Historical examples abound; Einstein once referred to quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance," while terms like "Big Bang" were initially meant to mock what is now a widely accepted scientific theory.

Scientific advancement often begins with recognizing anomalies. As Thomas Kuhn articulated in his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, "discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly." Thus, it is regrettable that this skeptical mantra often serves to dismiss ideas contrary to materialistic beliefs.

Hidden Assumptions in Skepticism

Underlying this discourse is a subtle implication that all natural claims are ordinary and rational, while non-scientific claims are extraordinary and unworthy of belief. This framing creates an illusion of naturalism as the norm, positioning opposing views as outlandish.

While skeptics may find certain claims personally unbelievable, personal incredulity is not a sound basis for dismissal. A common insult in philosophical discussions is to label such reactions as merely an "incredulous stare."

Once we strip away the rhetorical flourish, we uncover a straightforward reality: there are claims, varying degrees of evidence for those claims, and the diligent effort required to evaluate their truth.

Thus, rather than serving as a principle of skepticism, labeling some claims as extraordinary misguides critical thinking. It implies a hierarchy among claims when the focus should remain on the evidence itself.

In essence, the slogan can be distilled to: "Claims necessitate sufficient evidence." This statement, while fundamentally true, lacks the excitement to capture attention or drive sales of popular science literature.

As I reflect on this theme, I find it fitting to highlight the work of Graham Pemberton, whose article inspired me to articulate my thoughts on this matter.

Exploring Further: The UFO Question and Sagan's Legacy

The first segment of my title resonates within scientific debates, having been recently explored in a Medium article...

The second video, "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? Nah," presents an alternative perspective on the traditional understanding of this phrase.