Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

========== Introduction: ========== I would like to extend my gratitude to CerebralCortex for hi s challenge on such an interesting topic. I hope that he is willing to take the affirmation of said resolution to its logical conclusion. In order to prevent any semantic misrepresentation of the term evidence, I will assume that my opponent does not wish to say that evidence is merely that which establishes belief in a claim. Belief, though important, says nothing of the actual verity of a claim. Evidence, then, should be understood as that which sufficiently establishes a claim as actually true and not just verisimilitudinous. I will start with a refutation of my opponent's claims and arguments and then go on to make a case of my own. ========== 1. My opponents examples, are they analogous? ========== My opponent starts out with the example of (1) a dog, (2) an alligator, and (3) a fire-spitting dragon. My opponent's claim is that the extraordinary claim (obviously the dragon) would require extraordinary evidence because it "is supported by very weak, or no prior evidence." In order for my opponent to make an accurate and analogous example to the dragon, he must present an ordinary claim in which the same amount of information (or evidence) is available, yet it is accepted merely by way of being ordinary. As it stands, there are mountains of evidence for both dogs and alligators and the existence thereof. The following chart may help to illustrate my point: [Claim]………………….[Empirical evidence for claim] (addition signs represent the amount of available evidence) Dog………………….....+++++++++ Alligator ……………...+++++++++ Dragon ………………. Now, the only reason one accepts the claim of "dog" is because they have prior established evidence. But imagine a world where if someone said "I have a dog," you would have absolutely no prior evidence of "dog," – indeed you would have as much evidence for dog as we have evidence for a dragon in our world. Would the claim be extraordinary? If not, what are the qualifications for an extraordinary claim? And if so, would the evidence sufficient to prove the truth of "dog" in our world be sufficient to prove "dog" in the hypothetical world? To say no is to damn one to absurdity. To say yes is either say that, (A) all evidence for basic existent beings is extraordinary, or (B) that the amount of evidence to prove an extraordinary claim is exactly equal to an ordinary claim. Since I believe the only logically coherent answer is B, it stands to reason that both extraordinary and ordinary claims require the same amount of evidence to prove their verity. ========== 2. The Inanity of the Legal Defense ========== My opponent false prey to the same fallacious reasoning as listed above. If he were to actually provide an equal amount of information in both cases, there is no more reason to believe the claims of murder in the first case despite the extraordinary nature of the second one. You cannot provide additional information to weight the comparison. If we had the same amount of evidence for casting spells that we did for murder, there would be no argument. My opponent needs to give an example of an ordinary claim that has the exact same amount of evidence as an extraordinary claim, but, by virtue of being ordinary, is accepted as truth. ========== 3. A Failed Defense from Science? ========== It really feels silly for me to even address such a red herring (usually I just identify it as such and move forward), but I would hate for the readers to find any validity in this inane and innocuous proposition. The idea of the star child being of alien dissent is rejected because there is not enough evidence to establish the claim – ordinary, extraordinary or otherwise. My opponent again appeals to the fallacious reasoning as stated above in (1). ================ A CASE OF MY OWN ================ ========== A. Taking Sagan Literally ========== In all of my opponent's supposed defenses of Sagan's saying, he, rather unfortunately, fails to furnish any evidence that would establish the ACTUAL saying as true. My opponent seems to be referring to the amount of evidence necessary. The evidence itself still remains ordinary in all the listed examples. The only thing supposedly extraordinary is the amount necessary to prove the claim (though this is also blatantly false). It seems that fleeting confidence in Sagan's saying has led my opponent to shift from what Sagan actually said, to (hopefully) what he may have meant. So in order for this interpretation to stand, my opponent must either (a) show that the evidence to prove an extraordinary claim is itself extraordinary, or (b) clearly substantiate that the saying means extraordinary amount. ========== B. The amount of evidence remains the same ========== To prove that an extraordinary claim is true (actually true and not just verisimilitudinous), requires neither an extraordinary amount of evidence nor that the evidence itself be extraordinary. The evidence to prove as truth both extraordinary and ordinary claims remains the same. Many others, not just my opponent, make the mistake of thinking that merely accepting a belief more readily means that the claim is true. Though we accept that my opponent possesses a dog by a MERE testimonial assertion, that does not mean that is true, it merely means that we BELIEVE it to be true. In order to actually prove something as fact or truth, it is subject to the scientific method - whether the claim is natural or supernatural. So if the claim is ordinary, or extraordinary, the method to prove either claim as fact or truth remains the same. If it is true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then my opponent must maintain that the scientific method is itself an extraordinary means of evidence. Furthermore, in order to actually prove the statement "my neighbor possesses a dog," it would require the exact same amount and method of proof to prove the dragon. If we had the exact same amount of evidence for dragon that we do for dog, would we still not believe that dragons exist? The answer is most obviously no, we would then accept the existence of dragon. But if my opponent says no, then he is saying that the amount necessary to prove the ordinary claim of dog is equal to the amount of evidence necessary to prove the claim of dragon. ========== Conclusion: ========== It is clear to me, and hopefully now to my opponent and readers, that Carl Sagan's popular saying, though catchy, is categorically false when taken seriously. My opponent is left with the task of answering the following questions: 1. How is the evidence itself extraordinary? And what does extraordinary evidence look like? 2. If we had the exact same amount of evidence for the extraordinary claim of dragon that we do for the ordinary claim of dog, why and in what way would the dragon require additional evidence? 3. What is an example of an ordinary claim that has the exact same amount of evidence as an extraordinary claim, but, by virtue of being ordinary, is accepted as truth. Thank You, Inquire Truth