Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

=============== To Clarify: =============== My opponent says that we can know nothing absolutely (of course we can know some things absolutely, i.e. I have conscience existence in some form or another). But actually true and not just verisimilitudinous operates on the grand assumption that our cognitive perceptions of reality are true and accurate. So ACTUALLY true should henceforth mean actually true according to our cognitive perception of reality (since there is no way to prove that perceived reality is true or false without circular-logic). =============== 1. My opponent's possible world misunderstanding =============== My opponent mistakes my analogy of a possible world (or modal logic) with another planet – the crux of his misunderstanding. I want my opponent to imagine a world in which everything is entirely the same as this one, except for one thing: dogs are not a known entity. Since in this possible world it would be an extraordinary claim to say that such things as dogs exist – similar to claiming such things as dragons exist in this one – it should seem that extraordinary evidence would be required. So if we were to take all the evidence for dog from our real world and confer it to this possible world, it would make the real world and the possible world exactly the same. My opponent must maintain that (a) the possible world - that is now exactly the same as the real world - would still need more evidence for dog (because it was an extraordinary claim), (b) virtually all things presently known to us posses extraordinary evidence (since virtually all things at one point had no prior evidence making all things at one point extraordinary claims), or (c) the evidence to prove extraordinary and ordinary claims remain the same. Since both (a) and (b) fail ad absurdum, the only logically coherent answer is (c). =============== 2.His rebuttal to the legal? =============== My opponent is gravely mistaken. He needs to show an ordinary claim that has the exact same amount of evidence has an extraordinary claim, but, by virtue of being ordinary, is accepted over the extraordinary. Murder and spell-casting are not analogous because murder and spell casting have in unequal amount of known information. My opponent somewhat mistakenly(?) but rightly points out that, "Therefore the amount of evidence that would be required to prove -spell casting- would be the same as for murder." If spell casting and murder can be proved with the same amount of evidence (assuming that the existence of the act of murder is proved using perfectly ordinary evidence with a perfectly ordinary amount) then it stands to reason that the existence of spell-casting can be proved with neither an extraordinary amount of evidence nor evidence that is itself extraordinary. =============== 3.My opponent stuck in elementary reasoning? =============== He says that there is evidence that the star child is of alien dissent. This is false, there is absolutely no evidence of this and therefore the claim falls on all accounts. But my opponent is still making the elementary mistake of assuming that extraordinary evidence would be required to prove the claim. Since, according to my opponent's understanding, all things were at one point extraordinary claims, there must therefore exist extraordinary evidence for virtually all things (which is a contradiction since, if it were the case, it would be rather ordinary). I would like my opponent to furnish the extraordinary evidence for dogs, alligators, and skulls. If he admits that all known things have extraordinary evidence, then he damns himself to admit that this is actually rather ordinary. =============== Unanswered questions: =============== "1. Extraordinary evidence is such, that when present, arguing against the extraordinary claim becomes more extraordinary than the claim itself. E.g an advance spaceship found 900 years ago" This is true of ordinary evidence. Assuming that the verity of the existence of dog is composed of ordinary evidence, it would be rather extraordinary for me to argue against such a notion. "2. If dragons were common animals, then the claim would not be extraordinary. Since they are not really common animals the evidence presented by a single or a few cases would have to be extraordinary." This is epistemic imperialism. Is my opponent really saying that if nothing was known of the existence of dog, it would only take a single or a few ordinary cases to prove it? And how would these cases be extraordinary in terms of dragon? Certainly if we found a species of dragons living in the deep jungles of Peru, it would be enough to establish the case (assuming dragons are merely reptiles with wings and fire-spitting capabilities). We find knew species all the time in which no prior evidence exists (that mean such are extraordinary claims), so I would like to see all extraordinary evidence for recent and new discoveries (of course most discoveries are found by way of scientific method – which would render the scientific method itself extraordinary). =============== Conclusion: =============== My opponent's logic is thoroughly inconsistent and wanting. He needs to furnish an ordinary claim that is accepted over an extraordinary claim (though both posses the same amount of ordinary evidence) merely because it is ordinary. InquireTruth