it's not Hume. It was Marcello Truzzi, and actually I believe his version was "Extroadinary Claims require Extroadinary Proof." But Carl Sagan, who is much better known for the quote, changed "proof" to "evidence".

Splendour is an anal-repentive.

The earliest credit I've seen goes to Laplace, who apparently did use 'evidence' - it's not quite the same line, but the exact same idea.

Good to know the Big Bang doesnt need to be proven anymore. Go for it theists, start disproving the Big Bang.

Splenda, I put you on ignore because you write the most banal things, and refuse to listen to anyone.

Good find! I'm going to save that link!

The problem scientific rationalists like Sagan (who coined the phrase we're discussing) have is their inability to step out of their own mental box and realize that they are attempting to position their system of thought as the arbiter of all truth, rather than just the truths which can be proven from within their particular box. Kurt Godel already demonstrated the absurdity of the logical positivist framework, but most rationalists don't seem to have gotten the memo. Science has little or nothing to say about subjective reality, which includes things like God, love, beauty, etc. -- i.e. the things we really care about -- they simply don't exist within the materialist's reality tunnel. A better approach is to let many belief systems coexist and allow each to pursue its truths without allowing any to become a totalitarian system which subsumes all others. (I'm paraphrasing the late, great Terence McKenna here, btw).

You've outlawed it or ??

inaccurate statement shown false upthread

inaccurate conflation of rationalism with logical positivism
appeal to sentiment; inaccurate conflation of scepticism and materialism


attempt to characterise reality as equivalent to a smorgasbord


description as 'great' of psilocybin-addled pareidolic dead hippy who spent most of his life noisily misunderstanding evolution

I think I'm having one of my turns - fetch the smelling salts, please.

The phrase has been repackaged more than once.

But it started with Hume:

Truzzi is credited with originating the oft-used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," which Carl Sagan then popularized as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."[12] However, this is a rewording of a quote by Laplace which goes, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[13] This, in turn, may have been based on the statement "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence" by David Hume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

Doesn't matter. Geisler's already took apart one or two of Hume's supposedly ironclad proofs.

Splendour in a nut shell

I'm not following but that's ok. I'm sure it wasn't complimentary.

I talked to God last night and he told me im in charge of the earth until his return. My first command is for people to stop speaking for him. That is all for now...

Splendour uses the most closed-minded, over-bearing, deliberately misleading arguments I have ever come across. It seems she is always popping up in a thread to completely twist the meaning of something to reinforce her view of the world, is dismissive of or ignores anything which challenges her beliefs and can not be explained away, attempts to accuse of others of supporting infanticide when they point out the evils of genocide, attempted at one point to argue that the Buddha thought people should worship God and would have been a Christian given the chance, etc., etc.

I mean, any and every thing that can possibly be said or read, Splendour is willing to twist and mold into something that reinforces her world view and does so under the guise of being open and caring about helping people see the light. I usually give evangelical types the benefit of the doubt as being genuinely concerned for the souls of others, but not this time, not with her. How can anyone so closed minded as to not even address what someone has said accept to twist it into such a fashion as that it can be dismissed or used to reinforce their world view really be committed to dialogue and persuading people of anything? Then to top it off, come and claim that when a proposition is put forth that the person who disagrees must disprove it? And then never, ever admits that they might be wrong about something or might have been wrong about the meaning of a quote, oh no, they just keep right on trucking because everything, everything, must confirm to their world view.

I mean, I honestly don't get it. Splendour's arguments seem void of humility and openness, yet they claim to act from a position of genuinely trying to give information about their faith. Well, lies and distortions seem like a really bad way to go. I have dealt with my share of missionaries/evangelicals, even being involved with a group of Christ Ambassadors once, but never have I seen the type of behavior displayed by Splendour on a regular basis. Even one of the campus preachers was less over bearing and willing to engage with people, and you know, actually put forth proof of their claims and not go "Well I say God is real and if you disagree prove that He isn't."

How is it that anyone, theist or non-theist/spiritual or non-spiritual can keep engaging such a person. I almost prefer those who rage against other posters and berate their ideas to this mess rather than being completely dismissive and purposely ignorant. What you are doing is disrespectful in spite of your tone, it is disrespectful to the people whose ideas and quotes you miscategorize, as well as the people you claim to be speaking with because you constantly refuse to engage any criticism or objections that can not be dismissed with pre-packaged cookie cutter responses or convoluted responses that completely miss the argument and only serve to reinforce your point, which usually happens to be that anyone who does not believe as you believes is unenlightened.


All-In-Flynn and others:cheers. I am blocking that cat because I am quick to anger and my reasoning and communication skills are no wear near the same level as yours, but how you continue to engage someone who seems to be completely uninterested in actual dialogue is beyond me.

in b4

1) 'I haven't seen you around the forums before, so your opinion doesn't count'

2) 'I'm not here to argue'

3) 'This is all part of a New Atheist logical positivist communist Chomskyist Stalinist Hitlerian Dawkinite conspiracy against people with spiritual genes'

This sentence alone should tell you that the article is complete fluff.

What else could she do? She believes in superstitions.

Pretty good but you don't know what you will be missing by blocking her.

I don't get ignoring people with opposing views. What would this forum be without them? Plus, if you're going to ignore someone, just do it. Posting about how you're ignoring them is the opposite of ignoring, and serves only to hurt feelings (as is popping up on a regular basis to post that you are specifically ignoring a post!).

Sounds like a great basis for a legal system:

Splendour, you owe me 1 billion dollars. I see you in court.

I think a good way of putting it is: The burden of proof must be one-sided because the burden of proposition is non-existent.

I'm not ignoring her due to her opposing views.

Nah. In this case it's no different than turning off the rap music on the radio while discussing something, or closing the window to block out traffic noise. I'm been on for 5 years now and have 2 people on ignore, Splendour and Pletho, both only in the past year because I was using your reasoning prior to that.
But it has nothing to do with opposing views, there are plenty of posters whose views I much more strongly oppose. It's simply a matter of their postings contributing nothing to the exchange of ideas after you've read the first 100 or so ( it could be after the first half dozen or so, but you need to give posters a conclusive trial run)
I was actually surprised how much the quality of the forum improved for me by just a simple measure, I was giving up on it and that simple move kept it relevant. If there were a rare time their comments stirred up some good discussion between other posters that would be available to me but I don't remember any actually occurring.

grunching (kinda)

I don't think think "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is false by any means, but I do think that in most cases it is a meaningless statement. Who decides what an "extraordinary claim" is and then subsequently who decides when "extraordinary proof" has been shown.

I also don't think that most people that tout this hold consistent to it at all. Often times it is used basically as a justification for a rejection of a theistic claim like "God created the universe", but when applied to the logical contradiction like "the universe and all we see created itself" it is hand waved over.

Perhaps focusing on the meaning of the term "ordinary" helps.