Another way to refute the "extraordinary evidence" argument

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

[ciscop]

wow

with this kind of argument you wanted to debate shermer?

damn..
are you in for a major intellectual beating..

[jakesteele]

I love that question. Here's how I address it. First off, who says that only debunkers are allowed to define it? Only they do. Who says something like alien UFOs is an extraordinary claim? They do. Since I wasn't consulted about defining that term, I reject outright their definition. The reason is that if you consider the staggering, incomprehensible potential numbers of possible planets in the universe logic dictates that there is a much greater chance of life than no life.

Here is a vid of Phil Plait answering a question of the possibility of life elsewhere.

http://www.dailygrail.com/Alien-Nation/2008/11/Astronomers-and-UFOs

Go to 1:16 and here Phil Plait's take on life in the universe.

I feel the same way as Phil, but when anybody uses the word/concept of "life" it is never defined precisely. In this context "life" could mean anything from bacteria, to bugs to sentient beings with flying saucers, etc. Think of Star Trek and its five year mission to seek out new civilizations...anything goes.

In this larger context, to hide behind the Unicorn Gambit – (When asked the question, “Do you believe in UFOs?” a debunker will sarcastically say something to this effect: “Sure there might be a chance, about as much chance of Unicorns and Faries.” This is nothing more than a sarcastic way of saying no without have to bear the burden of proof and superficially maintaining the appearance of objectivity.

The Drake Equation shuffle and the Unicorn Gambit are mutually exclusive of each other.

To say there is a chance that their is life in the universe, but there are no such things as UFOs that can't be easily explained away is an extraordinary claim. The numbers just aren't with you.

That is an example of how I address that question...my definition, my way, my game. If a debunker doesn't like it, then he can have a Coke and go f* himself.
Edited byModerator

[ciscop]

wow..

easy on the language
remember you are talking to superior intellectual beings

also i wanna say that unicorns arent extraordinary nor leprechauns
i actually saw a chupacabras on my backyard! hiding behind a big pot of gold at the end of a rainbow
i was high on peyote
but that doesnt mean anything!

[ProfWag]

I might add that 125 years ago, television or airplanes would have been an extraordinary claim, but they have since been proven to be possible and feasible. To me, extraordinary doesn't mean impossible, just that it hasn't been shown to be freasible at this point in time. Hence, if the JREF was around during the civil war and some guy said he could transmit a picture across the air and into someone's house, they may have offered a million bucks to see that. So although UFOs/aliens (for example) may not be extraordinary to you, they are to science.

[Craig Browning]

[really?]

I wish scepcop understood the difference between an ordinary claim and an extraordinary claim. I'll present an example.

Look there's a person walking down the street.
Look there's an elephant walking down the street.

Both are possible and plausible.The first claim wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. The second would cause a look see.

[ProfWag]

"And when such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof."
Marcello Truzzi

"A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence"
David Hume

[really?]

[NucleicAcid]

[really?]

[NucleicAcid]

Do you have any proof for that position? Cause I can offer a bunch of proof that it isn't generated by the brain.

[jakesteele]

[Craig Browning]