A defense of ECREE

[Outis]

Right, which is why I originally suggested rewording it. As it stands, it's special pleading. I think the underlying concept regarding standards of evidence is salvageable.

Hmmm ... I don't know. Denotatively, that may be possible ... connotatively, there may be too much contamination by the fallacious version. The big problem is the need for a parallelism: X claims require X evidence. Admittedly, that part of the phrase was mainly created for alliterative esthetic, not as a serious argument, but it has taken on a life of its own.

[Cerebrum123]

It doesn't affect the objections to ECREE, but it does directly impact Mountain Man's argument in one key area. ECREE is a form of special pleading: those who argue using it categorize claims into "ordinary" and "extraordinary," and state that extraordinary claims require a different standard of evidence.

By omitting "claim" from his synopsis, however, Mountain Man is making a strawman of ECREE and defeating the strawman. (nb: Mountain Man's actions may not be deliberate, in which case he is simply making an error, but my analysis is still accurate as to the results of the error.)

he made the strawman argument that the objection is solely based on the event being extraordinary rather than a lack of evidence for said claim.

Seriously, it's no different either way. Let's put it another way.

Normal Person:Man went to the moon!
Conspiracy Theorist:That's extraordinary!
Normal Person: Yes it is!"

Would you seriously take this differently than.

Normal Person: Man went to the Moon!.
Conspiracy Theorist: That's an extraordinary claim!
Normal Person: Yes it is!

Something tells me you would take it the same way.

In either event, the "extraordinary" nature of the event in question does not change whether or not it happened.

[Carrikature]

Hmmm ... I don't know. Denotatively, that may be possible ... connotatively, there may be too much contamination by the fallacious version. The big problem is the need for a parallelism: X claims require X evidence. Admittedly, that part of the phrase was mainly created for alliterative esthetic, not as a serious argument, but it has taken on a life of its own.

Granted.

[whag]

Seriously, it's no different either way. Let's put it another way.

Normal Person:Man went to the moon!
Conspiracy Theorist:That's extraordinary!
Normal Person: Yes it is!"

Would you seriously take this differently than.

Normal Person: Man went to the Moon!.
Conspiracy Theorist: That's an extraordinary claim!
Normal Person: Yes it is!

Something tells me you would take it the same way.

In either event, the "extraordinary" nature of the event in question does not change whether or not it happened.

Precisely. The rarity and novelty of the event isn't being objected to but rather the amount of evidence for it. In the case of the lunar missions and evolution, the evidence is strong. MM probably accidentally strawmanned ecree by saying that skeptics disbelieve events only on the basis of their rarity and novelty. Obviously that is not true, since skeptics accept that extraordinary events happen but only on the basis of robust evidence corroborating such events.

[Outis]

Seriously, it's no different either way. Let's put it another way.

Normal Person:Man went to the moon!
Conspiracy Theorist:That's extraordinary!
Normal Person: Yes it is!"

Would you seriously take this differently than.

Normal Person: Man went to the Moon!.
Conspiracy Theorist: That's an extraordinary claim!
Normal Person: Yes it is!

Something tells me you would take it the same way.

In the first, the "conspiracy theorist" is depicted as accepting the event, and expressing simple shock. In the second, the CT is not accepting (or rejecting) the claim, and simply states that the claim is extraordinary. Words are important, Cerebrum, and leaving one out can cause a tremendous change in the statement.

In either event, the "extraordinary" nature of the event in question does not change whether or not it happened.

On this, we are agreed.

[Cerebrum123]

In the first, the "conspiracy theorist" is depicted as accepting the event, and expressing simple shock. In the second, the CT is not accepting (or rejecting) the claim, and simply states that the claim is extraordinary. Words are important, Cerebrum, and leaving one out can cause a tremendous change in the statement.

MM's version was worded differently, in a way that I would take as not accepting the claim. Let me use his words this time.

Normal Person: Man went to the Moon!
Conspiracy Theorist: But that's extraordinary!
Normal Person: It sure is.

The "but" would indicate to me disagreement. Maybe* people talk differently around you?

On this, we are agreed.

*Okay, definitely, but that's mostly all from one person.

[Outis]

*Okay, definitely, but that's mostly all from one person.

Watch yourself, you young whippersnapper.

[Cerebrum123]

Watch yourself, you young whippersnapper.

That wasn't a jab at you. It was at my family. My mother in particular has said some pretty strange things.

[Mountain Man]

I distinguish phenomenon from fact due in part to the nature of such discussions. In general, someone presents an event for review. The actual facts are unknown. All you have is that person's recollection. The memory could be flawed, the initial perception of events could be flawed, or the retelling of the event could fail to convey the entire picture of what happened. Hence, claiming something as fact is premature and might even beg the question. This is especially evident in situations where something appears to be one way but is actually another. Consider the optical illusion using two line segments of equal length with one of the segments slanted. They appear to be different lengths (at least to the average American), but they are in fact the same length. Similarly, "my prayer was answered" would be claimed as fact by some, but others consider it to be an illusion resulting from serendipity. The actual facts need to be unpacked from the description of the event. Unfortunately, this is not always possible.


'Best' entails doing something that the others cannot, which is not granted merely by accounting for the evidence. You already recognize this and state as much in the last line of this quote. The very possibility that multiple mutually exclusive explanations can 'succeed equally well' shows that accounting for all of the evidence is insufficient. Simply accounting for the evidence is not enough. One must also show why other explanations fail.


It doesn't have the power to declare 'less likely', no matter how it may be misused by any and all. There's a difference between 'likely to be true' and 'harder to believe'. It's a degree of credulity only. You can't determine the likelihood of its truth from such a visceral reaction.


Show me a person with unbiased judgment in all things, and I will show you a liar. Is it a mistake? Yes, albeit an unavoidable one. Cuts both ways.


It depends on the skeptic. Certainly, there are those that use it in such a way. Even so, it's a mistake to lump people into categories like this.


I would cut past the specific discussion. Clearly, whatever reasoning is being presented is not the complete reason for rejecting it.


Which was my point. It's not an objection, it's a statement of credulity. Taking it as otherwise is misuse, regardless of who is doing so.

Well, you have a very different idea of ECREE than what is popularly promoted by most skeptics. Case in point, this quote from RationalWiki:

The evidence put forth by proponents of such things as gods, ghosts, the paranormal, and UFOs is highly questionable at best and offers little in the way of proof. Even if we accepted what evidence there is as valid (and it is highly debatable if we should), limited and weak evidence is not enough to overcome the extraordinary nature of these claims.

A few paragraphs later it says:

While the idea that a sufficiently outlandish claim requires a lot more compelling evidence is quite intuitive, it can be quantified nicely with probability theory in a Bayesian framework. In short, sufficient evidence must be capable of raising a highly improbable claim to be highly probable - and the more improbable the evidence, the better.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraor...inary_evidence

That's the kind of thinking that arrives at an absurd conclusion like, "I reject the resurrection of Jesus because it is supported by evidence but not extraordinary evidence." It goes well beyond a mere statement of credulity.

[Outis]

Well, you have a very different idea of ECREE than what is popularly promoted by most skeptics.

Probably because most of the skeptics you encounter couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag, or comprehend the simple and original statement of ECREE. So why are you attacking the "wet paper bag" version of ECREE as if it were the original, then claiming you have defeated the original?

[Mountain Man]

Seriously, it's no different either way. Let's put it another way.

Normal Person:Man went to the moon!
Conspiracy Theorist:That's extraordinary!
Normal Person: Yes it is!"

Would you seriously take this differently than.

Normal Person: Man went to the Moon!.
Conspiracy Theorist: That's an extraordinary claim!
Normal Person: Yes it is!

Something tells me you would take it the same way.

In either event, the "extraordinary" nature of the event in question does not change whether or not it happened.

They get it. They're just trying to score cheap debate points. I call it "majoring on the minor".

[Carrikature]

Well, you have a very different idea of ECREE than what is popularly promoted by most skeptics. Case in point, this quote from RationalWiki:

RationalWiki is 'most skeptics' now?

That's the kind of thinking that arrives at an absurd conclusion like, "I reject the resurrection of Jesus because it is supported by evidence but not extraordinary evidence." It goes well beyond a mere statement of credulity.

If you're going to shift the goalpost completely onto another site, there's little point in continuing.

[Mountain Man]

If you're going to shift the goalpost completely onto another site, there's little point in continuing.

Probably because most of the skeptics you encounter couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag, or comprehend the simple and original statement of ECREE. So why are you attacking the "wet paper bag" version of ECREE as if it were the original, then claiming you have defeated the original?

I'm sorry, what? I am debating the original. Carl Sagan introduced ECREE as a tool for rejecting the supernatural on the basis that such claims are "extraordinary" and should be held to higher standard. If you think differently then we're no longer debating ECREE but something else entirely, though I'm honestly not sure what that is.

[Outis]

Carl Sagan introduced ECREE as a tool for rejecting the supernatural on the basis that such claims are "extraordinary" and should be held to higher standard.

Oh, so you are every bit as ignorant of the origin of ECREE as most internet skeptics. So when you debate them, there are _two_ people in the debate who can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag.

Now your argument becomes clear. You don't HAVE an argument.

PS: When you get a chance, do some reading on Marcello Truzzi.

[GioD]

Oh, so you are every bit as ignorant of the origin of ECREE as most internet skeptics. So when you debate them, there are _two_ people in the debate who can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag.

Now your argument becomes clear. You don't HAVE an argument.

PS: When you get a chance, do some reading on Marcello Truzzi.

If I'm not mistaken the concept (although not the term) dates at least as far back as Hume.