Critique of "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"
Some problems I have long had with this phrase.
The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is frequently attributed to Carl Sagan. While this phrase is compelling and memorable, it has significant flaws related to its epistemological and psychological implications. Here’s a detailed exploration of these issues:
1. Subjectivity of "Extraordinary"
The central problem with the phrase lies in the term "extraordinary". What constitutes an "extraordinary" claim can be highly subjective and varies between individuals and contexts. There is no objective metric for determining what is extraordinary. This subjectivity complicates the evaluation of claims and evidence:
Variability in Interpretation: Different people might have varying thresholds for what they consider extraordinary, leading to inconsistent standards for evidence.
Lack of Standardization: Without a clear, objective definition, the phrase can be interpreted in many ways, leading to potential misuse or misapplication in evaluating claims.
2. Alternatives to the Phrase
Given the subjective nature of "extraordinary," alternative expressions might provide clearer guidance:
"All Claims Require Evidence": This phrase removes the ambiguity by applying the same standard to every claim, regardless of its nature. It emphasizes that no claim is exempt from scrutiny and that evidence is fundamental for assessing any assertion.
"Treat All Claims as Snake Oil": This pithy phrase suggests an initial skepticism towards all claims. While it is memorable and succinct, it may imply a level of cynicism that might not be conducive to fair evaluation of claims.
"Wait Until Convinced Otherwise by Evidence That Seems Convincing to You": This expression acknowledges the role of personal judgment in evaluating evidence. It emphasizes that the assessment of evidence is subjective and should be based on what appears convincing to the individual.
3. Epistemological and Psychological Considerations
Epistemological Challenges: The concept of "extraordinary" lacks a clear, objective test, making it difficult to apply uniformly. Epistemology concerns the nature of knowledge and justification, and relying on a subjective term undermines the objective assessment of claims.
Psychological Implications: People's biases and preconceptions can influence their interpretation of what is extraordinary and what evidence is sufficient. This psychological aspect highlights the need for personal introspection and critical thinking when evaluating claims.
4. The Role of Evidence
Evidence Interpretation: All evidence must be interpreted through the lens of individual cognitive processes. This means that what one person finds convincing might not be the same for another.
Subjectivity in Cognitive Processes: Acknowledging that all cognitive processes are subjective reinforces the idea that evidence evaluation is inherently personal. This understanding helps frame evidence as a tool for informed judgment rather than an absolute measure of truth.
Conclusion
The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" offers a compelling shorthand for skepticism but falls short due to its subjective nature. Emphasizing that all claims require evidence, or adopting a more personal approach to evidence evaluation, can provide clearer and more practical guidelines. By acknowledging the subjective aspects of evidence interpretation, we can foster a more nuanced and reflective approach to evaluating claims and evidence.