/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4620103
You make a good point OP

Prove it.

>>4620103
I guess everyone agrees with this.
Until it comes to something that fundamentally changes our perception of reality. Hence 'extraordinary'

In the end, we are all people and we all make mistakes, why take every single word somebody says as an absolute?

Then again, I don't know of I'd say this if it wasn't for more or less defending someone I admire.

i dont know if its so much him differentiating between "degrees of evidence" as it is him making a comment on the average joe's willingness to accept factual data (aka the average,only moderately educated individuals (or even the less-than-intelligent individuals) will only accept an "extraordinary claim" if they see data that not just backs the assertion, but also "wows them" into a state of awe). or at least, thats my take on it

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.

OP, stop being retarded. An "extraordinary claim" is one which has significant assumptions and implications that are not yet supported by evidence.

I claim there are aliens in the Alpha Centauri system!

This is an extraordinary claim, because it has a lot of information content that is not supported by evidence.

>>4620227
This. Except that it's not people expecting zebras that we have problem with, it's the people who expect unicorns and pegasi.

He's talking about people who, for example, believe their existence is "evidence" of God being real.

Fuck off dumbass.

>>4620103
If someone says "the sun will rise tommorow", and someone else said "there's a magic dwarf living secretly in your house", would you need the same amount of evidence to be persuaded by both?

>>4620246
yes

I agree it gets more citations than it deserves as it's ultimately a subjective criterion.

However if I say that gravitation is caused by cats, then I do have a rather large amount of empirical evidence to disqualify or at least verifiably offer an alternate testable explanation for.

But yah extraordinary has never sounded that good to me. Evidence is evidence. If it's not supportive of the hypothesis to the exclusion of other hypotheses then it's just insufficient evidence.

>>4620103
An evidence that would prove an extraordinary claim would indeed itself be extraordinary.

>>4620276
Think of it as "extraordinary amount of evidence", that's how I always thought of it, and it works better.

>>4620290
I think what OP mean by "extraordinary" is just that. Extra ordinary. So I say magic is real and I have evidence to back it up. That evidence would be pretty fucking far out and it would blow a lot of peoples minds.

>>4620290
Wait, someone thought it meant something OTHER than that?

Wow, no wonder there's butthurt in this thread. Of COURSE evidence is just evidence. "Extraordinary evidence" means "very good evidence". It might be one experiment or a million, but all that matters is the impact of that observation on our estimates of what is likely.

>>4620103
shit like this was what caused a large number of scientist to think ours was probably the only solar system that formed planets.

>>4620363
Uh, no. Scientists did not think this.

It's a phrase designed to evoke the "This should be good" response. If I make a claim that makes you go "ya, okay" because it fits with what you would expect, then the evidence establishing that claim is already present. But if I make a new claim, something that is outside the observed, supported, norm, your response should be "Alright, dazzle me," because now the onus is on me to display why my claim is correct. Any claim that is outside the norm, would necessitate evidence outside the norm. You cannot use the normal evidence to point to something outside the already established setting (bananas are not proof of god, they are proof of genetic engineering).
That's what Sagan's phrase means - Claim something extra (outside) ordinary, back it up with something extra (outside) ordinary.

science is like faith most of the time because all the theories

>>4620276
>extraordinary has never sounded that good to me
That's because the etymology of that word has been corrupted, as well as the phrase.
The phrase is not referring to an amount of evidence. Hell, ONE fossil bunny in the Cambrian would disprove evolution. And the word 'extraordinary' means 'outside what is ordinary.' You cannot use what is already known to demonstrate something new. "That ordinary evidence supports X, not Y. Stop trying to make it support Y. You need extra evidence to support Y."

>>4620384
>The phrase is not referring to an amount of evidence. Hell, ONE fossil bunny in the Cambrian would disprove evolution.
Well, that would be evidence with a high impact on probability estimates about the truthfulness of various ideas.

I don't know any other measure of "amount" for evidence, really, when I think about it.

But sure. We're just looking for the theories that best explain and predict how things really work and really are, and doing so with as few assumptions as possible.

>>4620227
I've always hated that phrase because the correct answer to "When you hear hoof beats, what do you think, horses or zebra?" is "Depends on where I am."
Appeal to repetition or probability is a poor way to make points, especially when 'common sense' has for so long been dashed to pieces by scientific inquiry without that inquiry destroying dogma. Simply apply what you know in various situations and you won't get trampled by the wrong animal.

>>4620380

It ceases to be faith when you have experimental evidences that prove the predictions the theory gives. Quantum mechanics would have remained a mathematical delirium forever if experiments showed it was wrong.

Faith involves a degree of credulity. Science does not.

>>4620391
Right, and part of the 'assumption' part is to make sure you let the evidence lead you to a conclusion, not to start out with one and look for evidence for it.

>>4620406
Well, I think it's just part of wanting to know the truth at all in the first place. But yeah.

>>4620414
Indeed. Honestly wanting to know the truth is a paramount virtue.

>>4620103
Learn to modern scientific falsification. Learn to understand English. Naive Popper falsification is not how it's done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Extraordinary claims are precisely those claims that contradict the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence currently available, and thus those are the claims that require the most evidence to argument.

>treating a claim in any other way just means that you're biased towards your own viewpoint.
"Hey guys, a feather falls more slowly than a bowling ball. The claim that gravity affects all objects the same way is bullshit."
"No, I don't think so."
"You're biased."

>>4620236
>>4620227
you damn retards zebras are horses

No, it is just an application of base rate reasoning i.e., avoiding the base rate fallacy. In other words, learn probability theory:

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/baserate.html

>>4620103
How fucking stupid are you?

>>4621277
Which of the three different species of zebra do you mean?
Whatever you meant, zebras and horses belong to genus Equus, but they are separate species.

>>4621342
This guy read the paper by SJ Gould. Anyone intrested in zebras and speciation shud read it too.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/SJ-Gould-What-if-anything-is-a-zebra.pdf

>>4620103

hey guys my chinese cookie was right about today.
that means every chinese cookie ever is right!