Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
*****

Reged: 04/07/05

Loc: Oort Cloud 9
Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: Mister T]
      #5779483 - 04/05/13 12:05 PM

I've read several of Sagan's books and grew up watching him on TV in the 1970's. I always looked up to him as a kid and he played a big role in generating an interest in astronomy within me. I always have a fond place in my heart and mind for Sagan.

Having said that, famous people often become remembered for things they never actually said, or things they said were taken out of context. Sometimes, the original meaning of the message is lost in the translation or repeating of the anecdote/quotation. I'm not sure if this infamous quote by Sagan falls into one of those categories or not. But I do know this - I cringe when I hear that quote, because it's often thrown out by default as an easy way to express skepticism without providing any relevant substance to that skepticism. It's quick and easy to say, but not many people who use it really think about what it means or what context it was originally used.

That quote wasn't in Brocas Brain was it?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: Glassthrower]
      #5779636 - 04/05/13 01:29 PM

Quote:

But I do know this - I cringe when I hear that quote, because it's often thrown out by default as an easy way to express skepticism without providing any relevant substance to that skepticism. It's quick and easy to say, but not many people who use it really think about what it means or what context it was originally used.




Exactly! It's become a hackneyed cliche by inappropriate overuse.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5779753 - 04/05/13 02:30 PM

As people have said here, the phrase needs to be taken in context. It refers to situations like this:

ordinary claim: it's sunny today.

ordinary evidence: I take a time/date stamped photo and post it to the site. I could be lying, but the claim doesn't require extraordinary support.

Now take a different case:

extraordinary claim: I have built a small contraption that appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics by producing energy through some sort of cold fusion reaction.

ordinary evidence: here is my contraption, and look! it is generating energy.

problem with ordinary evidence here: since the gadget appears to be violating fundamental laws of physics, it is necessary to allow a complete analysis of the gadget to determine whether it is indeed generating energy (and how it is doing so) or whether something else is going on. In one sense that is only ordinary evidence, but when the inventor of the gadget does not allow such analysis and claims that a simple unanalyzed demonstration of the gadget is sufficient, the refused evidence becomes extraordinary.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BillFerris
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/17/04

Loc: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: deSitter]
      #5780582 - 04/05/13 09:23 PM

There is a saying in the medical profession which goes something like this, "When you hear hoof beats on the high plains, think horses not zebras." In other words, when you hear hoof beats on the Colorado Plateau, it's probably horses. It could be zebras but that is highly unlikely. I understand this to be sage counsel that a doctor treating a patient with itchy eyes should first eliminate the common, everyday causes of that symptom before turning their attention to some exotic, rare disease. While it is possible the patient may have Duhring Brocq disease, it's more likely that they're suffering from seasonal allergies.

I don't know if that's what Carl Sagan had in mind when he said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," but I suspect it's what people have in mind, today, when they use the phrase. And if that is their meaning, I think the "hoof beats" saying conveys it, better.

The Sagan quote can be interpreted a number of ways. My personal take is that it was Sagan's way of justifying the role science plays in society. In a very real sense, every scientific claim is extraordinary. In other words, scientific claims are beyond ordinary claims. An ordinary claim would be that the sun will rise in the morning. The morning sunrise is an everyday occurrence for most people. Predicting it will happen, again, tomorrow is no big deal. Claiming that the sun rises every morning because Earth rotates on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour goes beyond the ordinary. Nobody feels the Earth rotating at this tremendous speed. Other than the Sun's motion across the sky--which could be explained by the Sun orbiting a stationary Earth--there is no obvious evidence to support such a claim. So, if the person making that claim is not prepared to support it in with evidence that goes beyond the ordinary, evidence that is extra-ordinary, they have no grounds for complaint when the public-at-large treats the claim with utter disregard.

Science's role in society is to be that rigorous method of fact-finding and evidence-gathering which can be used to support claims about nature which are beyond our ordinary, everyday experience. It's not that only some scientific claims are extraordinary; all science is extraordinary. That's why the scientific method was developed and why it has value. It gives us a tool for making and supporting claims that go beyond every day experiences.

Bill in Flag


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ira
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 08/22/10

Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel
Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: BillFerris]
      #5783439 - 04/07/13 09:56 AM

Quote:

... An ordinary claim would be that the sun will rise in the morning. The morning sunrise is an everyday occurrence for most people. Predicting it will happen, again, tomorrow is no big deal. Claiming that the sun rises every morning because Earth rotates on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour goes beyond the ordinary. Nobody feels the Earth rotating at this tremendous speed. Other than the Sun's motion across the sky--which could be explained by the Sun orbiting a stationary Earth--there is no obvious evidence to support such a claim. So, if the person making that claim is not prepared to support it in with evidence that goes beyond the ordinary, evidence that is extra-ordinary, they have no grounds for complaint when the public-at-large treats the claim with utter disregard....
Bill in Flag




Well, then, Copernicus and Galileo had nothing to complain about. They had damn little evidence. (Well, Galileo had a bit mor than Copernicus...)

/Ira


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
russell23
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/31/09

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: Ira]
      #5791304 - 04/10/13 09:07 PM

A lot of good points have been made on this thread.

Here is the problem as I see it: Regardless of what Sagan was thinking, you can make a good case (as Glenn did) that Sagan’s “Extraordinary claims” statement is useful when communicating with scientific laymen – and by this I mean people that aren’t even well read amateurs. However, to use the “Extraordinary claims” statement when scientists are talking among scientists or when well-read amateurs are talking about research based literature is ridiculous. The “Extraordinary claims” statement is not a scientific principle. The word “extraordinary” is a vague, subjective term that scientists should avoid when constructing a scientific argument.

I have long held the view that Glassthrower pointed out when it was stated that “There is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Either it is evidence or it is not.” I have made this point in discussions on other forums. A hypothesis/model/theory either has evidence that supports it or it does not. If it is consistent with known relevant scientific facts then it is a viable idea whether it is the mainstream idea or not. If there are empirical facts at odds with the idea then either the idea must be modified or it must be abandoned. At no point in the scientific reasoning and decision making regarding the viability of a scientific idea is “extraordinary” of any relevance. “Extraordinary” is a purely human emotional reaction to a proposed idea.

Unfortunately, as correctly pointed out by Danny, when engaged in discussions about scientific ideas published in the scientific journals that are at odds with mainstream thinking (MOND, intrinsic redshifts, …) the “Extraordinary evidence” statement is lazily brought out as if it is a relevant scientific principle for the purpose of handwaving away the evidence the supporter of the against the mainstream idea is trying to have a discussion about.

Another example of this argument technique is the meaningless use of Occam’s Razor in such discussions. Occam’s Razor is another idea that is more relevant in pointing out obvious reasoning flaws in the proponents of pseudoscience than it is in distinguishing competing scientific ideas. “Simplicity” is another subjective term. What is meant by simplicity? Ockam talked about not multiplying hypothesis beyond the minimum needed to explain a phenomenon. But how does that help us in deciding whether dark matter or MOND is a better explanation? Empirical evidence and the ability to make successful predictions are what decide the viability of scientific ideas. If the more complex idea better fits the data, then the more complex idea is the more viable idea.

Simplicity is not a scientific objective. Models that can explain known observational facts and predict previously unobserved phenomenon are a main scientific objective. Over time as new observations more precise than the old observations come in most models must either become more complex to maintain consistency with the refined observations or the models are abandoned. Yet if you try to discuss Milgrom’s MOND or Arp’s intrinsic redshift ideas you will at some point encounter lazy or uniformed “debaters” that simply throws Occam in your face rather than make a substantive contribution to the discussion.

I’m not implying that I think Milgrom and Arp are entirely correct in their ideas, but both have scientific evidence that are worthy of discussion and you will be hard pressed to find hard core mainstream supporters with enough familiarity of Milgrom’s and Arp’s published literature to intelligently discuss their ideas. Such mainstream hawks will typically seek to stamp out the discussion quickly lest some less informed layperson should fall victim to believing erroneous ideas. So if the discussion continues the “hawks” will inevitably fall back on “Extraordinary evidence” and “Occam” as their profound case against Milgrom and Arp and ...

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: russell23]
      #5791390 - 04/10/13 10:00 PM

I think you are right that scientists shouldn't be using this phrase which was designed for a popular cultural audience.

Perhaps it should be rephrased: "extraordinary claims require evidence."

To take "intrinsic red shift" for a moment. It is a hypothesis devised in opposition to the standard interpretation of quasars. But there is no evidence for it by definition because it isn't even defined. No theory of "intrinsic red shift" exists; only a claim that it must exist in order to explain why it looks like quasars are speeding away from us. That's why deSitter wants more attention paid to the Arp galaxies: in the hope that some evidence will appear. But for the moment there isn't any evidence; only Arp's dissatisfaction with the standard interpretation.

Now let's return to the quote that inaugurated this thread. Jed Rothwell maintains a website devoted to the discussion of cold fusion. I think it is safe to say that he is a believer. Cold fusion is an extraordinary claim, so it requires evidence. Rossi and his followers say that he has provided that evidence in strictly controlled "demonstrations." What people are asking for is a relaxation of those controls so the evidence can be evaluated. According to a number of people on this forum whose judgment and objectivity I trust (Jarad, for example), that evaluation could be easily accomplished through a rather simple analysis not only of Rossi's device but also of its reactive byproducts. If such an evidentiary search was allowed and produced evidence of some sort fusion reaction after all (beyond the appearance of generated energy), then a lot of disbelievers would become believers.

The situation is not really different from a magician who levitates someone on a stage. The extraordinary claim ("look, I can violate the ordinary laws of gravity") requires more evidence than a simple view from the audience.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
buddyjesus
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 07/07/10

Loc: Davison, Michigan
Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5793773 - 04/12/13 03:24 AM

Quote:

Having said that, though, I admit that I'm really tired of seeing it repeated ad nauseum, too. But I disagree with the notion that Sagan was mystically inclined. I think it more likely that he had a good imagination, and felt connected to the universe in a personal way; and he was good at expressing these feelings. We're all like that to some degree, I think.




I agree. I think he was pretty strongly convincing against the case of mysticism in the seventh episode of Cosmos. He convinced me enough to dump religion all together. I think he was excellent at pointing out that you can have wonder and spiritual experiences even without it. The universe is a beautiful place to see and to understand!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfa2lUj6TS0&

I come from the medical field and there are different strengths of evidence. Anecdotal evidence being the weakest and least scientific(as it doesn't involve repeatability). This is what he was referring to with this quote.

You can't blame a guy for other people bastardizing what he said or meant after he is dead.

Edited by buddyjesus (04/12/13 03:41 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: buddyjesus]
      #5793908 - 04/12/13 07:42 AM

Quote:

I come from the medical field and there are different strengths of evidence. Anecdotal evidence being the weakest and least scientific(as it doesn't involve repeatability). This is what he was referring to with this quote.




I agree. If you do an experiment that confirms the existing theory, most people aren't going to bother to try to repeat it, or examine how you got it too closely. If you do an experiment that produces an extraordinary result, that won't be the case. The others in the field will want to examine in great detail how you got the result so that they can repeat the experiment, make sure they get the same result themselves, and make sure that there is no mistake in the setup, controls, or assumptions that could cause an erronious result.

A perfect example of this was the recent "neutrinos going faster than light" episode. That was an extraordinary result, which resulted in extraordinary scrutiny of the test setup and calculations, which resulted in finding out that the neutrinos did not, in fact, go faster than light.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Extraordinary claims etc. [Re: Jarad]
      #5793978 - 04/12/13 08:55 AM

You would be amazed at how ossified people become in their thinking. I am having a discussion now of the topic - "Does Inflationary cosmology violate Einstein's equation?" (aside - which one? the one for specific heat? photo effect? efficient shopping procedure? calling it 'Einstein's equation' is already a bad sign. They mean, general relativity...) The point of the discussion depends essentially on the idea of energy conservation. I pointed out that in GR, there is no well-defined concept of energy conservation, because the source term, the energy-momentum density of the matter distribution, satisfies an equation that is NOT interpretable as a tensor conservation law. To get a conservation law of any sort, you must invoke the "pseudo-tensor of energy and momentum of the gravitational field". Pseudo-tensor is a kind phrase for "non-tensor". Now, if something does not obey a tensor equation in GR, then it will depend on what coordinates you choose to express it, and that includes the energy-content of the gravitational field.

All of this is well-known since the late 19-teens and was common knowledge by the 1920s. Yet despite repeating the argument 4 times in differing ways, the same person kept intoning, like an enraptured monk, that the energy was well-defined, GR passes experiment, quoted Wikipedia to me, etc. etc. The actual argument was not read, was not absorbed, was not even relevant to his position, which was based on authority, comfort, familiarity etc. - emotional supports.

Occam and Sagan are invoked in cases like this - they are not scientific principles, they are emotional crutches that are intended to throw the argument askew, in the manner of the Sophists. The point is not to get to facts, but to win arguments.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: deSitter]
      #5794231 - 04/12/13 11:34 AM

Welcome to the internet, Danny.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
*****

Reged: 04/07/05

Loc: Oort Cloud 9
Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5794304 - 04/12/13 12:01 PM

Quote:


I agree. I think he was pretty strongly convincing against the case of mysticism in the seventh episode of Cosmos. He convinced me enough to dump religion all together. I think he was excellent at pointing out that you can have wonder and spiritual experiences even without it. The universe is a beautiful place to see and to understand!





I had similar feelings after reading Brocas Brain. Sagan struck me as someone who was very logical, yet very open to the idea that there may be forces at work in the universe that our sciences cannot explain now, or perhaps ever. I don't think he was flirting with mysticism, but was instead trying to show that things which seem mystical are just things our best logical minds haven't explained yet. In other words, fire was magic to cavemen and now it's in your pocket with your car keys.

I found Sagan's thoughts on the so-called "near death experiences" to be interesting and along the lines we just discussed. He acknowledged that *something* was apparently going on, while mostly dismissing mystical explanations.

Best regards,

MikeG


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: deSitter]
      #5794652 - 04/12/13 02:31 PM

Quote:

You would be amazed at how ossified people become in their thinking. I am having a discussion now of the topic - "Does Inflationary cosmology violate Einstein's equation?" (aside - which one? ...)




Given the general nature of most people's understanding of these things, I'd guess that person was referring to "e=mc^2" as "Einstein's equation".


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Extraordinary claims etc. new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5797597 - 04/13/13 10:32 PM

Quote:

Quote:

You would be amazed at how ossified people become in their thinking. I am having a discussion now of the topic - "Does Inflationary cosmology violate Einstein's equation?" (aside - which one? ...)




Given the general nature of most people's understanding of these things, I'd guess that person was referring to "e=mc^2" as "Einstein's equation".




No, these are people with active research programs. The discussion reminds me often of the medieval Scholastics discussing the properties of God. The spirit of inquiry that replaced this point of view during the Renaissance seems to have gone missing.

As a complete aside - I was just reviewing the old series "Ascent of Man" by Jakob Bronowski. I cannot recommend this highly enough. All 13 episodes are, for now, to be found on YouTube.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)


Extra information
1 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 1645

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics