Hawking Does A Dawkins With A Touch Of Lapace

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

 

It was laplaces original quote that sagan made non-sensical.

 

laplace

The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.

sagan

Extraordinary claims reqire exraordinary evidence.

 

Total bollocks, evidence is evidence, either you have it or you dont, nobody has ever proven a fact with extraordinary evidence.

 

Laplace was closer to logic, as laplace was talking about on the balance of evidence.

 

Laplace is still flawed, as he does not allow for the undermining of evidence{established theory} by unrelated events or discoveries, so shifting the balance of evidence in favour of the strangness, as he put it, without any new evidence at all needed to affirm the strangeness to accepted theory.

Maybe my logic is flawed but the argument made about evidence by Sagan seems to make sense to me. Different claims do require different types of evidence. The evidence needed to prove that a pencil is on a table or that evolution happens would be quite different from trying to find evidence whether fairies and trolls existed.

[Terse]

The evidence needed to prove ... whether fairies and trolls existed.

Fairly substantial on this forum, I'd suggest.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Ok ok. Goblins, pixies, and mooinjer veggey then.

[mæŋksmən]

 

 

It was laplaces original quote that sagan made non-sensical.

 

laplace

The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.

sagan

Extraordinary claims reqire exraordinary evidence.

 

Total bollocks, evidence is evidence, either you have it or you dont, nobody has ever proven a fact with extraordinary evidence.

 

Laplace was closer to logic, as laplace was talking about on the balance of evidence.

 

Laplace is still flawed, as he does not allow for the undermining of evidence{established theory} by unrelated events or discoveries, so shifting the balance of evidence in favour of the strangness, as he put it, without any new evidence at all needed to affirm the strangeness to accepted theory.

Maybe my logic is flawed but the argument made about evidence by Sagan seems to make sense to me. Different claims do require different types of evidence. The evidence needed to prove that a pencil is on a table or that evolution happens would be quite different from trying to find evidence whether fairies and trolls existed.

 

 

oK.

 

Can you describe extraordinary evidence then, can you describe where any extraordinary evidence has been advanced to prove a fact.

If so who was the evidence extraordinary too, and why.

 

Make sure you dont accidentetly include overwhelming evidence as thats a volume issue.

 

THAT WILL DO FOR STARTERS.

 

Failing any of the above real world proofs of usage, then your theory will do, remembering that all you rill be establishing is that its a great theory.

 

 

The evidence needed to prove ... whether fairies and trolls existed.

Fairly substantial on this forum, I'd suggest.

 

Substantial is not extraordinary.

Its a volume of evidence issue.

Altho i realise it was just a vehicle for your witty misspelling.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

oK.

 

Can you describe extraordinary evidence then, can you describe where any extraordinary evidence has been advanced to prove a fact.

If so who was the evidence extraordinary too, and why.

 

Make sure you dont accidentetly include overwhelming evidence as thats a volume issue.

 

THAT WILL DO FOR STARTERS.

 

Failing any of the above real world proofs of usage, then your theory will do, remembering that all you rill be establishing is that its a great theory.

Why do you think that a past example of an extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence need be made? I don't believe a past instance isn't required for this point.

 

Let's give it some thought though. In the case of the Christian God, many argue that he is supernatural, exists outside our reality but intervenes in it, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (in some sense). That is appears to be an extraordinary claim. What evidence would be required to prove it? I wouldn't know where to start. You would have to find some way of ascertaining that something is intervening in the world and determine that it is that specific deity.

It would require unique evidence and possibly very substantial evidence.

[mæŋksmən]

oK.

 

Can you describe extraordinary evidence then, can you describe where any extraordinary evidence has been advanced to prove a fact.

If so who was the evidence extraordinary too, and why.

 

Make sure you dont accidentetly include overwhelming evidence as thats a volume issue.

 

THAT WILL DO FOR STARTERS.

 

Failing any of the above real world proofs of usage, then your theory will do, remembering that all you rill be establishing is that its a great theory.

 

Why do you think that a past example of an extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence need be made? I don't believe a past instance isn't required for this point.

 

I see you cannot find a real world application, in all the years man has existed, but you still somehow think extraordinary evidence has a modern application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's give it some thought though. In the case of the Christian God, many argue that he is supernatural, exists outside our reality but intervenes in it, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (in some sense). That is appears to be an extraordinary claim. What evidence would be required to prove it? I wouldn't know where to start. You would have to find some way of ascertaining that something is intervening in the world and determine that it is that specific deity.

 

See reply below.

 

It would require unique evidence and possibly very substantial evidence.

 

Your trying to establish what constitutes extraordinary evidence, not unique or substantial.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I see you cannot find a real world application, in all the years man has existed, but you still somehow think extraordinary evidence has a modern application.

But you seem to think it would be required. I am saying that no example need be given.

 

Your trying to establish what constitutes extraordinary evidence, not unique or substantial.

What do you understand by the word. I simply see it meaning something very particular or even strange and/or meaning a great deal of it. In the case of proving a God exists, I would think that it would require a great deal of evidence or something very peculiar occurring or being provided.

[mæŋksmən]

I see you cannot find a real world application, in all the years man has existed, but you still somehow think extraordinary evidence has a modern application.

 

But you seem to think it would be required. I am saying that no example need be given.

 

No until we have example it remains no more than a theory, to be mulled over by a philosopher or 2, and a failsafe get out of jail free card for sceptics getting a drumming whilst debating, as extraordinary evidence is a definitional myth, we already have a real world full of clearly defined evidential standards in every day usage.

 

 

Your trying to establish what constitutes extraordinary evidence, not unique or substantial.

 

 

What do you understand by the word. I simply see it meaning something very particular or even strange and/or meaning a great deal of it. In the case of proving a God exists, I would think that it would require a great deal of evidence or something very peculiar occurring or being provided.

 

I see evidence evaluation more as laplace perceived it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think I am getting confused by this. What do you understand by extraordinary evidence? I don't really see much difference between Laplace and Sagan. Can you explain some more please?

[mæŋksmən]

I dont understand anything about it, nothing more than a catch phrase, jingoism.

 

 

All thats needed for any kind of evidential decision is.

Weight and balance of evidence.

 

ETA

More bayesian than la place for claimss that challenge current mantra.