>>510182377>see this copypasta all the time>decide to finally open link>balk at retarded title of video>woman starts speaking (ugh)>"there is an old saying that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,' it is not encumbent on me to--">close videolet's just talk about all the reasons why "sagan's standard" is absolutely fucking cancer
1: what counts as extraordinary depends on your worldview, knowledge and biases. for someone unfamiliar with quantum physics, even basic quantum phenomena might seem extraordinary. this subjectivity leads to moving goalposts, demanding more evidence simply because a claim feels with your feelings uncomfortable.
2: it suppresses innovation. new scientific ideas often challenge existing paradigms, and may be dismissed prematurely if labeled "extraordinary." this leads to gatekeeping unconventional research, especially in fields like parapsychology or fringe physics.
3: all claims should require SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, not arbitrary thresholds. science should evaluate claims based on METHODOLOGY AND DATA QUALITY, not how surprising they feel. if a claim provides the best explanation, it doesn't need "extraordinary" evidence, it just needs adequate evidence.
4: it's rhetoric, not scientific. people invoke it to shut down debate or dismiss ideas without engaging with the actual evidence, it's a lazy skeptic's tool, a way to avoid grappling with uncomfortable or complex claims.
5: it reinforces confirmation bias. if a claim contradicts mainstream views, it's labeled "extraordinary" and held to a higher standard. meanwhile conventional claims are accepted with weaker evidence.
6: there's no clear definition of "extraordinary evidence." more data? better data? special statistical threshold? the phrase is vague and unscientific.
