Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

"Science does not contemplate two types of evidence." https://t.co/Wjclf2el4Y https://t.co/BE7NNKqw6q

@ErranteMiko @malcubierre Y no simplemente lo digo yo como opinion. Here's a well researched peer reviewed philosophy of science paper on the misuse of Sagan's aphorism: https://t.co/2BuscLoX03

@VesperAegis @WallStreetSilv "Science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge." h

RT @UFOinformation: Carl Sagans Aussage: "Außergewöhnliche Behauptungen erfordern außergewöhnliche Beweise" wird häufig falsch ausgelegt, d…

Carl Sagans Aussage: "Außergewöhnliche Behauptungen erfordern außergewöhnliche Beweise" wird häufig falsch ausgelegt, da es hier nicht um eine subjektive Bewertung von Behauptungen und Beweisen geht, sondern Beweise sich an der Begründetheit der Behauptung

IDK it’s not like there’s a preponderance of claims in opposition to ET visitation, it’s just that for various reasons it’s thought unlikely. It is still an “extraordinary” claim to say aliens kidnapped me, even without numerous opposing claims. 1/2

RT @mrjeffknox: Pretty good short paper on ECREE (Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence). People misinterpret what that means…

Pretty good short paper on ECREE (Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence). People misinterpret what that means. Its not a value judgment on what is 'extraordinary'. It's not a distinction between types of evidence (evidence is evidence). https

For folks clinging to Sagan's quote about extraordinary claims, it's a bit of a cop-out. Do the work. This one happens to be open to the public. There is another great one in our reply to this tweet that is paywalled. #uaphearing #uaphearings #ufotwitter h

@Bugimus This needs to be smacked down every time a debunker uses it. They can get educated here: https://t.co/at2ZQPsr9R https://t.co/pc9nOS8XXV

Do "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Turns out it is a tricky word to define and the users of this phrase do so with slippery meanings. https://t.co/bHWyfUmtDp #atheists #sceptics @paulogia0 @rationality

RT @MinistriesMicah: @paulogia0 @InspiringPhilos @ingersoll_bob https://t.co/bHWyfUmtDp unfortunately the word "extraordinary" as Sagan use…

@paulogia0 @InspiringPhilos @ingersoll_bob https://t.co/bHWyfUmtDp unfortunately the word "extraordinary" as Sagan used it is almost meaningless, it can mean anything as this paper shows

@pjvanerp @georgevanhal @volkskrant Is voorzichtigheid niet normaal in de wetenschap? Waarom ineens extraordinary ervoor plakken? En wie bepaalt dus wanneer dat mag? Zie het artikel voor meer informatie over eeuwenlange vertroebeling, die dus nog steeds

@georgevanhal @pjvanerp @volkskrant Pijnlijk dat ‘ECREE’ nog steeds wordt gebruikt; maakt dit stuk een stuk minder sterk. Er bestaat niet zoiets als extraordinary evidence. https://t.co/35UsvxZzoh

@Quack_Detector @GarryPNolan This academic paper nicely sums up my problem with ECREE. https://t.co/M7XZE7OYQv https://t.co/aTUEA9vkks

When someone says, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (#ECREE) you can and should reply: Nah It's lazy. Thoughtless. Mantras are. Here's a little more thought on the subject: https://t.co/wMvi8UYWDo

https://t.co/cKWrD95iMT

@raouljdegroot @RWGriffioen @MarionKoopmans @wjmspaan Dubieuze argumentatie Raoul, heel dubieus. Wetenschap is incrementeel en warrig. Daarom is kennis over complexiteit nodig. Die ontbreekt klaarblijkelijk. ⬇️😡 https://t.co/gMhTRzwRF9

The misuse of ECREE to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge. The Sagan aphorism “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). http

@kevbachler @DefNotGonnaGet1 @LocienDren @ninaturner They tell you why it's important. https://t.co/D8oAtWyZhx https://t.co/SRP2bmCyVF

@mndste Eric Davis, Lue Elizondo, Chris Mellon, and others with the clearance & position say so, all credible witnesses & subject matter experts. Those hold up in court. As for "extraordinary", that's a meaningless phrase that sounds good but means

@owl_and_flowers @Sciedea @ortrudethevegan @dhothersall https://t.co/SQrBkohdeq

@edwardcurrent @MickWest Has this article also be written by a religious or Ufo-believer? https://t.co/lU1xRNnPlO ECREE is mainly used by debunkers and pseudo-skeptics because it allows them to deny something at their wishes, endlessly.

@MickWest Discussed 1000 times already. Your example is bad. Read this: https://t.co/lU1xRNnPlO

@BfOlivier @SGuy8bit @MickWest @Paul_Budding_ « this is how it works ». Not really… https://t.co/JCQJTeN0JI

@TaylorD09882123 @MickWest https://t.co/lU1xRNnPlO

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? https://t.co/PZjwUpP121 @SPR1882

With regard to UFO's, Sagan's aphorism about "extraordinary claims" has been mis-used. https://t.co/uHQ9xPPvN9

@Wizard_Predicts Haven't read all of this yet, but perhaps some good insights lie within.... https://t.co/nmA9LXY4PX.

@IChristendom But I’m just as happy with this definition: “For a claim to qualify as extraordinary there must exist overwhelming empirical data of the exact antithesis.” https://t.co/qSCtZVimQ3

@ryan_ha @hollywoodufos @neiltyson @MickWest @michiokaku @PostDisclosure @zcichy @LuAngeles Demming has much more to say about all this https://t.co/WNxXD8Tfpj

Reading "What is the nature of an extraordinary claim? What qualifies as extraordinary evidence? Should there be two standards of evidence in science? Is there any context in which ECREE can be invoked correctly?" https://t.co/JHR8Syr7U7

@ScottAdamsSays @matthewlee7 Re: Extraordinary Claims.... Not necessarily.... https://t.co/B6QvBAY3sk.

RT @aztezcan: “Confusion arising from ambiguities in language is one of Francis Bacon’s Four Idols, biases that hinder objective science. .…

“Confusion arising from ambiguities in language is one of Francis Bacon’s Four Idols, biases that hinder objective science. ... “the ill and unfit ... choice of words .... lead men away into numberless empty controversies and idle fancies”” https://t.co/D3

@jasonryanbjj @Graham__Hancock This is an interesting read regarding ECREE.. https://t.co/vbPJTyI2j9

RT @CastlDalmunzie: @wayounihan @wordfinga @LavaletteAstrid @mirvatalasnag @rahatheart1 @KTamirisaMD @DocSavageTJU @mmamas1973 @DrIanWeissm…

@wayounihan @wordfinga @LavaletteAstrid @mirvatalasnag @rahatheart1 @KTamirisaMD @DocSavageTJU @mmamas1973 @DrIanWeissman @CancerGeek @FriedbergEric @rstraxMD @sminaev2015 @ShraboniGhosal @mjallad @layth_abdu @EthicalRenewal @aymanka @DrJenniferCo_Vu “the

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @Mangan150: The idea that a scientific claim is "extraordinary" and thus requires "extraordinary evidence" is most often used to dismiss…

RT @Mangan150: The idea that a scientific claim is "extraordinary" and thus requires "extraordinary evidence" is most often used to dismiss…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @Mangan150: The idea that a scientific claim is "extraordinary" and thus requires "extraordinary evidence" is most often used to dismiss…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @Mangan150: The idea that a scientific claim is "extraordinary" and thus requires "extraordinary evidence" is most often used to dismiss…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @Mangan150: The idea that a scientific claim is "extraordinary" and thus requires "extraordinary evidence" is most often used to dismiss…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @Mangan150: The idea that a scientific claim is "extraordinary" and thus requires "extraordinary evidence" is most often used to dismiss…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

RT @KenDBerryMD: "Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" =…

"Meat is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Fruit is healthy year-round" = extraordinary claim "The Sun is bad for you" = extraordinary claim "Wheat every meal is healthy" = extraordinary claim "Canola Oil is good for you" = extraordinary claim

RT @Mangan150: The idea that a scientific claim is "extraordinary" and thus requires "extraordinary evidence" is most often used to dismiss…

RT @Mangan150: The idea that a scientific claim is "extraordinary" and thus requires "extraordinary evidence" is most often used to dismiss…

The idea that a scientific claim is "extraordinary" and thus requires "extraordinary evidence" is most often used to dismiss legitimate scientific ideas. https://t.co/ZNZTVjh8c4

Noone ever ate more (period) than the modern human and "worse health" must be substantiated along some reasonable lines, see https://t.co/fFbYe4oWWl

@Nsam59077799 @UfoJoe11 @HISTORY I'm curious, too. But potentially significant findings take LOTS of time to establish. The ambiguous (IMHO) Sagan Standard is the paradigm we now operate on. https://t.co/42I2myp9Oc

@MaverickXtian @JoshHeter @CapturingChrist "In 1979 astronomer Carl Sagan popularized the aphorism ECREE" https://t.co/NapX6bIUIc aphorism = a short clever saying that is intended to express a general truth I still don't see where we disagree.🤷‍♂️

@AltoRites @SomeApologist @AApologetics I find this demand always an interesting one. https://t.co/62W9Y7y3uN

Carl Sagan - ExtraOrdinary Claims Require ExtraOrdinary Evidence. https://t.co/3Zy655BiFY

@JasonColavito @Graham__Hancock https://t.co/vbPJTyI2j9

@pathogenomenick @WvSchaik do we offer publicity? I did find this philosophical nugget though - which actually fits our frame rather nicely https://t.co/8uMjIxB1vH

RT @JAA00197397: @Think_753 Y ni siquiera se cumple, https://t.co/ONgO0gIzGK

RT @DudeDarkmatter: Ooo - Hume (1748) actually defined what constitutes an extraordinary claim. https://t.co/4vGDe88Kup

RT @DudeDarkmatter: Ooo - Hume (1748) actually defined what constitutes an extraordinary claim. https://t.co/4vGDe88Kup

RT @DudeDarkmatter: Ooo - Hume (1748) actually defined what constitutes an extraordinary claim. https://t.co/4vGDe88Kup

RT @DudeDarkmatter: Ooo - Hume (1748) actually defined what constitutes an extraordinary claim. https://t.co/4vGDe88Kup

Ooo - Hume (1748) actually defined what constitutes an extraordinary claim. https://t.co/4vGDe88Kup

@stephenblong Any claim requires sufficient evidence, no more, no less. Requesting “extraordinary” is problematic because defining extraordinary is often subjective; and it tacitly biases against new information or data which could (rightly) challenge the

No, extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence. https://t.co/8ivNCegQFv

Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? https://t.co/J0w5sGNoCG

https://t.co/lXQV5NE2Ru Pernyataan gelondongan "Extraordinary Claims Require... https://t.co/JMeJ3ugXvn

RT @The_Scole_Expt: DoExtraordinaryClaimsRequireExtraordinaryEvidence? Should there be 2 standards of evidence in science? @SpringerLink ht…

RT @The_Scole_Expt: DoExtraordinaryClaimsRequireExtraordinaryEvidence? Should there be 2 standards of evidence in science? @SpringerLink ht…

DoExtraordinaryClaimsRequireExtraordinaryEvidence? Should there be 2 standards of evidence in science? @SpringerLink https://t.co/DZASRifuqk https://t.co/ZcVMDzh1Gs

@lose_all_faith "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" sounds nice, but actually hinders scientific research: https://t.co/f3vTCgIT1p

@GameraInfalible @Dracalous @MarkHerron2 @TDesane @roofer_fl @bigstewy58 @Perdnoot @welshninja87 @BertramBaxter66 @ladybuglc @malo_j @JoeCienkowski @FimusTauri @Goblin_Steroids @JohnA_SEN @cootey59 @i_wish_upon_you @RedErinn @TheLexZane @bikinatroll @TakeT

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? | SpringerLink https://t.co/NEGdDENG6y

https://t.co/lXQV5NE2Ru https://t.co/OvuYLYa0KC