I had something on my mind today, so I thought I'd wander from the narrative aspect of this series to discuss it a bit.
The late Carl Sagan once remarked in his famous 'Cosmos' series, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This idea may have its origins in a much earlier quotation taken from Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827), a French mathematician and astronomer who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." This notion gets batted back and forth quite a lot in the theist/atheist debate. It finds general acceptance within the atheist camp, while apologists usually dismiss it with the comment, "There's no such thing as extraordinary evidence. There's just evidence, plain and simple." As I've posited one way or the other, and on numerous occasions, this is a 'big tent' attempt to equalize evidences, thus granting a greater evidentiary status to some claims than might otherwise be deserved. Ultimately, it's a con-game. Unfortunately, it seems to be the way apologists are rolling these days, with no hopes for a more intellectually honest approach on the horizon. Then again, if apologists were intellectually honest, they'd find themselves out of jobs, wouldn't they?
Anyway, I got to thinking about extraordinary claims within the context of the 'Mr. Garcia' narrative, and I realized there was a bit more subtlety to the Sagan/Laplace quotations than is normally addressed by either side of the debate. Usually, the subject of the extraordinary claim is God Himself; you know, that invisible super-duper-pooper almighty being who transcends time and space, and yet is utterly familiar with every quantum action or reaction that's ever happened in the entire universe? Yeah, that guy. Supposedly, He's also the deity-without-a-second upholding the whole show from moment to moment, as well as interfering in the normal course of events through what are generally known as 'miracles'. The existence of such a being is the epitome of extraordinary claims, and I think a skeptic's demand for the kind of evidence that might mirror such a claim, such as concrete examples of overturning the laws of nature as we know them, are certainly warranted (notwithstanding the apologists' rather hollow denials).
However, in the case of our Mr. Garcia, what extraordinary claims have been made as yet? That he exists? That he's bought a house on such-and-such a street? That he's a busy man? None of these claims are in the least bit unusual, are they? So far, they all reflect the kind of normal human existence that we're all familiar with...don't they? Why then, is Carol feeling discomfited? Why are her suspicions growing?
As we move ahead, both Carol's suspicion and discomfiture will continue to grow; and yet, what has happened to warrant her feelings? Has any extraordinary claim been made yet, and if so, to what degree? Where is LaPlace's 'strangeness'? And what demand for 'extraordinary evidence' is Carol as yet in the position to make, if any? Are Carol's obvious suspicions as yet justified at all? After all, Mr. Garcia may yet walk up to her tomorrow, introduce himself, then give her a tour of his new home? What then?
Stay tuned...
I don't think any extraordinary claims or demands of extraordinary evidence have been made in your story.
ReplyDeleteAs to extraordinary evidence for God, did you participate in cl's thread on "Public Challenge To Atheists: Present Your Best Evidence For God"?
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteAs to your question concerning cl's blog- I'm not sure, but I don't think so.
Since, in your opinion, no extraordinary claims have yet been made, then why is Carol feeling uneasy about the situation? At this point, is she being irrational, or at least overly suspicious? If your answer is yes, could you provide an example to support your position?
Well, I'd disagree with the first commentator. An extraordinary claim on the part of Carol has been made. She doesn't think a specific person exists as thought by other people (the correlation is something I'd draw your attention to).
ReplyDeleteHer extraordinary evidence, as Jim points out in the last paragraph, would be to require him to be standing before her.
It isn't an extraordinary claim on the level of god but, nevertheless, it is one. And I do certainly share Carol's feelings in demanding said evidence rather than "arguments" that are supposed to lead to the conclusion he exists. An argument for the existence of a person doesn't lead to the existence of the person. It's supposed to be the other way around.
metamorphhh: Her uneasiness comes from the suspicion that she is being lied to. As I mentioned earlier, the rationale behind her uneasiness will depend in large part on how good her memory is, and just how "uneasy" she is (a little uneasiness is easily justified; a feeling that black helicopters are approaching is not rationally justifiable).
ReplyDeleteshadb: I'll play devil's advocate: Who is Carol to demand the presence of Mr. Garcia? As mentioned, he's a very important and very busy man, he has no time to meet with riff-raff...
shadb:
ReplyDeleteInteresting. So you think an extraordinary claim has been made on the part of Carol, but not of Sally? Has she actually made a claim yet? Could you point me to it? Or by 'claim', do you actually mean an unstated belief, or suspicion? Or have we even reached that threshold yet?
I'm totally on board with you about pulling factual information out of argumentative thin air, btw. That's why I'm always baffled when I see people taking the ontological argument for God's existence seriously. It's a REALLY goofy argument.
nedbrek:
For the sake of argument, let's assume Carol's memories pertaining to the events of the story are accurate, unless otherwise stated. I don't mean to veer off into solipsism here. And I'd agree with you that there's a spectrum of judgments here regarding validity of justification, as well as strength of belief; and naturally, that leaves room for a lot of subjective play that we can never fully adjust for. Subjectivity is part and parcel of inductive reasoning, which is the kind of reasoning we use to relate to the world on a daily basis.
As far as the question "Who is Carol to demand...?", I'd turn that around on you and ask, who is Carol NOT to demand? The way I see it so far, she's simply processing information, and coming across breaks in the inductive thread. Are her suspicions unreasonable?
NOTE: Just a reminder that this is an open exploration of the way induction works, and any thoughts towards plugging holes in the scenario are appreciated. I'm looking to approach this reason v. apologetics thing from a fresh angle, as the diametrically opposed butting of heads doesn't really seem to go anywhere vis a vis reasonable conversation. Thanks for hanging in with me thus far...hopefully, all this will eventually bear fruit, though it may be a more subtle type of fruit than we're used to seeking in the blogging arena.
nedbreak: It isn't about meeting with her, necessarily. But even putting in an appearance to his newly bought home would quell any suspicion of something sinister.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Jim here: who is she not to demand? I'm of the mind, and have always been as such, that people should demand knowledge.
Jim: In regards to Carol I am referring to the unstated belief that is slowly forming in her mind. Of course, now that you question it, I think I misspoke earlier. This isn't what you were referring to as an extraordinary claim. That being the case, I have to retract my former statement on the matter of Carol.
In regards to Sally---I don't think she is making an extraordinary claim as opposed to being deceitful. Which is amusing to me. I'd be searching for a motivation for these lies if I were Carol. For example, the sell of the home to a "businessman" of stature (even if he doesn't exist), could increase the value of the homes.
This is to say that I think her to be a conspirator with Mary. Which, is something needed to be substantiated by documents and so on. This being a fictional exercise, you'll have to be satisfied with my speculation. haha.
She is certainly within her rights to demand. I could demand to see President Obama's birth certificate. I just don't think he is going to care about my demands.
ReplyDelete..apologists usually dismiss it with the comment, "There's no such thing as extraordinary evidence. There's just evidence, plain and simple."
ReplyDeleteI'd sort of agree with apologists on this. Evidence is evidence.
I'd state it differently. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily convincing evidence. E.g. Claims of the supernatural require a shitload of evidence. Evidence, nonetheless, but a whole lot of it. Not just anecdotal stories of video games.
As to Garcia, it seems that the claim here, implied as it is, is Garcia's existence. It's been asserted that he
1. Bought a home
2. is moving in slowly.
3. has deposited boxes in his home, at night
4. is an important man who deserves a party on his behalf, and is
5. so important that he can be called away to miss his own party
6. which he paid for
Al of this implies his existence, yet Carol has doubts. From her POV, the best evidence for his existence is his presence, and that has been elusive. Hence, his existence, to her, is an extraordinary claim, which can be proven only with extraordinarily convincing evidence. What she's seen so far is not convincing. It's evidence, but not sufficiently convincing to...ummm...convince.
False parallel, nedbreak.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance, a neighbor (Carol), can reasonably expect the presence of Mr. Garcia considering his alleged buying of the home and arrangement of a party. Therefore, she can reasonably demand his presence as the best evidence of his existence.
In your instance, you don't have sufficient reason to demand a birth certificate.
SI delineates this adequately.
Loving this, you guys! This is exactly the kind of conversation I'm shooting for here. I'm a bit in the cups this evening, so I don't think I'll interject at this point. You're saying it all, and asking the right questions.
ReplyDeleteAnd WHY am I in the cups, do you ask? Because, my friends, I'm just back from bowling with my daughter, and nothing goes better with bowling than a few beers. Oh, and did I mention that I FINALLY BROKE 200 TONIGHT?!?! Yes! The deed is done. A personal goal I've had since I was a kid. Also, my daughter bowled a 160, which isn't too shabby as this is only her third day at the game. (I was afraid she'd beat me to 200, which naturally meant that I would have had to do away with her, and I'm rather fond of her...phew!)
Ahh, well, the birth certificate thing was mostly a joke... a moment of silence for the dead...
ReplyDeleteI think we are down playing an important point. Why does Mr. Garcia have to prove himself to Carol? What is his motivation?
I do agree with SI, including that measuring "convincing-ness" seems like an intractable problem ("It is convincing if I am convinced, and I am not convinced - therefore it is not enough evidence.")
S.I.:
ReplyDeleteThe way I interpret Sagan's 'extraordinary evidence' (and I believe this is the spirit in which it is offered), is evidence which somehow parallels the extraordinariness of the claim. For instance, a claim for the existence of flying saucers is a claim about something unusual; something 'out of the ordinary'. Naturally, some great evidence to match up against the claim would be to produce a flying saucer, which would certainly be an 'extra-ordinary' thing to be able to produce. And like you've pointed out per 'video games' falling over, the further you get away from 'evidence' that can be explained with prosaic, alternative explanations, the better evidence you've got.
I suppose when people say there's no evidence for such-and-such, they mean that the thing offered as evidence hasn't reached a level of credibility so as to actually be considered 'evidence'. This is the way most of us use the term in our everyday parlance, I think.
Nedbrek:
I don't think the question concerns whether or not Mr. Garcia has to prove himself to Carol. It's not so much about Mr. G's will to explain himself, as it is about what Carol perceives should be the natural course of events IF a Mr. Garcia were actually moving into the house across the street. So far, what she has seen doesn't line up with her expectations.
Which brings me to your statement that 'measuring convincingness seems like an intractable problem'. It is, but only if you're going the route of pure deductive reasoning. In the real world, we measure 'convincingness' in an informal sense all the time. Let's take an example:
I call you on the phone, and exclaim "Oh, my God! The sun is dilating to 5 times it's size, then contracting to a poinpoint, over and over again on a cycle of around 30 seconds! You've got to see this!"
So, you look out your window. Nothing unusual. You call some friends. Everything's normal from their povs. You switch on the television. Nothing. Hmmm.
Next, you consider what you know about me. Then you remember that I like to indulge in LSD from time to time. Concerned, you drive over to my house, and find me talking to the invisible pterodactyls appearing at the periphery of my vision, while claiming heaven actually exists in the little space underneath my thumbnail.
So, what's been going on here? You've been measuring convincingness, and ultimately deciding that my claim was false. I'll go out on a limb here, and predict that every person you know who becomes privy to the same information you have, will come to the same conclusion. Why? Because all of you carry similar models of the world around in your heads. Models built of life experience.
Of course, my example is much less subtle than Carol's thus far. We're still in the early stages of the story, but already a dissonance is forming between reality, and Carol's expectations of how reality should be behaving; again, built upon her life's experience and thought processes up to this point. Where her burgeoning suspicions might lead here is still an open question.
I'll repeat, and continue to repeat throughout the series that this is an inquiry into how we generally exercise common sense, how the beliefs embodying that common sense are formed, and how we sometimes short circuit that common sense through poor analysis. There'll probably also be some stuff about motivating factors, and perhaps the kitchen sink, as well :)
Well, but Sally has met the new neighbor... that would count as qualifying evidence for me in this particular scenario.
ReplyDeleteNow, if Sally had said that Eddie Vedder was the new neighbor, I'd need more evidence...
(oh, Eddie!)
ildi:
ReplyDeleteAt least, we have Sally's claim that she's met the new neighbor.
Your term 'qualifying evidence' interests me. I have to run, but I'd like to go into that a bit later. Thanks for playing, ildi.
Well, the big thing about models is that they can be wrong :) And it's only by exposing them to truth that we find that out.
ReplyDeleteThere is always the possibility Mary's "don't touch those" has an innocent explanation. Mr. Garcia's non-appearance at the party can be easily explained I think...
I'll look for the next episode.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteI'd agree, and hasten to say that we're far from coming to any definitive conclusions as to the existence, nature or whereabouts of Mr. G.
Mary is a control freak and she has the hots for Edd... er, Mr. Garcia.
ReplyDeleteNOTE: For some reason I've been calling Mary, 'Sally'...LOL! Can't keep my own characters lined up. Hmmm, Sally was my first girlfriend, a little blond English girl who moved into the neighborhood when I was 8.
ReplyDeletePaging doctor Freud! LOLOLOL!
Anyhow, I stand corrected.
The way I interpret Sagan's 'extraordinary evidence' (and I believe this is the spirit in which it is offered), is evidence which somehow parallels the extraordinariness of the claim.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably a matter of semantics, but I agree. Saying one needs "evidence which somehow parallels the extraordinariness of the claim.", to me is roughly the same as saying you need a "shitload of evidence" to explain something extraordinary. Either way, it has to be sufficiently convincing to overcome the natural tendency to say it's fake, or untrue, or to otherwise reject it.
And I don't think one can simply use a subjective yardstick, to say "that's convincing". Religionists do that all the time. There needs to be some objective criteria for convincing.
Now, here's where cl will come in, (you know he's parallel blogging you here) and say "Aren't 2 billion Christians sufficient to form a consensus?" But somehow religious consensus does fit the objective criteria, but I'm in my cups now too (and I haven't been bowling) and don't feel like sussing it out.
...somehow religious consensus doesn't fit...
ReplyDeleteS.I.:
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping through this series to demonstrate a different sort of objectivity, or perhaps to elaborate on what objectivity really means in the context of induction and human experience.
Keep it up. I like what you're doing, and will continue with it, though I will be away this weekend without access to a computer.
ReplyDeleteThanks, S.I. I'm still editing and such on the book in between, so it won't be an everyday thing, anyhow. But I'm having fun with it. Have a good weekend.
ReplyDelete