Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Last updated

Carl Sagan, seen here with a model of Viking lander, popularized the aphorism. Sagan large.jpg
Carl Sagan, seen here with a model of Viking lander, popularized the aphorism.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (sometimes shortened to ECREE), [1] also known as the Sagan standard, is an aphorism popularized by science communicator Carl Sagan. He used the phrase in his 1979 book Broca's Brain and the 1980 television program Cosmos . It has been described as fundamental to the scientific method and is regarded as encapsulating the basic principles of scientific skepticism.

Contents

The concept is similar to Occam's razor in that both heuristics prefer simpler explanations of a phenomenon to more complicated ones. In application, there is some ambiguity regarding when evidence is deemed sufficiently "extraordinary". It is often invoked to challenge data and scientific findings, or to criticize pseudoscientific claims. Some critics have argued that the standard can suppress innovation and affirm confirmation biases.

Philosopher David Hume characterized the principle in his 1748 essay "Of Miracles". Similar statements were made by figures such as Thomas Jefferson in 1808, Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814, and Théodore Flournoy in 1899. The formulation "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" was used a year prior to Sagan, by scientific skeptic Marcello Truzzi.

Critics state that it is impossible to objectively define the term "extraordinary" and that measures of "extraordinary evidence" are completely reliant on subjective evaluation. Ambiguity in what constitutes "extraordinary" has led to misuse of the aphorism, and it is frequently invoked to discredit research dealing with scientific anomalies or any claim that falls outside the mainstream. [2] [3]

Application

An interesting debate has gone on within the [ Federal Communications Commission ] between those who think that all doctrines that smell of pseudoscience should be combated and those who believe that each issue should be judged on its own merits, but that the burden of proof should fall squarely on those who make the proposals. I find myself very much in the latter camp. I believe that the extraordinary should certainly be pursued. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Carl Sagan in his 1979 book Broca's Brain [4]

The aphorism "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", according to psychologist Patrizio Tressoldi, "is at the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere". [5] [6] [7] It has also been described as a "fundamental principle of scientific skepticism". [8] The phrase is often used in the context of paranormal and other pseudoscientific claims. [9] [10] [11] It is also frequently invoked in scientific literature to challenge research proposals, [12] like a new species of Amazonian tapir, [8] biparental inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, [13] or a Holocene "mega-tsunami". [14]

The concept is related to Occam's razor as, according to such a heuristic, simpler explanations are preferred to more complicated ones. Only in situations where extraordinary evidence exists would an extraordinary claim be the simplest explanation. [9] It appears in hypothesis testing where the hypothesis that there is no evidence for the proposed phenomenon, what is known as the "null hypothesis", is preferred. The formal argument involves assigning a stronger Bayesian prior to the acceptance of the null hypothesis as opposed to its rejection. [15]

Origin and precursors

Philosopher David Hume may have been the first to fully describe the principle. Allan Ramsay - David Hume, 1711 - 1776. Historian and philosopher - Google Art Project.jpg
Philosopher David Hume may have been the first to fully describe the principle.

In his 1748 essay "Of Miracles", philosopher David Hume wrote that if "the fact ... partakes of the extraordinary and the marvellous ... the evidence ... received a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual". [16] Deming concluded that this was the first complete elucidation of the principle. Unlike Sagan, Hume defined the nature of "extraordinary": he wrote that it was a large magnitude of evidence. [16] [17]

Others had also put forward very similar ideas. Quote Investigator cites similar statements from Benjamin Bayly (in 1708), Arthur Ashley Sykes (1740), Beilby Porteus (1800), Elihu Palmer (1804), and William Craig Brownlee (1824). [18] The French scholar Pierre-Simon Laplace, in essays (1810 and 1814) on the stability of the Solar System, wrote that "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness". [7] [18] Thomas Jefferson in an 1808 letter expresses contemporary skepticism of meteorites thus: "A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain, but where facts are suggested, bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us, their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty." [19] [20]

Scientific skeptic Marcello Truzzi used the formulation "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" in an article published by Parapsychology Review in 1975, [18] as well as in a Zetetic Scholar article in 1978. [21] Two 1978 articles quoted physicist Philip Abelson—then the editor of the journal Science —using the same phrasing as Truzzi. [22] [23]

Sagan popularized the aphorism in his 1979 book Broca's Brain , [4] [24] and in his 1980 television show Cosmos in reference to claims about extraterrestrials visiting Earth. [25] Sagan had earlier used in a 1977 interview with The Washington Post . [18]

Analysis and criticism

Science communicator Carl Sagan did not describe any concrete or quantitative parameters as to what constitutes "extraordinary evidence", which raises the issue of whether the standard can be applied objectively. [7] [24] [26] Academic David Deming notes that it would be "impossible to base all rational thought and scientific methodology on an aphorism whose meaning is entirely subjective". He instead argues that "extraordinary evidence" should be regarded as a sufficient amount of evidence rather than evidence deemed of extraordinary quality. [27] Tressoldi noted that the threshold of evidence is typically decided through consensus. This problem is less apparent in clinical medicine and psychology where statistical results can establish the strength of evidence. [7]

Deming also noted that the standard can "suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy". [27] Others, like Etzel Cardeña, have noted that many scientific discoveries that spurred paradigm shifts were initially deemed "extraordinary" and likely would not have been so widely accepted if extraordinary evidence were required. [28] [29] Uniform rejection of extraordinary claims could affirm confirmation biases in subfields. [29] Additionally, there are concerns that, when inconsistently applied, the standard exacerbates racial and gender biases. [30] Psychologist Richard Shiffrin has argued that the standard should not be used to bar research from publication but to ascertain what is the best explanation for a phenomenon. [31] Conversely, mathematical psychologist Eric-Jan Wagenmakers stated that extraordinary claims are often false and their publication "pollutes the literature". [32] To qualify the publication of such claims, psychologist Suyog Chandramouli has suggested the inclusion of peer reviewers' opinions on their plausibility or an attached curation of post-publication peer evaluations. [29]

Cognitive scientist and AI researcher Ben Goertzel believes that the phrase is utilized as a "rhetorical meme" without critical thought. Philosopher Theodore Schick argued that "extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence" if they provide the most adequate explanation. [11] Moreover, theists and Christian apologists like William Lane Craig have argued that it is unfair to apply the standard to religious miracles as other improbable claims are often accepted based on limited testimonial evidence, such as an individual claiming that they won the lottery. [33] [34]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carl Sagan</span> American astrophysicist, cosmologist and author (1934–1996)

Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer, planetary scientist, and science communicator. His best known scientific contribution is his research on the possibility of extraterrestrial life, including experimental demonstration of the production of amino acids from basic chemicals by exposure to light. He assembled the first physical messages sent into space, the Pioneer plaque and the Voyager Golden Record, which were universal messages that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them. He argued in favor of the hypothesis, which has since been accepted, that the high surface temperatures of Venus are the result of the greenhouse effect.

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter Duesberg</span> German-American molecular biologist (born 1936)

Peter H. Duesberg is a German-American molecular biologist and a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is known for his early research into the genetic aspects of cancer. He is a proponent of AIDS denialism, the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parapsychology</span> Study of paranormal and psychic phenomena

Parapsychology is the study of alleged psychic phenomena and other paranormal claims, for example, those related to near-death experiences, synchronicity, apparitional experiences, etc. Criticized as being a pseudoscience, the majority of mainstream scientists reject it. Parapsychology has also been criticised by mainstream critics for claims by many of its practitioners that their studies are plausible despite a lack of convincing evidence after more than a century of research for the existence of any psychic phenomena.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Broca's area</span> Speech production region in the dominant hemisphere of the hominid brain

Broca's area, or the Broca area, is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain with functions linked to speech production.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lynn Margulis</span> American evolutionary biologist (1938–2011)

Lynn Margulis was an American evolutionary biologist, and was the primary modern proponent for the significance of symbiosis in evolution. Historian Jan Sapp has said that "Lynn Margulis's name is as synonymous with symbiosis as Charles Darwin's is with evolution." In particular, Margulis transformed and fundamentally framed current understanding of the evolution of cells with nuclei – an event Ernst Mayr called "perhaps the most important and dramatic event in the history of life" – by proposing it to have been the result of symbiotic mergers of bacteria. In 2002, Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Broca</span> French physician, anatomist and anthropologist (1824–1880)

Pierre Paul Broca was a French physician, anatomist and anthropologist. He is best known for his research on Broca's area, a region of the frontal lobe that is named after him. Broca's area is involved with language. His work revealed that the brains of patients with aphasia contained lesions in a particular part of the cortex, in the left frontal region. This was the first anatomical proof of localization of brain function.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Committee for Skeptical Inquiry</span> Organization examining paranormal claims

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), formerly known as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), is a program within the U.S. non-profit organization Center for Inquiry (CFI), which seeks to "promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims." Paul Kurtz proposed the establishment of CSICOP in 1976 as an independent non-profit organization, to counter what he regarded as an uncritical acceptance of, and support for, paranormal claims by both the media and society in general. Its philosophical position is one of scientific skepticism. CSI's fellows have included notable scientists, Nobel laureates, philosophers, psychologists, educators, and authors. It is headquartered in Amherst, New York.

Paranormal events are purported phenomena described in popular culture, folk, and other non-scientific bodies of knowledge, whose existence within these contexts is described as being beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding. Notable paranormal beliefs include those that pertain to extrasensory perception, spiritualism and the pseudosciences of ghost hunting, cryptozoology, and ufology.

Skeptical Inquirer is a bimonthly American general-audience magazine published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) with the subtitle: The Magazine for Science and Reason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">HIV/AIDS denialism</span> False belief that HIV does not cause AIDS

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary, that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Some of its proponents reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but argue that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS. Insofar as they acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of sexual behavior, recreational drugs, malnutrition, poor sanitation, haemophilia, or the effects of the medications used to treat HIV infection (antiretrovirals).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Philip Abelson</span> American physicist and scientific editor (1913–2004)

Philip Hauge Abelson was an American physicist, scientific editor and science writer. Trained as a nuclear physicist, he co-discovered the element neptunium, worked on isotope separation in the Manhattan Project, and wrote the first study of nuclear marine propulsion for submarines. He later worked on a broad range of scientific topics and related public policy, including organic geochemistry, paleobiology and energy policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Probiotic</span> Microorganisms said to provide health benefits when consumed

Probiotics are live microorganisms promoted with claims that they provide health benefits when consumed, generally by improving or restoring the gut microbiota. Probiotics are considered generally safe to consume, but may cause bacteria-host interactions and unwanted side effects in rare cases. There is some evidence that probiotics are beneficial for some conditions, but there is little evidence for many of the health benefits claimed for them.

Pseudoskepticism is a philosophical or scientific position that appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but in reality is a form of dogmatism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marcello Truzzi</span> American sociologist (1935–2003)

Marcello Truzzi was an American sociologist and academic who was professor of sociology at New College of Florida and later at Eastern Michigan University, founding co-chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), a founder of the Society for Scientific Exploration, and director for the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research.

Zebra is the American medical slang for a surprising, often exotic, medical diagnosis, especially when a more commonplace explanation is more likely. It is shorthand for the aphorism coined in the late 1940s by Theodore Woodward, professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, who instructed his medical interns: "When you hear hoofbeats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra." By 1960, the aphorism was widely known in medical circles. The saying is a warning against the statistical base rate fallacy where the likelihood of something like a disease among the population is not taken into consideration for an individual.

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) proposes that the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) cool period (stadial) at the end of the Last Glacial Period, around 12,900 years ago was the result of some kind of extraterrestrial event with specific details varying between publications. The hypothesis is controversial and not widely accepted by relevant experts.

Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. What counts as evidence of absence has been a subject of debate between scientists and philosophers. It is often distinguished from absence of evidence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telekinesis</span> Influencing of objects without physical interaction

Telekinesis is a hypothetical psychic ability allowing an individual to influence a physical system without physical interaction. Experiments to prove the existence of telekinesis have historically been criticized for lack of proper controls and repeatability. There is no reliable evidence that telekinesis is a real phenomenon, and the topic is generally regarded as pseudoscience.

In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate unlikely explanations for a phenomenon, or avoid unnecessary actions.

References

Citations

  1. Kaufman (2012), p. 124.
  2. Tressoldi, Patrizio E. (June 10, 2011). "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences". Frontiers in Psychology. 2: 117. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00117 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   3114207 . PMID   21713069.
  3. Deming, David (December 1, 2016). "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?". Philosophia. 44 (4): 1319–1331. doi:10.1007/s11406-016-9779-7. ISSN   1574-9274. PMC   6099700 . PMID   30158736.
  4. 1 2 Sagan (1979), p. 62.
  5. Kiely et al. (2019), p. 1475.
  6. Lineweaver (2022)
  7. 1 2 3 4 Tressoldi, p. 1.
  8. 1 2 Voss et al. (2014), p. 893.
  9. 1 2 Smith (2011)
  10. Tressoldi, pp. 1–3.
  11. 1 2 Evidence for Psi (2015), p. 292.
  12. McMahon (2020), p. 117.
  13. Salas et al. (2020)
  14. Pinter et al. (2008), pp. 37–38.
  15. Matthews (2010), p. 6.
  16. 1 2 Deming (2016), p. 1328.
  17. Pigliucci (2013), p. 500.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Quote Investigator (2021)
  19. Berkes (2008)
  20. "Letter to Daniel Salmon".
  21. Truzzi (1978), p. 11.
  22. U.S. News & World Report (1978), pp. 41–42.
  23. Rao (1978), pp. 41–42.
  24. 1 2 Deming (2016), p. 1320.
  25. Sagan (1980), 1:24 min.
  26. The Library of Congress.
  27. 1 2 Deming (2016), pp. 1319–1320.
  28. Cardeña (2018), p. 673.
  29. 1 2 3 Shiffrin et al. (2021), p. 266.
  30. Shiffrin et al. (2021), p. 272.
  31. Shiffrin et al. (2021), p. 265.
  32. Shiffrin et al. (2021), pp. 265–266.
  33. Larmer (2015), p. 125.
  34. Craig (2008) [1994], p. 273.

Works cited

Books

Journal articles

Other media

Listen to this article (11 minutes)
Sound-icon.svg
This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 16 March 2024 (2024-03-16), and does not reflect subsequent edits.