Simia Saturnalia said:
You're joking, right?
I mean, you're pretending not to have noticed it that he's said it several times - that you REPEATED IT even - just to get a rise out of him. Only possible reason, surely.
Right?
No....I'm serious.
No. Extraordinary claims means just that. Extraordinary claims.
The above doesn't tell me what "extraordinary claims" is intended to mean any more than if I defined bulgwus as
No. Bulgwus means just that. Bulgwus.
There is no information conveyed there at all.
Grog does say:
And the claim that there are large numbers of players out there who want risk-free D&D is pretty extraordinary, considering that risk is built into the system from the get-go.
but this doesn't really say why the claim in "extraordinary" either. Because something was built into the game from OD&D on, claiming that a large number of players want something else is an extaordinary claim? If this was true, then it would require "extraordinary proof" that there are large numbers of players who want a non-Vancian magic system. Or non per-day resources. Etc., etc., etc.
For something like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" to be even slightly useful, both terms ("extraordinary claims" and "extraordinary proof") must be defined
before one decides which is which.
Several good analyses of this phrase can be found on the Interweb, both from the standpoint of skepticism (
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html) and those who are less skeptical (
http://www.carm.org/evidence/extraordinary.htm).
It must surely be recognizable to anyone who examines any claim that no claim is objectively extraordinary. A claim is only extraordinary in context of a given worldview. If a claim contradicts that worldview, it is extraordinary to the degree that it contradicts that worldview. The proof required is extraordinary only to the degree that not accepting that proof requires more effort than does altering one's worldview to take the logical conclusions derived from that evidence into account.
Ex., if I believe in elves (perhaps I am living in the World of Greyhawk) and you tell me that there is an elf outside that wishes to speak to me, this is not an extraordinary claim. It may not be a true claim, but it is one which falls within the context of my worldview.
Ex., if I do not believe in elves (perhaps I am living in the real world) and you tell me that there is an elf outside that wishes to speak to me, this is an extraordinary claim because it is in contradiction to my worldview. Even were it true, I would be liable to dismiss it. I would certainly not accept pointy ears and a smarmy attitude as "proof" that the person on my doorstep was an elf.
Likewise, in the real world, some of the claims made re: Relativity or QM have been, so far as we know, accurate, but have required "extraordinary proof" to be accepted as so for the simple reason that they violated the until-then most popularly held scientific viewpoint.
IOW, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is missing the phrase "to be accepted by those to whom the claim seems extraordinary", which is required for the statement to be sensible.
Hence, "Extraordinary claims" means nothing more than "claims which go against other things that I have accepted as true, and therefore which would require me to alter my belief system should I accept them", which has little or nothing to do with whether said claims are true. It justifies a "no amount of evidence will change my mind" attitude all too often, though perhaps not in this case.
