In Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (Oxford University Press, 2000), John Earman argues on the basis of the probability calculus that extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. Rather, an extraordinary claim requires ordinary evidence which is such that the evidence be far more probable given that the extraordinary event did occur than given that it did not.
No. Hume is wrong. Something that may at a given time instance, or because of the wrong formulation of the "problem", may be observed as extraordinary can very quickly become ordinary, simply because of a sudden hunch that is the right one. The key here I think is that the term "extraordinary" just looks formidable, perhaps because the question has not been represented well enough or understood in the right light or frame of reference. "Extraordinary" does not mean much, quite frankly.
What is "extraordinary claim" !!!! in the name of religion or science .
Science needs proof /evidence and religion needless to say followers will follow anyways !
As far as mathematical models are concerned , they are plain ordinary so says Pierre-Simon Laplace - "probability is common sense reduced to calculation"
I think certainty or probability=1 of an event occurrence is left to us ...
My experience has shown me that !!!!!!!
I agree with Jonh Earman but do not agree with Hume. Before coming to this page, I saw the part of your question written in a large font and had a thought just the same as Earman's argument.
Well, you know, Kirk. If we want to believe something, we'll find ways to believe it, no matter how tenuous the proof. Other than that sort of "must believe" scenario, objectively speaking, certainly extraordinary claims should be accompanied with extraordinary evidence.
The reason for this is simple probability theory. Let's go on the basis of achieving the same amount of likelihood that something has occurred or will occur.
Let's say it is July 31st, in the northern hemisphere. If we claim that it will rain in the next 7 days, we can be fairly credible without going to extreme measures to calculate the exact probablity of rain per day. But if we say it will snow in the next 7 days, to be as credible as we were about it raining in that time interval, we have to really do some serious computations. Otherwise, our prediction of snow will be far less probable than it was for rain. Objectively speaking, people would have a perfect right to dismiss such a prediction of snow.
The same occurs with risk management. Let's say we want to reduce, as much as feasible, the risk of electrocution. If we are dealing with household voltages, it's enough to take certain measures, as prescribed by building codes. But to have equal protection against electrocution, when dealing with high tension lines, say around 32,000 volts, far more stringent measures are required. The key concept being, "for equal protection."
So, make some mundane claim, and you will be highly credible with minimum proof. Make some truly out there claim, and to achieve that same level of credibility, you will need far greater proof. Or, use the same level of proof that applies to something mundane, and very few people will buy your story! Probability theory at work. Search under "expected value." E(X) = X * P(X).
Hello,
As you know , Hume is a British empiricist, to whom extraordinary evidence is quintessentially based on observation and experimentation. As a reaction to rationalistic thought , the evidential bases for establishing truth were ascertained by scientists' reliance on the senses. Due to limitations of human perceptions and sensory experiences , claims about the truth of objects and events in human life need to be established not only by experience but also by self- evident justifications of reason. As such, when we deal with human nature , we should be cautious about making universal generalizations. In point of fact, foundationalist versus non-foundationalist claims fall short of defining the substantial truth dominating human life.
Best regards,
R. Biria
Analysis of every comment demands analysis of the perspective of such comment too.
Many claims are there as effective medicine of Cancer. But almost all of them fail to cross the barrier set by modern research protocols. On the other hand, it was also seen many times that even after passing such barriers and getting approval of use as medicine among patients, the material proved as very toxic latter (as Thalidomide episode of 1957).
Actually still the contemporary validation system of modern medicine lack in development of any foolproof model to study the actual long term effect among the users. It is as per my idea.
Thanks.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics