When will Mr. Mensa learn English, just wondering lol
I want to believe, but even the "live" demo looks more like Captain Disillusion video than truth. Strong feeling of "uncanny valley".
Extraordinary claims DO NOT require extraordinary evidence.
There is actually no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
Extraordinary claims just require sufficient evidence, as expected for any claim.
There is actually no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
Extraordinary claims just require sufficient evidence, as expected for any claim.
I posted the link to the blog on Regium’s latest video, I have made up my mind to refresh that page every 10 minutes and just repost it if it gets deleted. People must know what they are getting into.
@AdobeAtom That's true that extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence just like other claims, however, sufficient evidence would tend to be more difficult to provide with extraordinary claims; and that's the whole point. If the claims were easy to support, they wouldn't be extraordinary. So if you're making big claims, you need to provide sufficient evidence to support those claims and that will be more difficult to do.
If this thing can do what it says it can do, I'll buy one in an instant. I'll save up even if I have to but the videos I watched left me feeling a bit suspicious of it all. Seems faked. At this stage I'll buy one if/when it comes out successful from its kickstarter campaign. I won't risk a cent on it unless I see some independent sources verify it doing what they claim it can do (preferably someone lichess related, but really any journalistic source would do too).
@AdobeAtom,
While I appreciate your point, your dismissal of the phrase “extraordinary evidence” requires it to mean something like “special evidence,” whereas I believe the author(s) merely meant “an extraordinary amount of evidence,” and employed the word by itself as a kind of shorthand for this longer phrase.
In other words, they were trying to say something along the lines of, “Lots of claims require lots of evidence” — which is true, since when you make a lot of separate claims you need evidence for a greater number of them; whereas, when making fewer claims, you could get away with less evidence — or maybe even, “Bold claims require more evidence” than modest claims do, which is true for essentially the same reason, since modest claims don’t require much proof at all. (Depending on how modest they are, maybe they’re even self-evident.)
So while the repetition of the word _extraordinary_ is perhaps unfortunate, and could be considered suboptimal grammar, I think you’re taking it too literally. That may not be the best way of saying what they were trying to say, but their point is still perfectly intuitive, so your objection is pedantic. (And I’m one to talk.) ^_^ I think it’s clear they just meant _more_ evidence (than those videos); but perhaps a partial repetition is still possible, viz. “Extraordinary claims require extra evidence.” I could get onboard with that. (Edit, anyone?)
While I appreciate your point, your dismissal of the phrase “extraordinary evidence” requires it to mean something like “special evidence,” whereas I believe the author(s) merely meant “an extraordinary amount of evidence,” and employed the word by itself as a kind of shorthand for this longer phrase.
In other words, they were trying to say something along the lines of, “Lots of claims require lots of evidence” — which is true, since when you make a lot of separate claims you need evidence for a greater number of them; whereas, when making fewer claims, you could get away with less evidence — or maybe even, “Bold claims require more evidence” than modest claims do, which is true for essentially the same reason, since modest claims don’t require much proof at all. (Depending on how modest they are, maybe they’re even self-evident.)
So while the repetition of the word _extraordinary_ is perhaps unfortunate, and could be considered suboptimal grammar, I think you’re taking it too literally. That may not be the best way of saying what they were trying to say, but their point is still perfectly intuitive, so your objection is pedantic. (And I’m one to talk.) ^_^ I think it’s clear they just meant _more_ evidence (than those videos); but perhaps a partial repetition is still possible, viz. “Extraordinary claims require extra evidence.” I could get onboard with that. (Edit, anyone?)
@AdobeAtom,
Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. That's one of the corner stones of critical thinking and science in general.
Let's say, someone claims to be able to predict the outcome of coin tosses.
How many correct predictions (in a row) of tosses of a fair coin do you require before you become a believer?
The a-priori-probability of this skill being real is extraordinarily low. So even if someone correctly predicts 5 tosses in a row, you are probably still not convinced, despite the odds. Because such a skill would go against all we know about the world.
Likewise, a video of a super-flat chess board doing all these things as claimed in the video, rightly requires extraordinary evidence. Such as someone who's known and trusted in the chess world getting a chance to test it in public.
Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. That's one of the corner stones of critical thinking and science in general.
Let's say, someone claims to be able to predict the outcome of coin tosses.
How many correct predictions (in a row) of tosses of a fair coin do you require before you become a believer?
The a-priori-probability of this skill being real is extraordinarily low. So even if someone correctly predicts 5 tosses in a row, you are probably still not convinced, despite the odds. Because such a skill would go against all we know about the world.
Likewise, a video of a super-flat chess board doing all these things as claimed in the video, rightly requires extraordinary evidence. Such as someone who's known and trusted in the chess world getting a chance to test it in public.
@pawnedge I don’t think any edit is needed. What Lichess was doing with that title was just using a phrase commonly used in relation to scientific hypotheses: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Which is what is often said whenever someone comes up with a radical new hypothesis that doesn’t have much evidence to support it.
Also I don’t understand why are we discussing the title? The actual post is 100 times more discussion worthy xD
Also I don’t understand why are we discussing the title? The actual post is 100 times more discussion worthy xD
@pawnedge
thank you for jumping into the issue :)
My wording objection my seem pedantic at first glance, but there is a deeper point.
The claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is often used by sceptics around the world on ill-scattered hard-accessible topics such as e.g. various god claims, conspiracy theories, fundamental political philosphy and so on..
While the demand for "extraordinary evidence" may seem appropriate for given context, it undermines the whole idea of reational thinking, because the uninvolved third party virtually invedible falls into the impression, the authors of such claims are now FORCED to defend their position through "EXTRAORDINARY" efforts, because the sceptic receipients ALTERNATE their quality standards at will. This may understood as unfair rhetorical practice.
In fact though, no such variation of standards of rationality is required. For every claim just sufficient evidence suffices - that's the ground of rational argumentation. By NOT stressing the point of "extraordinance", the opponents my find it easier to stay in discussion.
thank you for jumping into the issue :)
My wording objection my seem pedantic at first glance, but there is a deeper point.
The claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is often used by sceptics around the world on ill-scattered hard-accessible topics such as e.g. various god claims, conspiracy theories, fundamental political philosphy and so on..
While the demand for "extraordinary evidence" may seem appropriate for given context, it undermines the whole idea of reational thinking, because the uninvolved third party virtually invedible falls into the impression, the authors of such claims are now FORCED to defend their position through "EXTRAORDINARY" efforts, because the sceptic receipients ALTERNATE their quality standards at will. This may understood as unfair rhetorical practice.
In fact though, no such variation of standards of rationality is required. For every claim just sufficient evidence suffices - that's the ground of rational argumentation. By NOT stressing the point of "extraordinance", the opponents my find it easier to stay in discussion.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.