"Kavik Kang" <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3DqOa.1848$OZ2.849@rwcrnsc54>...

There is no such thing as "extraodrinary evidence". There is evidence and
there is conjecture. No claim requires a higher level of "proof" than any
other claim, "proof" is an absolute that is either achieved, or not, through
the accumulation of evidence. "Extraordinanry evidence" is simply an
unatainable goal and a debunker ploy. There is no such thing as
"extraordinary evidence" just as there is no such thing as "extraordinary
proof".

"Proof" is "proof", I accept, but "absolute proof" is not easily
obtained in the real world.  There are, however, grades of "evidence"
(from "not at all convincing" to "very convincing", for example). 
Sagan's point was that, in the real world, we often settle for
"evidence" near the bottom end of this scale... this is not
unreasonable when the claims are NOT "extraordinary".

So if you claim you have a pet cat, for example, I  will (under
ordinary circumstances) probably not ask for any evidence at all, but
will just take your word for it.  If I have some suspicion you may be
(for example) a habitual liar, then I may ask for evidence, but will
probably settle for (maybe) a photograph of you with your cat.  If you
claim to have a pet tiger, a photograph is probably the bare minimum I
will accept as evidence (though these things can be faked).  If you
claim to have a pet T. Rex, I will want to see it with my own eyes.

Hope that clears things up for you.