Kavik Kang wrote:

You are the one re-writing it. What it says is ""extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence", which is incorrect. Extraordinary
claims require the same exact type and level of evidence as any other
claim.

       The property of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary
       evidence is a natural and direct consequence of the mathematics
       behind Bayesian hypothesis testing.

       You just do the math, you work out the optimal threshold
       for deciding between a null and alternative hypothesis, and you
       find that the threshold depends in part on the relative
       plausibility of each claim (i.e., the estimated a priori
       probabilities of each at the present time.)  An extraordinary
       claim results in a higher threshold, requiring a lot more
       data points in its favor, or data points which extraordinarily
       favor that claim over the other.  Or both.

       This is not an arbitrary principle some skeptics made up, but
       a plain English restatement of a basic mathematical result in
       hypothesis testing.  Yes, extraordinary claims require
       extraordinary evidence.  Perhaps you can explain in further
       detail why you have concluded the opposite?

                                                        -X