In sci.skeptic, <JNVSa.114837$H17.35651@sccrnsc02>, "Kavik Kang"
<Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Jack Dominey" <look@my.sig> wrote in message
news:7osfhvo765mq3ogti86hat489tvds60jnv@4ax.com...

In sci.skeptic, <BywRa.81018$ye4.60724@sccrnsc01>, "Kavik Kang"
<Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote:

I didn't say 'absolute proof', I said that proof is an absolute, their is a
big difference. Sagan was just wrong. There is no such thing as
"extraordinary evidence" just as there is no such thing as "extraordinary
proof".

No, Sagan's not wrong.  His meaning is clear despite your attempt to
apply a perverse misreading.

What "perverse misreading"?

Yours, when you claimed that, " "Extraordinanry evidence" is simply an
unatainable goal and a debunker ploy. "

The quotation is,

I know, I never said that it was anything else.

Then please don't drag in "proof".  Sagan didn't say anything about
it.  Science is about evidence and provisional acceptance (or
rejection) of claims.

- Sagan in an interview at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/carlsagan.html.  I can make an
accurate rewrite by saying, "The quality of evidence needed for
provisional acceptance of a claim is proportional to the likelyhood of
the claim," but it abandons the pithy, memorable quality of Sagan's
phrase.

You are the one re-writing it. 

That's why I said I was doing so. Here's another rewrite:  "It takes a
big fat pile of really good evidence to convince rational people to
accept a wacky claim".  

I'm guessing you'll ignore or dismiss either of my versions, since
they preserve Sagan's meaning without allowing you to jump on your "no
such thing as extraordinary evidence" hobby horse.

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. 

On what planet?  Compare the claim, "I was at the grocery store this
morning" to the claim "I was in an extraterrestrial spacecraft last
night."  Are you going to tell me you would require "the same exact
type and level of evidence" of either?  

There

is no such thing as "extraordinary proof" and there is no such thing as
"extraordinary evidence". I am addressing what he actually said, you are the
one trying to re-write it into something else... in fact, you did.

He never said anything about "proof".  

By the way, the thread would benefit if all participants would agree
to drop the term "proof" from the discussion.

Absolutely not. The fact that there is no such thing as "extraordinary
proof" is very relevant to the subject.

Why?  "Proof" basically means 'evidence that rises to the level of
sufficiently demonstrating the claim'.  What is 'sufficient'?  Depends
on the claim and the person hearing it.  Some people will accept
uncorroborated second-hand (or more) testimony of the most unlikely
claims - we often call these people "gullible".  

Sagan's statement is entirely reasonable.
- 
Jack Dominey     "Apparently I'm insane. But I'm one of the happy kinds!"
jack_dominey(at)email(dot)com
Happy to be labeled a "spinic" by Edmond Wollman.