On Edwin Kaiser and Related Topics

[Marc Ellis]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I've never liked that statement. I've never agreed with it. It seems to me, extraordinary claims carry the same burden of persuasion as any other claims.

For example, if someone tells me they were held hostage by a goose wielding a Mannlicher-Carcano, the burden is upon that person to persuade me it's true with evidence that a goose can do that.

Once that burden has been met, I need to be persuaded that the event in question actually happened. There s nothing extraordinary at all about the process. It's simple fact-finding.

Anyway, I've always suspected that quote was a cliche. I hear it a lot. So tonight, I Wikied it.

Apparently, a man named Marcello Truzzi is given credit for it. And Carl Sagan popularized it. It may have derived from a much more sensible statement by David Hume,

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence"

I agree with that. Off the top of my head, it's hard for me to imagine a goose threatening people with a rifle - especially a Mannlicher-Carcano.

I don't know about Scott Kaiser's claim. The evidence I've seen hasn't persuaded me of anything. Even if it did, I wouldn't know what to conclude.

But I think the word extraordinary is subjective. Just show us the facts you have and tell us what you think they add up to.
----
p.s. Truzzi did have some interesting ideas about skepticism that I agree with.
Everybody here will recognize JFK "experts" who are what he called "pseudo-skeptics". ( I don't know Truzzi's own ideas on the assassination though.)

http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?m=201308

• The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
  
• Double standards in the application of criticism
  
• The making of judgments without full inquiry
  
• Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
  
• Use of ridicule or attacks in lieu of arguments
  
• Pejorative labeling of proponents
  
• Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
  
• Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
  
• Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
  
• Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
  
• Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it