Blog Archives

Extraordinary Claims: What makes them that way?

Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Skepticism concerns itself with extraordinary claims, but hardly just the obviously weird ones…

Unlike topic areas such as overt pseudoscience or the paranormal, more conventional claims count as extraordinary merely by being important and contestible — and there are few claims which cannot be important or contested in the right context. There is also the matter of how much a claim requires us to overturn what we already know if we accept it.

Note that the mere illusion of knowledge, in the form of pre-determined conclusions, fed by ideology, emotion, confirmation bias and rationalizations doesn’t count here.

What we need is a particular degree of evidence. Abstract philosophical argument alone with counterfactual ‘maybes’ and ‘possiblys’  are of no help to us here. This is why debates over the existence of a God or Gods are still raging even after thousands of years, strongly argued by both theists and religious skeptics.

To switch gears a bit, since this is not an antitheism blog…

Take a murder trial. This is hardly trivial given the usual penalties to the defendant if convicted, and even without ‘weird things’ involved it’s every bit as extraordinary as the most bizarre alleged haunting, alien abduction claim, or cryptid sighting. We know murders happen. What is contested here is the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

Rarely does this involve claims of improbable phenomena unknown to science…a body, a weapon, opportunity,a plausible motive and compelling case by the prosecution are usually all that’s needed.

The penalty for murder needs high standards of evidence to get a conviction…to back it up in court and make the conviction stick, after all. A conviction could mean the defendant’s very life in some jurisdictions. We’re not talking about being caught nicking candy from the convenience store.

Even a seemingly innocent claim such as ‘the sky is blue’ could require some evidence, especially when told this only seconds after just hearing of a local tornado warning — if the sky’s actually turning green, credulity could be dangerous as the wind picks up before getting to shelter, but one need only a look at the current weather alerts from safety using whatever device is at hand.

So nearly any claim can be extraordinary depending on the right context, and this depends on two major factors, sometimes in combination:

[1] The importance of the claim: What is at stake if we uncritically accept it, jumping to an unwarranted conclusion with serious consequences? If the claim is true, then there must be evidence strong enough to support it and once that’s in, we’d be wise to heed it. Reality’s a bastitch when spurned, and doesn’t care about your politics, your religion, or what you had for breakfast before updating your Facebook status. If the claim is false, on the other hand, we need to know so that no one wastes time, money, or risks their health or lives pursuing the claim as though it were true. Properly evaluating the evidence will show this. Again, reality doesn’t give a hoot what you believe, silly relativist arguments about the impossibility of objective reality or truth aside.

[2] The unusual or strange nature of the claim: This mostly applies to claims of ‘weird things’ but also for rare mundane phenomena, which can seem weird to those unfamiliar with them. Does there seem to be no explanation for the claim immediately on hand? Does the claim require that to accept it, we overturn much or even all of modern science to explain it? Given that, let’s face it, “Science, it works, bitches,”* we use science as the gold standard for factual knowledge even while publicly denouncing it. We cannot just accept or reject a claim unless we’ve given it a fair hearing, and that’s where science steps in. We examine the reasoning and the initial evidence, especially the scientific evidence for it. If it doesn’t pass muster, we are right to reject it as improbable or baseless in fact until shown otherwise, or sometimes as impossible. The latter, though, should be done with care.

*attributed to Richard Dawkins

And both of the above can apply to claims in which there is a legitimate controversy, not one manufactured by the media, zealots, or ideologues intent on undermining the science they don’t like. In any case, importance, consequences, and the plausibility of a claim at the time can make even seemingly trivial ones extraordinary…

…context and the stakes raised by the claim are deciding factors here.

“What may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.”

~ Christopher Hitchens

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Weekly Gnuz & Lynx Roundup for Caturday, 2013/03/30

G’day! This week has seen a flurry of activity, at least on this blog, and I’ve been working on new images as well. I’ve finally started commission work on my fractals, and I’ll keep you updated with news on how well that goes. Last week, one of my Twitter fellows asked me to do larger, print-sized files for a greyscale image I’d posted online as a thumbnail, though I’d discarded the original settings.

After a bit of testing and experimentation, I was able to produce two suitable files, one 3×3 ft and one 5×5 ft, which I then sent her by email. Finally! After nearly three years of doing this just for fun, I may well get to use it as a source of income. It’ll be taxable no doubt, but taxes are the price you pay for a civilized society, and that’s no big deal for me.

Study has been coming along nicely, though I’ve had breaks as you may have noticed with the posting rate on this blog — I’m improving my time-management, which is helping immensely — even though it involves getting up before 2:00 pm. Wah!

Stay cool, stay awesome, and stay brilliant, peeps, and enjoy the holiday!

———–Bloggy Lynx———–

———Others’ Bloggies———

————-Odd, Doubtful & Sciencey Stuff————-

———-Bloggy Stats———-

  • 125,555 steely gazes cast since 2008/12/28,
  • 2042 posts, including this one,
  • 188 WordPress subscribers,
  • 1,973 Twitter fellows,
  • 19 Likes on this blog’s Facebook page…Thank you all!

———-Doctor Who theme played by Tesla coils———-

Media Guide to Skepticism | Modern Skepticism Made Clear

Media Guide to Skepticism By, 2013

Purpose: To provide a clear, easy-to-read guide about the “Skeptical” viewpoint as subscribed to by many who might call themselves Skeptics or critical thinkers; to distinguish practical Skepticism from the popular use of the phrase “I’m skeptical,” and from those who claim to be “skeptics” regarding some well-established conclusion (such as climate change).

What is skepticism?

Skepticism is an approach to evaluating claims that emphasizes evidence and applies tools of science. Skepticism is most often applied to extraordinary claims – those that refute the current consensus view.

The Skeptical process considers evidence obtained by systematic observations and reason.

The conclusion that is reached at the end of this Skeptical process is provisional because additional or better evidence may come along that points towards a more suitable explanation.

Example: Mr. X tells us that a new pill greatly improves his memory. This claim, if true, is important and extraordinary. So, it would be fitting to apply Skepticism to this claim. We would want to see evidence that his memory is improved and that the pill was responsible for that. We consider alternative explanations that could explain why Mr. X would say the new pill improves his memory: he may be mistaken, he might be going through a less-stressful time of life, he wants to feel like he spent his money wisely on the pills, he was paid to promote the pills, etc. Good evidence that his claim has validity would be quality research results (multiple studies) that show many who take the pill displayed a measurable improvement in memory. And, preferably, we would be provided a plausible explanation for how the pill works to improve memory. If the manufacturer of Mr X’s pills do not have well-controlled studies of large groups of people that show that the product actually works, we can’t just accept his word that they work as they say because the alternative explanations are more likely.

The more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence must be to support it. If a claim is made that would require us to revise or overturn well established knowledge, we should be very suspicious and ask for a greater degree of evidence.

Example: Psychics claim that they are able to predict future events. That would not be in accordance with what we have observed about the human mind. It would not correspond to well-tested ideas in biology and physics.  It does not make sense in terms of what we know. So, in order to justify discarding all we already know, the claimant must have a great deal of solid evidence that withstands scrutiny.

These are cases of applying scientific skepticism. Skeptics value contributions of science but also those of logic and math that lead towards the best explanation. Skepticism can be applied to subjects such as history, art and literature, as well, by using critical thinking and respect for the evidence for any claims that are made.

What does it mean to be a Skeptic?

You will often hear “I’m a skeptic” or “I’m skeptical” from people who are not sure about or who doubt some concept. That is a common, casual use of the term. Simply calling oneself a “skeptic” is not the same as practicing it. It’s easy to “doubt” things; everyone is “skeptical” about something. Good Skepticism involves understanding why one might or might not doubt the claim.

A Skeptic subscribes to a number of tenets.

Respect for the evidence. The application of reason to evidence is the best method we have to obtain reliable knowledge.

Respect for methods, conclusions and the consensus of science. Science is a particular way of obtaining information that is designed to reduce the chances of coming to an incorrect conclusion. Using a scientific process will minimize errors (but not eliminate them entirely). So, Skeptics are often vigorous advocates of science – in medicine, in schools, and for informing policy decisions. Fake, junk and pseudo-science is called out as a ruse. Logic and math are also components of science that can be valuable in assessing claims.

Preference for natural, not supernatural, explanation. Natural laws give us rational boundaries in our quest to determine explanations. Miracles are an example of using a supernatural agent (a god, saint or angel who operates outside of natural laws) as part of the explanation. A Skeptic will look for a natural explanation that does not call for a supernatural, unproven (and possibly unprovable) entity to be included.

Promotion of reason and critical thinking. Many Skeptics are good at identifying mistakes in arguments and reasoning.

Awareness of how we are fooled. People routinely fool themselves and are fooled by others. This is most commonly seen in our over-reliance on our senses and memory – for example, “I know what I saw,” or “I remember it like it was yesterday.” Skeptics are wary of eyewitness testimony because observation is fallible and memory is malleable. Stories of events, even from trustworthy people, make for very poor evidence on their own. Even collectively, anecdotes don’t tell us much about the validity of the claim. Skeptics also understand that people tend to look for, remember and favor the evidence that supports their preferred conclusion.

What Skepticism ISN’T

This section contains possibly the most important things to know about Skeptics. There are a many misconceptions about what it means to be a Skeptic. Not everyone who says they are “skeptical” are applying Skepticism.

Skeptic is not the same as “cynic” or “disbeliever”. Good Skeptics do not dismiss claims out-of-hand. The “Skeptic” is often seen as the “debunker”, the “downer”, or the “balloon buster”. It may appear that way for those who are very attached to certain concepts to which Skepticism is being applied, such as existence of ghosts, Bigfoot or UFOs. Skeptics aren’t skeptical of everything, either. In classical Greek Skepticism, the individual did not commit to stating “knowledge”; everything was doubted, there was no certainty. That is not a popular stance today. When we speak of modern Skepticism, we are talking about those who seek the conclusion best supported by current evidence and reason.

Skeptic does not equal “atheist”. Many Skeptics are atheists, but not all. Skepticism is a process of evaluating claims, not a set of conclusions. Skeptics are a diverse group so lack of religious beliefs should not be assumed. Scientific Skepticism is applied only to testable claims (such as “prayer heals”), not to untestable claims such as the existence of God, who is supernatural. “Is there a God?” is a question outside the realm of science. However, philosophical skepticism can be invoked in considering claims about the supernatural.

Skeptic does not mean “denialist” or “truther”. A practicing Skeptic is informed by the scientific consensus. So called “climate skeptics” are not practicing Skepticism when they doubt global warming based on selective belief and by ignoring the results that science has given us to this point. “Denialists” (of climate change, evolution, conventional medicine, etc.) reject science that does not support their view. “Truthers” insist that the real “truth” has not been revealed and instead put forth the explanation that a conspiracy is afoot. These stances do not give fair weight to well-established knowledge we have.

Skepticism is not a religion. Skepticism doesn’t tell you what to think. It tells you how you should think about something to get to the conclusion that has the best possibility of being true. Skepticism may not always be the best approach to decisions at the moment, sometimes decisions based on emotions can feel like the right thing to do. So applying skepticism to everything in life is not always the best policy. There may be other factors to consider.

Skepticism is important

Why use Skepticism as a process to evaluate claims? Critically evaluating claims for flaws, mistakes and inaccuracies lessens the potential that you will believe something that isn’t true. Skepticism and critical thinking can be applied in everyday life where an invalid claim might have serious effects on you or people around you – such as in consideration of a medical treatment, a financial investment, a consumer product, or life choices.

Proponents of a claim will frequently say, “You can’t prove it’s not true.” That’s a ridiculous statement. It’s not up to the Skeptic to show that an extraordinary claim isn’t true. It’s up to those making the claim to provide evidence and reasons why it IS true. We must have evidence that a person DID commit a crime, for example, not prove that everyone else in the world did not.

What do Skeptics do?

Skeptics have a loose community consisting of publications, web sites and online forums, organizations, and events. Skeptics are all around the world, organized into casual and formal groups and associations. It is a community made up of people with varying backgrounds, ideas, goals, communication styles and skill sets. It also gets very fluid at the edges. You might be a Skeptic and not even know it. Many people don’t self-identify as a “skeptic” but selectively follow the practices of Skepticism in their lives. Some people are disinclined to take on any labels or join a group.

Many Skeptics enjoy the fringe subject areas, they like solving mysteries and appreciate being around people who think as they do or who argue rationally when they don’t agree. Some Skeptics are activists who promote critical thinking and Skepticism in their communities and the public as individuals or as part of local or national organized groups and online.

Some of the topics Skeptics are involved in are science education, alternative medical treatments, the paranormal, dubious consumer products and services, hoaxes and scams, UFOs and aliens, monsters and folklore, superstition, and why people believe strange things.

Those who represent Skepticism in the public sphere are happy to provide a science- and reason-based viewpoint for the media. The backgrounds of the those in the Skeptical community are varied. Many participants in the skeptical community are experts in particular areas like the paranormal, medicine, cryptozoology, history, archaeology, textual analysis, linguistics, psychology, astronomy, physics and magic.

Skeptical Resources

Here are the best means to connect to the people and ideas of scientific skepticism.


The directory for all things skeptical online


The major Skeptic organizations have as their mission a goal to promote scientific skepticism. There are three major national skeptical organizations in the United States.

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)

CSI (formerly known as CSICOP) is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization, started in 1976. Their mission is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. They publish the Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptical Briefs. They host an annual conference called CSIcon and many local events, workshops and lectures in conjunction with their overarching organization, the Center for Inquiry. Contact: info(at) More

James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)

Founded by magician James “The Amazing” Randi in 1996, the foundation is dedicated to promoting “critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.” They organize one of the largest gatherings of international skeptics and critical thinkers, The Amazing Meeting (TAM),  every year and offer the One Million Dollar Challenge for those who claim paranormal abilities. Contact: +1 213 293-3092  More

The Skeptics Society 

Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Skeptics Society is a nonprofit, scientific and educational organization led by Dr. Michael Shermer. Their mission is to engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds, promote critical thinking, and serve as an educational tool for those seeking a sound scientific viewpoint. They sponsor a monthly lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. Contact: skepticssociety(at) More


Famous Skeptics

  • Harry Houdini (1874 – 1926) Magician, psychic debunker.
  • Martin Gardner (1914 – 2010)  Popular math and science writer.
  • Isaac Asimov (1920 – 1992)  Biochemist, professor, science fiction and science author.
  • Paul Kurtz (1925 – 2012)  Philosopher, professor, author, organizational founder.
  • James Randi (1928 – )  Magician, investigator, author, organizational founder.
  • Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996)  Astronomer, astrophysicist, author.
  • Richard Dawkins (1941 – )  Evolutionary biologist, professor, author.
  • Stephen Jay Gould (1941 – 2002)  Paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, science historian, author.
  • Elizabeth Loftus (1944- )  Cognitive psychologist, world-renowned expert on human memory.
  • Joe Nickell (1944  – )  Paranormal investigator, author.
  • Carol Tavris (1944 – )  Social psychologist, author.
  • Eugenie Scott (1945- )  Physical anthropologist, Director of National Center for Science Education.
  • Lawrence Krauss (1954- ) Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, professor, author.
  • Michael Shermer (1954 – )  Science writer, organizational founder, editor of Skeptic magazine.
  • Steven Novella (1964 – )  Clinical neurologist, writer, editor.
  • Brian Dunning (1965 – )  Science writer, video and podcast producer.
  • Richard Saunders (1965 – )  Science educator, video and podcast producer.
  • Richard Wiseman (1966 – )  Psychologist, popular science author, paranormal investigator.
  • Christopher French (?- ) Professor, anomalous psychology researcher, editor-in-chief of The Skeptic (U.K.).
  • Benjamin Radford (1970- )  Paranormal investigator, author, deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer.
  • Derren Brown (1971 – )   Illusionist, mentalist, TV personality.
  • Tim Minchin (1975- ) Comedian, actor, musician.


What is Skepticism? Brian Dunning

What Is Skepticism, Anyway? Michael Shermer, 2013

Why Is There a Skeptical Movement? Daniel Loxton, 2013

Bigfoot Skeptics, New Atheists, Politics and Religion Steven Novella, 2013

The New Skepticism, Paul Kurtz, Prometheus Books, 1992


Eric Weiss from, David Bloomberg, Kylie Sturgess, Torkel Ødegård, Barbara Drescher, Robert Blaskiewicz, Massimo Pigliucci, Chris French, Adriana Heguy, Daniel Loxton, Eve Siebert, Eddie Scott, Daniel Loxton, Howard Lewis, Iain Martel, Tiffany Taylor, Terry O’Connor, Stephan Naro, Paul Wilkins, Richard Saunders.

Permission to reprint is granted as long as the following attribution is given:  By, 2013

The Weekly Gnuz and Lynx Roundup for September 14, 2012

Bill Nye the Science Guy at The UP Experience ...

Bill Nye the Science Guy at The UP Experience 2010. Note: this photo is Creative Commons Attribution. You are welcome to use it with “photo by Ed Schipul” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Busy this week on study and a project for my fractal art, City of Glass, with some examples shown here. Monday I posted Consensus: It ain’t just politics in science and Wednesday, there was Symphony of Science – Our Biggest Challenge  This will be a more minimalist post, so, alrighty then and onward… I’ll post stat updates next week, though I will note here that this blog has passed its 112,000 keen-eyed peering earlier this week.

Proof Claimed for Deep Connection between Prime Numbers

“Stop the Madness!” The Problem with the Violence Stemming From Religious Criticism

Teenager dies on Amazon psychedelic retreat

False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research

New wrinkle cream helps fight the signs of scientific evidence

Inferior lizard tails weaken hopes of regrowing limbs

4 freaky new bat species discovered

Cortez UFO is identified as Juno missile

The Food Fight in Your Gut: Why Bacteria Will Change the Way You Think about Calories

Planets can form in the galactic center

♥ Books, Crafts & Pretty Things Blog: Cat Thursday – hunting!

♥ Books, Crafts & Pretty Things Blog: The humble rubber band.

Left Hemispheres: Long Overdue, Obligatory Pascal’s Wager Post

Left Hemispheres: Penn State Group to “Stone an Atheist”

Left Hemispheres: The Absurd Logic of Apologizing for Islam

Bill Nye vs Those Who DeNye – A Discussion | Martin S Pribble

Was Tutankhamen epileptic?

Meet the Lesula: A newly discovered monkey species

A Lesson in Covering Pseudoscience

Blue UFOs In England Identified By Leicestershire UFO Research Society

Nanotechnology used in fight against counterfeiters

Indeterminism Comes Before Quantum Mechanics

South Korea will keep evolution in its high school textbooks!

Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ Responds To Creation Museum: Creationism Is ‘Not Science’

Jennifer Michael Hecht – “Future of Skepticism: New Adventures in Critical Thinking” – TAM 2012 – YouTube

Troythulu’s Gnuz and Lynx Roundup for August 17, 2012 [updated]

G’day, my cool and cosmic readers. I’ve had a good week of study so far, and an interesting time during my internet breaks as well. This week marks the first of the guest posts on this site, only the beginning if I have my way, until now having just reblogged from other sites. This week’s guest post from Thursday is Confessions of a (Positive) Skeptical Bookworm, by the awesome Kate Campbell, who’s also hosting a new piece by yours truly on her site, and a link to it will be posted below when I update this entry.

[updated 8/23/2012] And here it is, on the ♥ Books, Crafts & Pretty Things Blog: Guest post: Once Again from the Land of Fractals

Also posted this week, from Monday, there’s Sean Carroll: The Paradoxes of Time Travel & Sam Harris — a quote.

Entries from Wednesday include a short short fiction draft Why?, and the Fractal of the Midweek: Spartanesque + Adrift in the Mist

Also on Thursday, there was the new MelodySheep video release, Bite of the Great White (Shark Week remix) made for the Discovery Channel.

This morning I posted Perfect Knowledge: Who Needs It?

On Left Hemispheres, there’s the commemoration of the site’s Best of Year 2 & Alien Planet: Full Documentary — Congrats to Steve, Adam, Jack and Nick for a great blog!

Over at Kate’s blog for this week’s Cat Thursday she’s posted With Lady Jane and a book review, Young Carrie — Summer in the City

Kriss at the six pack blog posted It’s About Money, Not Religion.

Further lynx include:

The Invention of a Device to Kill Cancer and Find Aliens…

…Maybe. We’ll see.

“Further Proof” of Extraterrestrial Origin of Quasicrystals… I’m not too sure about this one, if only because I’m immediately suspicious of anything with the prefix “quasi” in it’s name…

Apple Command Key Symbol Appears in Crop Circle Formation…

Astronomers Crack Mystery of Monster Stars…

Science vs Pseudoscience: Do You Know What You Think You Know?

World’s Most Powerful X-Ray Laser Refined to Scalpel Precision.

I thought I’d offer some intunation this week:

Shelley Segal Saved

According to this site’s stats page, this blog currently has…

  • 110,161 steely gazes from you, my cool and cosmic readers,
  • 1813 published posts, including this one,
  • 169 WordPress & email subscribers, up 2 from last week — Welcome, both of you!
  • …and 1678 Twitter followers (this varies quite a bit on the actual page)

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,080 other followers

%d bloggers like this: