fbpx
Wikipedia

Sagan standard

December 15, 2023

The Sagan standard is the aphorism that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (sometimes shortened to ECREE).[1] It is named for science communicator Carl Sagan, who used the phrase in his 1979 book Broca's Brain and the 1980 television program Cosmos. The standard has been described as fundamental to the scientific method and is regarded as encapsulating the basic principles of scientific skepticism.

Carl Sagan popularized the eponymous standard.

The Sagan standard is similar to Occam's razor in that both heuristics prefer simpler explanations of a phenomenon to more complicated ones. In application, there is some ambiguity regarding when evidence is deemed sufficiently "extraordinary". The Sagan standard is often invoked to challenge data and scientific findings, or to criticize pseudoscientific claims. Some critics have argued that the standard can suppress innovation and affirm confirmation biases.

Similar statements were previously made by figures such as Thomas Jefferson in 1808, Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814, and Théodore Flournoy in 1899. The formulation "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" was used a year prior to Sagan, by scientific skeptic Marcello Truzzi. It has also been argued that philosopher David Hume first fully characterized the principles of the Sagan standard in his 1748 essay "Of Miracles".

Application edit

An interesting debate has gone on within the [Federal Communications Commission] between those who think that all doctrines that smell of pseudoscience should be combated and those who believe that each issue should be judged on its own merits, but that the burden of proof should fall squarely on those who make the proposals. I find myself very much in the latter camp. I believe that the extraordinary should certainly be pursued. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

— Carl Sagan in his 1979 book Broca's Brain[2]

The Sagan standard—"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"—according to psychologist Patrizio Tressoldi, "is at the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere".[3][4][5] It has also been described it as a "fundamental principle of scientific skepticism".[6] The phrase is often used in the context of paranormal and other pseudoscientific claims.[7][8][9] It is also frequently invoked in scientific literature to challenge research proposals,[10] like a new species of Amazonian tapir,[6] biparental inheritance of mitochondrial DNA,[11] or a Holocene "mega-tsunami".[12]

The standard is related to Occam's razor as, according to such a heuristic, simpler explanations are preferred to more complicated ones. Only in situations where extraordinary evidence exists would an extraordinary claim be the simplest explanation.[7] A routinized form of this appears in hypothesis testing where the hypothesis that there is no evidence for the proposed phenomenon, what is known as the "null hypothesis", is preferred. The formal argument involves assigning a stronger Bayesian prior to the acceptance of the null hypothesis as opposed to its rejection.[13]

Analysis and criticism edit

Science communicator Carl Sagan did not describe any concrete or quantitative parameters as to what constitutes "extraordinary evidence", which raises the issue of whether the standard can be applied objectively.[5][14][15] Academic David Deming notes that it would be "impossible to base all rational thought and scientific methodology on an aphorism whose meaning is entirely subjective". He instead argues that "extraordinary evidence" should be regarded as a sufficient amount of evidence rather than evidence deemed of extraordinary quality.[16] Tressoldi noted that the threshold of evidence is typically decided through consensus. This problem is less apparent in clinical medicine and psychology where statistical results can establish the strength of evidence.[5]

Deming also noted that the standard can "suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy".[16] Others, like Etzel Cardeña, have noted that many scientific discoveries that spurred paradigm shifts were initially deemed "extraordinary" and likely would not have been so widely accepted if extraordinary evidence were required.[17][18] Uniform rejection of extraordinary claims could affirm confirmation biases in subfields.[18] Additionally, there are concerns that, when inconsistently applied, the standard exercerbates racial and gender biases.[19] Psychologist Richard Shiffrin has argued that the standard should not be used to bar research from publication but to ascertain what is the best explanation for a phenomenon.[20] Conversely, mathematical psychologist Eric-Jan Wagenmakers stated that extraordinary claims are often false and their publication "pollutes the literature".[21] To qualify the publication of such claims, psychologist Suyog Chandramouli has suggested the inclusion of peer reviewers' opinions on their plausibility or an attached curation of post-publication peer evaluations.[18]

Cognitive scientist and AI researcher Ben Goertzel believes that the phrase is utilized as a "rhetorical meme" without critical thought. Philosopher Theodore Schick argued that "extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence" if they provide the most adequate explanation.[9] Moreover, theists and Christian apologists like William Lane Craig have argued that it is unfair to apply the standard to religious miracles as other improbable claims are often accepted based on limited testimonial evidence, such as an individual claiming that they won the lottery.[22][23]

Origin and precursors edit

 
Philosopher David Hume may have been the first to fully describe the principles of the Sagan standard.

Sagan popularized the aphorism in his 1979 book Broca's Brain,[2][14] and in his 1980 television show Cosmos in reference to claims about extraterrestrials visiting Earth.[24] Sagan had first stated the eponymous standard in a 1977 interview with The Washington Post.[25] However, scientific skeptic Marcello Truzzi used the formulation "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" in an article published by Parapsychology Review in 1975,[25] as well as in a Zetetic Scholar article in 1978.[26] Two 1978 articles quoted physicist Philip Abelson—then the editor of the journal Science—using the same phrasing as Truzzi.[27][28]

In his 1748 essay "Of Miracles", philosopher David Hume wrote that if "the fact ... partakes of the extraordinary and the marvellous ... the evidence ... received a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual".[29] Deming concluded that this was the first complete elucidation of the standard. Unlike Sagan, Hume defined the nature of "extraordinary": he wrote that it was a large magnitude of evidence.[29][30]

Others had also put forward very similar ideas. Quote Investigator cites similar statements from Benjamin Bayly (in 1708), Arthur Ashley Sykes (1740), Beilby Porteus (1800), Elihu Palmer (1804), and William Craig Brownlee (1824).[25] The French scholar Pierre-Simon Laplace, in essays (1810 and 1814) on the stability of the Solar System, wrote that "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness".[5][25] Thomas Jefferson in an 1808 letter expresses contemporary skepticism of meteorites thus: "A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain, but where facts are suggested, bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us, their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty."[31][32]

See also edit

References edit

Citations edit

  1. ^ Kaufman (2012), p. 124.
  2. ^ a b Sagan (1979), p. 62.
  3. ^ Kiely et al. (2019), p. 1475.
  4. ^ Lineweaver (2022)
  5. ^ a b c d Tressoldi, p. 1.
  6. ^ a b Voss et al. (2014), p. 893.
  7. ^ a b Smith (2011)
  8. ^ Tressoldi, pp. 1–3.
  9. ^ a b Evidence for Psi (2015), p. 292.
  10. ^ McMahon (2020), p. 117.
  11. ^ Salas et al. (2020)
  12. ^ Pinter et al. (2008), pp. 37–38.
  13. ^ Matthews (2010), p. 6.
  14. ^ a b Deming (2016), p. 1320.
  15. ^ The Library of Congress.
  16. ^ a b Deming (2016), pp. 1319–1320.
  17. ^ Cardeña (2018), p. 673.
  18. ^ a b c Shiffrin et al. (2021), p. 266.
  19. ^ Shiffrin et al. (2021), p. 272.
  20. ^ Shiffrin et al. (2021), p. 265.
  21. ^ Shiffrin et al. (2021), pp. 265–266.
  22. ^ Larmer (2015), p. 125.
  23. ^ Craig (2008) [1994], p. 273.
  24. ^ Sagan (1980), 1:24 min.
  25. ^ a b c d Quote Investigator (2021)
  26. ^ Truzzi (1978), p. 11.
  27. ^ U.S. News & World Report (1978), pp. 41–42.
  28. ^ Rao (1978), pp. 41–42.
  29. ^ a b Deming (2016), p. 1328.
  30. ^ Pigliucci (2013), p. 500.
  31. ^ Berkes (2008)
  32. ^ "Letter to Daniel Salmon".

Works cited edit

Books edit

  • Craig, William Lane (2008) [1994]. Reasonable faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Crossway. ISBN 9781433501159.
  • Goertzel, Ben; Goertzel, Joe (2015). "Skeptical Responses to Psi Research". In Broderick D.; Goertzel B. (eds.). Evidence for Psi: Thirteen Empirical Research Reports. McFarland. pp. 291–301. ISBN 9780786478286. OCLC 896344862.
  • Kaufman, Marc (2012). First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth (Reprint ed.). Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781439109014.
  • Larmer, Robert A. (2013). The Legitimacy of Miracle. Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739184219.
  • Matthews, Paul (2010). Sample Size Calculations: Practical Methods for Engineers and Scientists. Mathews Malnar and Bailey. ISBN 9780615324616. from the original on 2023-09-02. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
  • McMahon, Sean (2020). "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?". In Smith K. C.; Mariscal C. (eds.). Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology. Oxford University Press. pp. 117–129. ISBN 9780190915650. from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
  • Sagan, Carl (1979). Broca's Brain: The Romance of Science. Hodder and Stoughton. ISBN 9780394501697.
  • Smith, Jonathan C. (2011). Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781444358940. from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-03-19.

Journal articles edit

  • Cardeña, Etzel (2018). "The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review" (PDF). American Psychologist. American Psychological Association. 73 (5): 663–677. doi:10.1037/amp0000236. PMID 29792448. S2CID 43960000. (PDF) from the original on 2023-09-07. Retrieved 2023-09-24.
  • Deming, David (2016). "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?". Philosophia. 44 (4): 1319–1331. doi:10.1007/s11406-016-9779-7. PMC 6099700. PMID 30158736.
  • DeVorkin, David H. (2010). "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: C.H. Payne, H.N. Russell and Standards of Evidence in Early Quantitative Stellar Spectroscopy" (PDF). Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage. 13 (2): 139–144. Bibcode:2010JAHH...13..139D. doi:10.3724/sp.j.1440-2807.2010.02.09. S2CID 260957499. (PDF) from the original on 2023-09-02. Retrieved 2023-09-05.
  • Kiely, John; Pickering, Craig; Halperin, Israel (2019). "Comment on "Biological Background of Block Periodized Endurance Training: A Review"". Sports Medicine. 49 (9): 1475–1477. doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01114-9. PMID 31054093. S2CID 145022341. from the original on 2023-10-14. Retrieved 2023-09-24.
  • Lineweaver, Charles H. (2022). "The 'Oumuamua Controversy: Bayesian Priors and the Evolution of Technological Intelligence". Astrobiology. 22 (12): 1419–1428. Bibcode:2022AsBio..22.1419L. doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0185. PMID 36475967. S2CID 254433410. from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-09-24.
  • Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten (2013). "Prove it! The Burden of Proof Game in Science vs. Pseudoscience Disputes". Philosophia. 42 (2): 487–502. doi:10.1007/s11406-013-9500-z. S2CID 255165276. from the original on 2023-10-21. Retrieved 2023-10-14.
  • Pinter, Nicholas; Ishman, Scott E. (2008). "Impacts, Mega-tsunami, and Other Extraordinary Claims" (PDF). GSA Today. The Geological Society of America. 18 (1): 37–38. Bibcode:2008GSAT...18a..37P. doi:10.1130/gsat01801gw.1. (PDF) from the original on 2022-07-02. Retrieved 2023-09-24.
  • Rao, K.R. (1978). "Psi: Its Place in Nature". Journal of Parapsychology. 42 (4): 276–303. from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-05.
  • Salas, Antonio; Sebastian, Schönherr; Bandelt, Hans-Jürgen; Gómez-Carballa, Alberto; Weissensteiner, Hansi (2020). "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence in Asserted mtDNA Biparental Inheritance". Genetics. Forensic Science International. 47. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102274. PMID 32330850. S2CID 216131636. from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-09-24.
  • Shiffrin, Richard M.; Matzke, Dora; Crystal, Jonathon D.; Wagenmakers, E.J.; Chandramouli, Suyog H.; Joachim, Vandekerckhove; Zorzi, Marco; Morey, Richard D.; Murphy, Mary C. (2021). "Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence? A discussion". Learning & Behavior. 49 (10): 265–275. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0223675. PMC 6812783. PMID 31648222.
  • Tressoldi, Patrizio E. (2011). "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences". Frontiers in Psychology. 2 (117): 117. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00117. PMC 3114207. PMID 21713069.
  • Truzzi, Marcello (1978). "On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification" (PDF). Zetetic Scholar. 1 (1). (PDF) from the original on 2019-04-11. Retrieved 2018-03-11.
  • Voss, Robert S.; Helgen, Kristofer M.; Jansa, Sharon A. (2014). "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: A Comment on Cozzuol et al". Journal of Mammalogy. 95 (4): 893–898. doi:10.1644/14-MAMM-A-054. S2CID 36684772.

Other media edit

  • Berkes, Anna (November 14, 2008). "Who Is the Liar Now?". Monticello. Thomas Jefferson Foundation. from the original on October 30, 2016.
  • "Carl Sagan: Researcher, Educator, Communicator, Advocate and Activist". The Library of Congress. from the original on October 1, 2023. Retrieved September 18, 2023.
  • "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence – Quote Investigator". Quote Investigator. December 5, 2021. from the original on October 28, 2023. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  • "Letter to Daniel Salmon on 15 February 1808 Discussing the Nature and Origin of Meteorites". The Library of Congress. from the original on August 22, 2017.
  • Sagan, Carl (December 14, 1980). "Encyclopaedia Galactica". Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Episode 12. 01:24 minutes in. PBS.
  • . U.S. News & World Report. July 31, 1978. pp. 41–42. Archived from the original on October 15, 2017.

December 15, 2023
sagan, standard, aphorism, that, extraordinary, claims, require, extraordinary, evidence, sometimes, shortened, ecree, named, science, communicator, carl, sagan, used, phrase, 1979, book, broca, brain, 1980, television, program, cosmos, standard, been, describ. The Sagan standard is the aphorism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence sometimes shortened to ECREE 1 It is named for science communicator Carl Sagan who used the phrase in his 1979 book Broca s Brain and the 1980 television program Cosmos The standard has been described as fundamental to the scientific method and is regarded as encapsulating the basic principles of scientific skepticism Carl Sagan popularized the eponymous standard The Sagan standard is similar to Occam s razor in that both heuristics prefer simpler explanations of a phenomenon to more complicated ones In application there is some ambiguity regarding when evidence is deemed sufficiently extraordinary The Sagan standard is often invoked to challenge data and scientific findings or to criticize pseudoscientific claims Some critics have argued that the standard can suppress innovation and affirm confirmation biases Similar statements were previously made by figures such as Thomas Jefferson in 1808 Pierre Simon Laplace in 1814 and Theodore Flournoy in 1899 The formulation Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof was used a year prior to Sagan by scientific skeptic Marcello Truzzi It has also been argued that philosopher David Hume first fully characterized the principles of the Sagan standard in his 1748 essay Of Miracles Contents 1 Application 2 Analysis and criticism 3 Origin and precursors 4 See also 5 References 5 1 Citations 5 2 Works cited 5 2 1 Books 5 2 2 Journal articles 5 2 3 Other mediaApplication editAn interesting debate has gone on within the Federal Communications Commission between those who think that all doctrines that smell of pseudoscience should be combated and those who believe that each issue should be judged on its own merits but that the burden of proof should fall squarely on those who make the proposals I find myself very much in the latter camp I believe that the extraordinary should certainly be pursued But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Carl Sagan in his 1979 book Broca s Brain 2 The Sagan standard Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence according to psychologist Patrizio Tressoldi is at the heart of the scientific method and a model for critical thinking rational thought and skepticism everywhere 3 4 5 It has also been described it as a fundamental principle of scientific skepticism 6 The phrase is often used in the context of paranormal and other pseudoscientific claims 7 8 9 It is also frequently invoked in scientific literature to challenge research proposals 10 like a new species of Amazonian tapir 6 biparental inheritance of mitochondrial DNA 11 or a Holocene mega tsunami 12 The standard is related to Occam s razor as according to such a heuristic simpler explanations are preferred to more complicated ones Only in situations where extraordinary evidence exists would an extraordinary claim be the simplest explanation 7 A routinized form of this appears in hypothesis testing where the hypothesis that there is no evidence for the proposed phenomenon what is known as the null hypothesis is preferred The formal argument involves assigning a stronger Bayesian prior to the acceptance of the null hypothesis as opposed to its rejection 13 Analysis and criticism editScience communicator Carl Sagan did not describe any concrete or quantitative parameters as to what constitutes extraordinary evidence which raises the issue of whether the standard can be applied objectively 5 14 15 Academic David Deming notes that it would be impossible to base all rational thought and scientific methodology on an aphorism whose meaning is entirely subjective He instead argues that extraordinary evidence should be regarded as a sufficient amount of evidence rather than evidence deemed of extraordinary quality 16 Tressoldi noted that the threshold of evidence is typically decided through consensus This problem is less apparent in clinical medicine and psychology where statistical results can establish the strength of evidence 5 Deming also noted that the standard can suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy 16 Others like Etzel Cardena have noted that many scientific discoveries that spurred paradigm shifts were initially deemed extraordinary and likely would not have been so widely accepted if extraordinary evidence were required 17 18 Uniform rejection of extraordinary claims could affirm confirmation biases in subfields 18 Additionally there are concerns that when inconsistently applied the standard exercerbates racial and gender biases 19 Psychologist Richard Shiffrin has argued that the standard should not be used to bar research from publication but to ascertain what is the best explanation for a phenomenon 20 Conversely mathematical psychologist Eric Jan Wagenmakers stated that extraordinary claims are often false and their publication pollutes the literature 21 To qualify the publication of such claims psychologist Suyog Chandramouli has suggested the inclusion of peer reviewers opinions on their plausibility or an attached curation of post publication peer evaluations 18 Cognitive scientist and AI researcher Ben Goertzel believes that the phrase is utilized as a rhetorical meme without critical thought Philosopher Theodore Schick argued that extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence if they provide the most adequate explanation 9 Moreover theists and Christian apologists like William Lane Craig have argued that it is unfair to apply the standard to religious miracles as other improbable claims are often accepted based on limited testimonial evidence such as an individual claiming that they won the lottery 22 23 Origin and precursors edit nbsp Philosopher David Hume may have been the first to fully describe the principles of the Sagan standard Sagan popularized the aphorism in his 1979 book Broca s Brain 2 14 and in his 1980 television show Cosmos in reference to claims about extraterrestrials visiting Earth 24 Sagan had first stated the eponymous standard in a 1977 interview with The Washington Post 25 However scientific skeptic Marcello Truzzi used the formulation Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof in an article published by Parapsychology Review in 1975 25 as well as in a Zetetic Scholar article in 1978 26 Two 1978 articles quoted physicist Philip Abelson then the editor of the journal Science using the same phrasing as Truzzi 27 28 In his 1748 essay Of Miracles philosopher David Hume wrote that if the fact partakes of the extraordinary and the marvellous the evidence received a diminution greater or less in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual 29 Deming concluded that this was the first complete elucidation of the standard Unlike Sagan Hume defined the nature of extraordinary he wrote that it was a large magnitude of evidence 29 30 Others had also put forward very similar ideas Quote Investigator cites similar statements from Benjamin Bayly in 1708 Arthur Ashley Sykes 1740 Beilby Porteus 1800 Elihu Palmer 1804 and William Craig Brownlee 1824 25 The French scholar Pierre Simon Laplace in essays 1810 and 1814 on the stability of the Solar System wrote that the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness 5 25 Thomas Jefferson in an 1808 letter expresses contemporary skepticism of meteorites thus A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain but where facts are suggested bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty 31 32 See also editEpistemology Hitchens s razor Logical positivism Razor Theory of justificationReferences editCitations edit Kaufman 2012 p 124 a b Sagan 1979 p 62 Kiely et al 2019 p 1475 Lineweaver 2022 a b c d Tressoldi p 1 a b Voss et al 2014 p 893 a b Smith 2011 Tressoldi pp 1 3 a b Evidence for Psi 2015 p 292 McMahon 2020 p 117 Salas et al 2020 Pinter et al 2008 pp 37 38 Matthews 2010 p 6 a b Deming 2016 p 1320 The Library of Congress a b Deming 2016 pp 1319 1320 Cardena 2018 p 673 a b c Shiffrin et al 2021 p 266 Shiffrin et al 2021 p 272 Shiffrin et al 2021 p 265 Shiffrin et al 2021 pp 265 266 Larmer 2015 p 125 Craig 2008 1994 p 273 Sagan 1980 1 24 min a b c d Quote Investigator 2021 Truzzi 1978 p 11 U S News amp World Report 1978 pp 41 42 Rao 1978 pp 41 42 a b Deming 2016 p 1328 Pigliucci 2013 p 500 Berkes 2008 Letter to Daniel Salmon Works cited edit Books edit Craig William Lane 2008 1994 Reasonable faith Christian Truth and Apologetics Crossway ISBN 9781433501159 Goertzel Ben Goertzel Joe 2015 Skeptical Responses to Psi Research In Broderick D Goertzel B eds Evidence for Psi Thirteen Empirical Research Reports McFarland pp 291 301 ISBN 9780786478286 OCLC 896344862 Kaufman Marc 2012 First Contact Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth Reprint ed Simon and Schuster ISBN 9781439109014 Larmer Robert A 2013 The Legitimacy of Miracle Lexington Books ISBN 9780739184219 Matthews Paul 2010 Sample Size Calculations Practical Methods for Engineers and Scientists Mathews Malnar and Bailey ISBN 9780615324616 Archived from the original on 2023 09 02 Retrieved 2023 03 19 McMahon Sean 2020 Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence In Smith K C Mariscal C eds Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology Oxford University Press pp 117 129 ISBN 9780190915650 Archived from the original on 2023 10 28 Retrieved 2023 10 22 Sagan Carl 1979 Broca s Brain The Romance of Science Hodder and Stoughton ISBN 9780394501697 Smith Jonathan C 2011 Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal A Critical Thinker s Toolkit John Wiley amp Sons ISBN 9781444358940 Archived from the original on 2023 10 28 Retrieved 2023 03 19 Journal articles edit Cardena Etzel 2018 The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena A Review PDF American Psychologist American Psychological Association 73 5 663 677 doi 10 1037 amp0000236 PMID 29792448 S2CID 43960000 Archived PDF from the original on 2023 09 07 Retrieved 2023 09 24 Deming David 2016 Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence Philosophia 44 4 1319 1331 doi 10 1007 s11406 016 9779 7 PMC 6099700 PMID 30158736 DeVorkin David H 2010 Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence C H Payne H N Russell and Standards of Evidence in Early Quantitative Stellar Spectroscopy PDF Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage 13 2 139 144 Bibcode 2010JAHH 13 139D doi 10 3724 sp j 1440 2807 2010 02 09 S2CID 260957499 Archived PDF from the original on 2023 09 02 Retrieved 2023 09 05 Kiely John Pickering Craig Halperin Israel 2019 Comment on Biological Background of Block Periodized Endurance Training A Review Sports Medicine 49 9 1475 1477 doi 10 1007 s40279 019 01114 9 PMID 31054093 S2CID 145022341 Archived from the original on 2023 10 14 Retrieved 2023 09 24 Lineweaver Charles H 2022 The Oumuamua Controversy Bayesian Priors and the Evolution of Technological Intelligence Astrobiology 22 12 1419 1428 Bibcode 2022AsBio 22 1419L doi 10 1089 ast 2021 0185 PMID 36475967 S2CID 254433410 Archived from the original on 2023 10 28 Retrieved 2023 09 24 Pigliucci Massimo Boudry Maarten 2013 Prove it The Burden of Proof Game in Science vs Pseudoscience Disputes Philosophia 42 2 487 502 doi 10 1007 s11406 013 9500 z S2CID 255165276 Archived from the original on 2023 10 21 Retrieved 2023 10 14 Pinter Nicholas Ishman Scott E 2008 Impacts Mega tsunami and Other Extraordinary Claims PDF GSA Today The Geological Society of America 18 1 37 38 Bibcode 2008GSAT 18a 37P doi 10 1130 gsat01801gw 1 Archived PDF from the original on 2022 07 02 Retrieved 2023 09 24 Rao K R 1978 Psi Its Place in Nature Journal of Parapsychology 42 4 276 303 Archived from the original on 2023 09 04 Retrieved 2023 09 05 Salas Antonio Sebastian Schonherr Bandelt Hans Jurgen Gomez Carballa Alberto Weissensteiner Hansi 2020 Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence in Asserted mtDNA Biparental Inheritance Genetics Forensic Science International 47 doi 10 1016 j fsigen 2020 102274 PMID 32330850 S2CID 216131636 Archived from the original on 2023 10 28 Retrieved 2023 09 24 Shiffrin Richard M Matzke Dora Crystal Jonathon D Wagenmakers E J Chandramouli Suyog H Joachim Vandekerckhove Zorzi Marco Morey Richard D Murphy Mary C 2021 Extraordinary claims extraordinary evidence A discussion Learning amp Behavior 49 10 265 275 doi 10 1371 journal pone 0223675 PMC 6812783 PMID 31648222 Tressoldi Patrizio E 2011 Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence The Case of Non Local Perception a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences Frontiers in Psychology 2 117 117 doi 10 3389 fpsyg 2011 00117 PMC 3114207 PMID 21713069 Truzzi Marcello 1978 On the Extraordinary An Attempt at Clarification PDF Zetetic Scholar 1 1 Archived PDF from the original on 2019 04 11 Retrieved 2018 03 11 Voss Robert S Helgen Kristofer M Jansa Sharon A 2014 Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence A Comment on Cozzuol et al Journal of Mammalogy 95 4 893 898 doi 10 1644 14 MAMM A 054 S2CID 36684772 Other media edit Berkes Anna November 14 2008 Who Is the Liar Now Monticello Thomas Jefferson Foundation Archived from the original on October 30 2016 Carl Sagan Researcher Educator Communicator Advocate and Activist The Library of Congress Archived from the original on October 1 2023 Retrieved September 18 2023 Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence Quote Investigator Quote Investigator December 5 2021 Archived from the original on October 28 2023 Retrieved December 6 2021 Letter to Daniel Salmon on 15 February 1808 Discussing the Nature and Origin of Meteorites The Library of Congress Archived from the original on August 22 2017 Sagan Carl December 14 1980 Encyclopaedia Galactica Cosmos A Personal Voyage Episode 12 01 24 minutes in PBS A Stepchild of Science Starts to Win Friends U S News amp World Report July 31 1978 pp 41 42 Archived from the original on October 15 2017 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Sagan standard amp oldid 1189092634, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.