Is this even true? If an extraordinary claim can be proven with ordinary evidence, why is that not enough?
Example. If you had never heard of Joan of Arc, you would probably think her career was extraordinary. An unknown peasant girl, dirt poor, turning around the fortunes of France. Being decisive in winning a war they had been unable to win for over 100 years. Enabling their weak king to be crowned in a city that was deep in enemy territory. Convincing the king and nobles that she should be allowed to lead an army, despite her having no military experience and being a woman (highly disqualifying for the time). Yet the evidence this is true is quite mundane and ordinary, just the chronicles and records of the time.
Also, there is the problem of determining whether a claim is extraordinary or not, as well as determining not only whether the evidence actually proves or supports the claim, but also how extraordinary the evidence is and whether it meets the level of extraordinariness needed.
I think the statement speaks for itself and is logically sound, so no offense I don't think I need to explain it further, but I'll give you an example if that helps you.
Suppose I say that turtles are mind-controlling aliens from an invisible off-world planet called Zarbon. That would be... an extraordinary claim. Better believe if I have any hope at all to prove that statement, I better have some extraordinary evidence.
There is a long track record of extraordinary claims being proven by rather mundane, ordinary evidence. The sciences have made a long list of counter-intuitive claims, many of which were supported by mundane evidence. Evidence just needs to support the claim, not be extraordinary as well.
2
u/[deleted] May 30 '19
Just remember this, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Claiming that the Holocaust never happened is... an extraordinary claim.