Deepstash brings you key ideas from the most inspiring articles like this one:
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
Save all ideas
The Sagan standard is related to astronomer Carl Sagan, who stated that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (a dictum abbreviated as ECREE).
This means that the more unlikely a certain claim is, given existing evidence on the matter, the greater the standard of proof that is expected of it.
Based on the Sagan standard, if someone claims that they came across a unicorn during they commute, they would be expected to brig stronger evidence in order to verify that claim than if they claimed that they came across a horse.
This happens because there is significant evidence for the existence of horses, but no relevant evidence to support the existence of unicorns, which makes the latter claim extraordinary.
There is no clear separation between what is ‘ordinary’ evidence and what is ‘extraordinary’ evidence; the answer is in most cases subjective, though it should nevertheless be based on sound reasoning.
However, it is possible to argue in favor or against the extraordinariness of evidence, based on its quantity and quality, and based on the relevant standards that apply to the subject being discussed.
Overall, the concept of ECREE does not mean that claims that contradict the current scientific consensus should always be ignored, or that claims that support the consensus should be automatically accepted. Rather, ECREE simply suggests that the likelihood that a certain claim is true, based on preexisting knowledge, should be taken into account when determining how much evidence is needed in order to verify it.
The more unlikely a claim is, the more supporting substantial the evidence that you should require before accepting it as true.
When presented with a certain claim, you should expect the strength of evidence that is used to support it to be proportional to how unlikely that claim is, based on prior information.
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
Many layers of uncertainty along with thinking errors of scientists (blind spots) make the research or evidence untrustworthy about 42 percent of the time, according to a study.
When we read scientific studies, it helps to keep in mind the following:
The double standard is a principle or policy that is applied in a different way to similar things, with no legitimate explanation. Thus, a double standard happens when two or more ...
In the earlier times, conspiracy theories were a convenient way to cover up the inadequacies of the government, and putting a set of helpless people as a scapegoat, cloaking the misdeeds or mismana...
The organic and unpredictable nature of conspiracy theories had led many researchers to investigate the cause of the phenomenon.
Every society has its own, unique anxieties and obsessions, and the conspiracy theories that gain good mileage are the ones that tap into these primal fears.
Example: Many people fear vaccination of the children due to fears that the mass drive to vaccinate such a large population has some ulterior motive, like a mass medical experiment. The dodgy past record of the health care system, and the fact that the vaccination is free of charge, of course, adds fuel to the fire.