"Extensive claims require proportionally extensive evidence" is true. "Weird claims require proportionally extensive evidence" is not only not true but a confusion of language.
The thing that's really dumb about "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is that people interpret "extraordinary" to mean "unusual, difficult for me to read, and anything else that trips my human cognitive biases" rather than "ontologically overcommitted"
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yeah I mean, the average science nerd: 1. Cannot into philosophy 2. Cannot into natural language 3. Thinks formalization as math is more than a tool for communication but some sort of ultimate sanctifying ritual and those who can't/won't do it are unwashed hylic trash
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.