''Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.'' Do you agree?
The full quote ''Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.'' (Hitchens, 2003)
Hitchens states this as he rejects or is at least highly sceptical of miracles. This miracle involves Mother Theresa, who has through mean of using sunbeam through her photo has cured a woman of her tumour. Hitchens states his clear thoughts about this in the article he wrote in 2003, that he will require extraordinary evidences for such extraordinary claim, more than just memories or words which are very subjective, otherwise he will dismiss this as a quackery. However Hitchens isn't sceptic purely towards faith or blind belief, but toward everything in a sense. He simply questions everything.
To any claim Hitchens wants ''evidences''. Most of our ''evidences'' are gathered through our sense perception. I know when I see steam coming out of water, because the last time I stuck my hand into the water, while steam was present, I got burned, but will everybody know that steam is a sign for boiling water?
For me ''evidence'' is something that can be understood after seen or felt, something that must occur more than handful of times, and if dug deeply into the matter there must be a pattern. Natural and human sciences, both, look for patterns, using sense perception, which then hopefully can be narrowed down to cause-effect relationship.
I know that steam is water in gas state, indicating that water particles are capable of escaping the liquid state as they have excess energy, but before I learned why, I simply assumed, if there is steam, it will burn me. Adding this small fact to my common sense, which is an observation of the obvious to which a simple straightforward reasoning binds....