If "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence",

>>9074489
I've thought along similar lines.

What if you had a proof that is undeniably valid, yet the person checking the validity is too incompetent to even properly check the validity?

Just stay away from those people.

You wouldn't try to prove to a dog something you know is beyond its comprehension.

Don't waste your time.

>>9074489
Learn to write better. Anything your bound to be explaining can be explained in two or three paragraphs. Probably less.

>>9074489
I performed an experiment meant to determine X, the results proved X. See appendix A for calculations, methods, and appendix B for resources cited.

>>9074489
challenge underlying presumption through socratic method

>>9074489
You lure people into arguing against you first by either baiting people with something stupid, like a strawman, or by insulting them (the former works best)
When they inevitably try to make fun of you (or respond in some fashion), then you start laying down your red pills, and you force them to swallow.

My claims don't require shit you fucking faggot. Who are you to say that? Did the person who first come up with that cliche also create the fucking universe? Nothing is objectively extraordinary. My claims / beliefs are just as objectively true and false as your beliefs, so just go jump off a fucking bridge.

>>9074489
This is bad method because it’s vague. What is “extraordinary” both in relation to claims and evidence?

It’s a rule of thumb, not a real rule of method.

>>9074515

flat earthers in a nutshell.

I'm convinced that they have some strange defect in their mind that changes the way logic works for them. If you make an airtight argument they just don't even address it. They take ad hominem to another level. All they have to do it accuse you of being a shill and magically your entire argument becomes invalid to them.

>>9074489
>"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
No one actually believes or lives by this. See for example the entire field of cosmology. Or phantasmagorical sci-fi crap like black holes.

>>9074961
>black holes are sci-fi because i'm a brainlet who can't understand how the radius of a massive object below a certain range will require an escape velocity faster than the speed of light meaning it will form a black event horizon.

so this is what brainlets process...danm.........

>>9074913

It's like arguing with women/children; instead of addressing your points they just insult you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6W6n9gsrqQ

for lulz

>>9074996
Whether or not you can understand some concept has no bearing on whether it does or doesn't exist, brainlet.

>>9074489
if a person goes tl;dr then don't bother, if they are not willing to engage properly then they don't care about the truth/solving an issue, only that they are right, this is common with people who are ideologues (Christians, Muslims ect) and sadly women (women tend to have a lower integrity complex and also are highly defensive, though this could just be a product of modern culture rather than biology)

>>9075027
Try picking up some Jewish culture (not religion, but culture).
They literally argue about everything.
Not trying to Ashkenazi, I swear.

>>9075027
You got a bone to pick with religion? Ironic, when atheists are the only ones closed minded about the subject...

>>9074489
build something that could only work if your theory is true

>>9074578
>Anything your bound to be explaining can be explained in two or three paragraphs.

This goes against the entire idea of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

File: d5c[1].jpg (36KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 625x626px

>>9075383
>Ironic, when atheists are the only ones closed minded about the subject

>>9074489
People are selfish fucks and only care about things that pertain to them

>>9075961
Is that how you normally respond when you get called out?

>>9075383
>>9075997
Lissen nigga you straight just proveden his pizzoint right quick like yo. Best be backn up cuh

>>9074489
Extraordinary evidence does not mean long-winded. It means evidence of equal extraordinary level.

See Compton effect.

That's why, assuming the conspiracies /pol/ say are real , they will never be able to convince us about it.

To start those theories will sound like a extremely stupid thing, and because of it you will need a extremely long and detailed text to explain why they aren't.

We won't read the huge text because we will think "does people seriously believe at this shit?" and then not read the huge text.

If they write a small text trying to convince us, they wont answer all the questions we may have while reading the text. We will read their stuff and think "this theory is stupid because of X", if the text was longer they would be able to explain why X doesn't happen or if it does happen why it doesn't make their theory stupid. After thinking this text is stupid we will never go back to it again.

The only ones that will become "redpilled", are the ones that are curious about the thing, despise thinking its a bullshit thing and read the entire text.

>>9076322
PS: This is why I hope all conspiracies are fake, because if they are real, we ARE FUCKED, no one will be able to teach us about how the world really works.

>>9074578
>Anything *you're* bound to be explaining can be explained in two or three paragraphs. Probably less.

Recursively applying this argument to the shorter explanation it produces would be fun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

I still stand by my first response>>9074515

>>9074489
>"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

This is bullshit tho. Extraordinary claims need the same evidence any other claim needs, and really who is even to say what counts as "extraordinary"?

>>9074489
You don't. If they are that set against you nothing you saw or write will help. Move along to someone else.