Show Me The Evidence!

You will find many claims in science and religious texts that this, that and the next thing is 100% factual and true. Usually, in science at least, those claims are backed up by hard evidence, peer reviewed, and published for the entire world to read and examine. However, that’s not always the case. Claims are sometimes made that such-and-such is factual, but there’s no supporting evidence, which a) wouldn’t be so bad if that were admitted, and b) if those failing to give their evidence didn’t demand hardcore evidence from others for their claims.  

Scientists and science buffs have a near religious mantra when it comes to the claims of what they term the pseudo-sciences, pseudo-scientists and pseudoscience buffs. That mantra is “show me the evidence”; Show Me The Evidence”; “SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE” - And rightly so. In general it is a good step in the advancement of knowledge to require some minimum amount of evidence when someone making a claim that has a good probability of being wrong.

But there’s a whole pot-full of scientific claims (and for completeness, religious claims) that’s given as unquestioned ‘fact’ albeit ‘fact’ with no supporting evidence at hand. These are ‘facts’ taken on pure faith. These ‘facts’ are presented by the faithful, in whatever discipline(s) their ‘facts’ reside in or belong to, as, well ‘facts’ yet offer up nothing in the way of evidence supporting these ‘facts’.

THE DOUBLE STANDARDS

So, it is a double standard to demand evidence from someone else’s bailiwick (say from so-called pseudoscience or the paranormal) while not presenting any evidence for your bailiwick (the sciences; religion).   

In other words, there’s often a double standard, probably linked to one half of the equation having an entry ticket to the ivory tower and the other half of the equation excluded from the ivory tower. Scientists (ivory tower resident) preaching to the layman (not ivory tower resident), usually present less evidence for their convictions than they demand in turn from the layman for their convictions or worldviews.

For example:

The Catholic Church probably demands some quite definitive and sufficient evidence of a miracle as claimed by Joe Faithful, but expects Joe Faithful to swallow hook, line and sinker stories (mythological tall tales IMHO) of a virgin birth, a deity who walks on water, and that Christmas is the actual birthday of Jesus.

It’s no great secret that some scientists believe in the reality of a creator God. Yet while they will accept God-the-Creator based on zero evidence, they will demand solid slab-in-the-lab physical evidence from their peers (not to mention the great unwashed layperson) for their bailiwicks and worldviews.

Biologists confront Bigfoot: Show us the evidence!

-         Eyewitness sightings, even multiple eyewitness sightings – not evidence.

-         Physical traces, like dung or hair – not evidence.

-         Films and photographs – not evidence.

-         Plaster casts of footprints – not evidence.

-         Required: One corpse, skeleton or live specimen – now that’s evidence.

Physical scientists confront UFOs: Show us the evidence!

-         Eyewitness sightings, even multiple eyewitness sightings – not evidence.

-         Radar ‘sightings’ – not evidence.

-         Eyewitness sightings backed up by radar ‘sightings’ – not evidence.

-         Films and photographs – not evidence.

-         Professional expertise and witness quality – not evidence (unless it turns a UFO into an IFO).

-         Ground traces – not evidence.

-         Physiological effects – not evidence.

-         Electromagnetic effects – not evidence.

-         Required: Stuff to place on the slab in the lab for analysis, or even a ‘Gray’ corpse – now that’s evidence.

Alas, that sort of tin bucket definition of what is, and is not, evidence wouldn’t hold any legal or courtroom water being so full of holes. But, then again the courtroom of science isn’t the courtroom of Perry Mason.

Okay, let’s flip over the coin and see what sorts of evidence some scientists and theologians present for their established, traditional and acceptable bailiwicks. 

COSMOLOGY: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…

- For a Multiverse as opposed to a Universe. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the Big Bang actually created space as opposed to an event that happened in preexisting space. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the Big Bang actually created time as opposed to an event that happened in preexisting time. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the Big Bang actually created matter and energy out of absolutely nothing as opposed to an event that happened within the confines of preexisting matter and energy. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That space itself is expanding as opposed to the contents within space expanding through that existing space. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the singularity at the heart of a Black Hole is actually infinite in density and occupies zero volume as opposed to just being very dense and something that occupies a small but finite volume. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

PHYSICS: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…

- That there really has to be a Theory of Everything (i.e. – quantum gravity) as opposed to there being two separate and apart sets of ‘software’ running the cosmos. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the elementary particles are actually tiny vibrating strings as opposed to tiny little ‘billiard balls’. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That there are an additional six spatial dimensions as opposed to the standard three (length, width and height). There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That there is such a thing as Supersymmetry (SUSY) as opposed to just normal symmetry. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the physical constants are indeed constant throughout all of time and space and under all conditions as opposed to really being variable depending. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That mathematics exists independently of the human (or biological) mind as opposed to mathematics existing solely within the confines of intelligence. In other words, in a Universe before life evolved, did mathematics exist? If so, show me the evidence. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That we exist in a really real reality as opposed to existence as virtual reality. That is, that our Universe actually exists and isn’t just a simulated universe – wallpaper to our ‘reality’. There is no more evidence for the former than there is relative to the latter.

BIOLOGY: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…

- That ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) actually exists to give justification to all the time, effort and cost of SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) to pin down ETI’s celestial coordinates as opposed to humanity being the be-all-and-end-all in terms of advanced technological civilizations. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That human beings are the evolutionary product of natural selection as opposed to artificial selection, in either case from primate ancestors. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

ANOMALIES: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…

- That all ‘crop circles’ are hoaxes and are the sole work of the human being as opposed to some have a more paranormal explanation. There is no evidence that the former is the case relative to the latter.

RELIGION: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…

- That a monotheistic deity (i.e. – God) actually exists as opposed to there being no deity at all. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the Bible is the literal word of that God as opposed to the recorded or written word of the human imagination. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That Heaven and Hell are actually geographical places as opposed to having existence solely within the human imagination. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That there really was a universal flood as opposed to accounts in mythology from around the world of separate and apart major flooding events. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the events (for example) in Exodus actually happened as opposed to being pure mythological fiction. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

Oh dear!

Dare I say it, “extraordinary claims [and most of the above are] require extraordinary evidence”. Heck, even a little bit would be an improvement. But there are many examples where those who demand the proof of other’s pudding can’t produce any pudding when it’s their turn to cough up.

It’s unfortunate, but double standards rule.



Profound Events In Modern Science

Science has had many a profound impact on our lives since the turn of the 20^th Century and not always a positive one – depending on who you talk to. There have been literally hundreds of significant scientific concepts, events, including inventions that have had a profound impact on our individual selves and our society. Any list doesn’t bring justice, and there will be howls of protest for omissions, but still, here’s a baker’s dozen that I feel are pretty profound.

Here are some reasonably profound events in science from 1900 to date that I feel are important in the broader historical, social and cultural context.

1) Sputnik (1957): Unless you lived through it, it’s hard to imagine the impact that the launch of the Soviet artificial satellite Sputnik had all of a sudden on the public awareness of outer space as an actual place where things could happen. The shock-horror to the American psyche was profound, resulting in a massive boost to American science and technological education, acerbating the Cold War, and of course resulting in the Space Race which culminated with the first landing on the Moon (1969). Without Sputnik, there still might not have been any human involvement in space and space exploration in general, and where would we be without artificial satellites in orbit today.

2) Humans in Orbit (1961 to date): It may be ho-hum now, but back in the era of Project Mercury people were glued to their TV screens for the coverage of ‘man into space’. Ditto of course the first voyage to the Moon (Apollo 8) and the first landing on the Moon (Apollo 11). When the two Space Shuttle disasters happened, both re-awakened interest in no uncertain terms. Equally, the Russians were rapped in the many early successes of their space program while America suffered early humiliation after humiliation. But in an era of the Vietnam conflict, civil rights riots in the streets, the Cold War, and of course terrorism, manned space flight gave people something positive to cheer about. Further, there have been massive technological spin-offs as well that have filtered down to the general public. 

3) Modern Communications (1900 to date): It’s hard to believe that not all that long ago, a mere six or seven generations back, it took months to correspond between say Europe and America, or across America, or from America to Australia. However did those poor tweens, teens and young adults cope without instant communication feedback via their Facebook, Twitter or emails way back in those dark ages (how sad: sob; sob; sob). But then along comes wired technologies like the telegraph and telephone cabling and wireless technologies like ham radio and telecommunication satellites, the airplane sped things up too and then finally comes along the Internet and everything that’s i-this-gadget or i-that-doohickie, or i-the-next-damned-gizmo that’s under the proverbial sun (that you have to upgrade every six months). Whether ultimately this entire instant “I just gotta be in touch with everybody everywhere 24/7” will prove its worth or not remains to be seen. Back six or seven generations ago, if you had something to say and it took months to reach the person intended, it probably was important. Can one conclude the same today?  Recall how the automobile revolutionized everything and not necessarily for the better.  

4) Quantum Physics (1920’s): Though the first inklings of what would become quantum mechanics surfaced at the very turn of the century, the subject bloomed into a scientific revolution in the 1920’s. It wasn’t very long before applications were found, and today quantum physics is ultimately responsible for contributions to over one-third of the global economy in various gizmos and gadgets and their applications, many of which are in the possession of you readers.

5) First Nuclear Chain Reaction (1942) & Trinity A-Bomb Test (1945): Collectively these two experimental events gave rise to all of the nuclear issues part and parcel of our world today. That first chain reaction demonstrated that nuclear fission was more than just a theoretical idea and that controlled fission would lead to a nearly unlimited energy supply; uncontrolled fission, as demonstrated at Trinity, goes ka-boom, as in the A-Bomb. When controlled, radioactivity has many applications today, nuclear power (which doesn’t give off greenhouse gas emissions but has other issues) being of course one; nuclear medicine another; and radioactive traces are employed in all sorts of environmental work. Nuclear weapons, nuclear arms control, nuclear terrorism, radioactive waste, and related issues are of course on the opposite side of the nuclear coin.

6) Radar (1940’s): RAdio Detection And Ranging (RADAR) was developed in secret just before and during World War Two. Quite apart from all those obvious military applications, radar is central to modern airline operations and safe flying; the same applies to maritime safety; it’s a common tool for police in keeping those with a tendency to put the pedal to the metal under control; its use is obvious in weather forecasting and warning systems; radar helps keep track of all those bits and pieces we’ve put into orbit, and it has applications in geology (ground penetrating radar) to map subsurface terrain, even in astronomy bouncing radio and microwaves off the surface of nearly moons and planets be it from the ground or from space probes. Unless you’ve been caught speeding, you’re probably quite appreciative of all that radar does for you.   

7) First SETI Experiment (Project Ozma – 1960): Let’s for once try to answer that age old question “are we alone in the cosmos”. Make it so, and so it came to pass where experimental time and money was put where only just before the theoretical mouth was. As we are all too aware, that first experiment, conducted by Dr. Frank Drake, failed to detect ET. In fact every SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) experimental effort to date has failed, but there has to be a first time for everything, and Project Ozma was the first SETI effort, and the significance lies in the fact that for the first time ever, and it’s our generation that’s making it so, exobiology (or astrobiology) has become an experimental instead of just a theoretical science, albeit on still in search of its subject. 

8) Flying Saucers (1947 to date): More books, articles, websites, and documentaries have been done about the subject of UFOs than any other aspect of science. Yes science, since there is a case to be answered even if it is a social one, but even the possible connection with extraterrestrial life makes the study a profound and of course interesting one. Alas, if 65 is considered normal retirement then UFOs should already be pensioned off. Despite that, they do keep on keeping on despite all the best debunking efforts by those self-appointed to act as ‘professional’ sceptics.

9) Chariots of the Gods (1950’s to date): It has been pointed out that it would be extraordinary in terms of probability that ET via those pesky UFOs would pick the last generation or two to show up. This is true. However, negating that little objection, there’s the concept of the ‘ancient astronaut’ – ET has been around for over 100 generations (minimum) with suggestive evidence (not proof) cobbled together from anthropology, archaeology, literature, religions and mythology. While author Erich Von Daniken has been the most visible of the ‘ancient astronaut’ proponents, he wasn’t the first to advocate the idea that ET played a role in the development of mankind. The central issue of profoundness is that any study that suggests that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists, and even more to the point, has had a cultural impact on human society, can’t be easily shrugged off.   

10) King Tutankhamen’s Tomb (1922): Ever since Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt, Egyptology has been big business for publishers, private collectors, museums, Egyptian tourism, etc. However, Egyptology really took off in the mainstream consciousness following the discovery of the Pharaoh known as Tutankhamen, or the Boy King’s tomb, by archaeologist and Egyptologist Howard Carter. The impact on archaeology in general and Egyptology in particular has been and remains profound. There’s hardly anyone who hasn’t heard about Pharaoh Tutankhamen, and worldwide exhibition tours of artefacts found in his tomb attract huge crowds. 

11) Discovery of Penicillin (1928): We all know about that wonder drug penicillin, discovered rather accidentally by Alexander Fleming, which has been responsible for saving more lives than you can shake a stick at. That gave rise to a whole potpourri of antibiotics, but it also gave rise to the Pandora’s Box of antibiotic resistance and the rise of the super-bug, an issue that is both current, ongoing, and of concern to anyone and everyone ever likely be suffer from an infection. 

12) The First Heart Transplant (1967): Anyone who was around at the time can remember the massive amount of press coverage that very first human heart transplant that took place, in Cape Town, South Africa, under the direction of Christiaan Barnard. Back then, this was Big News. Thousands of human heart transplants are now preformed annually and of course it is no longer Big News – unless you are one of those on the receiving end.   

13) Genetic Code (the Discovery of DNA in 1953) & Associated Human Genome Project (2000 to date): Hands up anyone who hasn’t heard about Watson and Crick and the discovery of the substance and structure of DNA in 1953. No hands up? Well that’s not surprising as it is one of the most famous of the famous of scientific achievements in relatively modern times. Ultimately that discovery (along with massive amounts of additional genetically relevant biochemistry since then) has morphed into the Human Genome Project, the importance of which has yet to reach full potential. But full understanding of our genetic makeup is an important tool in coming to terms with all those hundreds of genetic afflictions we can suffer from, and curing (or preventing) same. 

And there’s a dozen dozens more, like the Discovery of X-Rays (1895) so that date is eliminated from ‘modern’ science, though where would modern medicine and dentistry be without X-Rays as well as applications in materials testing, etc. Most of the applications took place in the 20^th Century. Anyway, as I said, there are many more examples that could, probably should be included, but space is limited.

Honourable Mention: Where’s Einstein’s Special and General Relativity? Well, Einstein’s Relativity only rates an honourable mention since it has relatively little impact or application, apart from GPS, in modern society. When (and if) we start to boldly go, then horses will change their colour.

Our Simulated Universe: Part Three

Introduction: You don’t exist! I don’t exist either! At least we don’t exist in the way that we think we do. We’re simulated beings, maybe wetware simulated (as in someone else’s dream), more likely as not software simulated, like the characters in a video game.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

What’s the Best Piece of Evidence? If the Universe and all it contains; its physics (relationships, principles, laws, etc.), were created by either Mother Nature (i.e. – naturally) or via an all-knowing, all-powerful, creator God (i.e. – supernaturally), then presumably everything physics would mesh/interlock and be comprehensible, understandable, with no paradoxes, contradictions, anomalies, etc. Translated, one Universe, one set of hardware; contains just one set of unified physics, one set of software. Now your computer hardware runs on not one, but many sets of software – various functions; various sets of software. So, is the Universe like the way the Universe should be, or is it more akin to your computer programs? Unfortunately, the Universe is like your computer. The Universe’s physics contains two programs; two sets of software. They don’t mesh/interlock; they can not be unified; they are not compatible. Its relativity (macro) software; its quantum mechanics (micro) software and never the twain shall meet. The two are like your basic square peg in a round hole. That’s a flawed creation – it’s an ‘Oops #3’ (see above) – the work of a flawed creator, like of the flesh-and-blood kind. The sort that churns out video game programs – like a Supreme Simulator.

There are other anomalies that physical sciences are having a hard time coming to terms with – that is, explaining them. For example, the concept of ‘dark matter’ must exist in order to explain the rotation and structure of galaxies. However, no one can see this ‘dark matter’. ‘Dark matter’ doesn’t interact with any part of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, yet it has gravity. There’s also about five times more ‘dark matter’ in the Universe than there is ordinary matter – ordinary matter is the kind of matter that has gravity and does interact with the EM spectrum, things like you and I and Planet Earth. “Dark matter’ has been in vogue for decades now, yet no one has a real clue what it is – if it is. Maybe it’s simulated.

Then there’s ‘dark energy’. If ordinary matter and ‘dark matter’ make up about a quarter of the mass/energy content of the Universe, ‘dark energy’ makes up the other 75%. And we haven’t the foggiest idea what ‘dark energy’ is. The apparent detection of ‘dark energy’ is over a decade old now. This concept has been introduced to explain why the expansion rate of our Universe is accelerating, contrary to all expectations (the expansion rate should be decelerating because of the Universe’s gravity). So ‘dark energy’ is apparently a kind of antigravity that’s stronger than ordinary gravity that nobody understands, not the least of which is that the expansion of space itself produces ever more ‘dark energy’, ‘dark energy’ being a property of space itself. More space means more ‘dark energy’. That’s like the concept of the ‘free lunch’ and since when can energy be created out of nothing? That’s a violation of the basic physic’s principle of the conservation of matter and energy. So, how weird is the concept of antigravity created out of nothing – just expanding space? Now simulation is also weird!

Basically some 96% of the entire Universe consists of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ and nobody has any idea what they are. They are at the present, just labels. The idea that this is all simulated makes about as much sense as anything any physicist has dreamed up to account of this 96% of the cosmos. And of course if 96% is simulated, then no doubt 100% is – including you and I and Planet Earth.

Apart from the above observed anomalies, our simulated Universe theory is also potentially testable. While I can think of no way to prove I’m not a simulated being, one can find evidence that we do live in a simulated universe, and by implication that we too are simulated beings.  No computer software is perfect. Computer software – from our experience – is always being upgraded / updated. If the same applies elsewhere, we could perhaps notice it if we’re a product of that software. So, if there are any software upgrades, they might be detectable as anomalous phenomena in some context or another. Like say one of the physical constants were tweaked and altered ever so slightly (and there is some evidence for that – the fine structure constant for example has apparently changed over astronomical time periods). If physical constants aren’t – constant that is – but variable, then we got troubles with a capital T.

One of the, no, in fact THE most fundamental bedrock of all cosmology is that the physics of the universe are the same everywhere. If that’s not the case, and apparently it’s not seeing as how there’s evidence that the fine structure constant doesn’t have the same value in all parts of the cosmos, then cosmologists are forced to go back to square one. Nothing in terms of what the universe is and what governs it can now be taken anymore as gospel.

Can you really imagine either a supernatural God or a natural Mother Nature creating a cosmos where the physics therein aren’t uniform? If your answer is ‘no’, then you are nearly forced into accepting a third alternative – the universe as we know it is a simulation by a hardly all powerful flesh and blood (supreme simulator). Since the value of the fine structure constant is critical in terms of the Universe being bio-friendly, if it’s not constant, then parts of the Universe are bio-unfriendly. So our Supreme Simulator is apparently happy to create a software detailed pocket of bio-friendly universe within a far larger software un-friendly cosmos. That makes sense to create a small pocket of the simulation to be bio-friendly and just have the rest of the bio-unfriendly Universe simulated by way less sophisticated software as a sort of background wallpaper to the bio-friendly part.

The Multitudes of You: If we exist via a simulation, there of course could exist in turn more than one copy of that simulation; lots, and lots, and lots of copies. If so, there’s more than one copy of you. It’s a kind of parallel universe scenario. The saving grace is that you don’t ever get to meet yourself!

What Are the Odds I’m A Simulated Entity? I think it’s fair to say that based on the level of sophistication of my simulation scenario, you and I aren’t part of a dream, or someone else’s overactive imagination, nor a terrestrial computer software package. So, no terrestrial Supreme Simulator has created us. The possible exception to that observation is the assumption that the simulation that creates us is the product of the terrestrial 20^th or 21^st Century. Of course it’s possible that our simulator is in the terrestrial 30^th or 31^st Century. The simulation’s time period doesn’t have to reflect the same time period as that of the simulator. That aside however, and assuming a non-terrestrial origin, that leaves the rest of the Universe and an extraterrestrial(s) Supreme Simulator(s).

The apparent bottom line, using Planet Earth’s supposed reality as a guide, is that any one real world and real inhabitants can create, wetware and software combined, more, vastly more, nearly infinitely more, simulated worlds and inhabitants with varying degrees of complexity and duration. How many dreams (or active mentally imagined scenarios) have humanity collectively racked up? How many video games have been, are now, and will be on the market? Certainly it’s way more than just one. So, one real world and just one real entity can ultimately create hundreds (maybe thousands plus) of simulated worlds and hundreds (maybe thousands plus) of simulated entities. If that logic applies to Planet Earth’s supposed reality and her actual simulation (wetware and software) packages, then what of those extraterrestrial abodes and advanced civilizations? If there are hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of extraterrestrial technological advanced civilizations out there and each create hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of simulated worlds and beings, well, what odds we’re one of the rare real worlds relative to the massive number of simulated ones?

To be continued…

Mission Impossible (Or Highly Improbable): Part One

In Alice in Wonderland (or was that Through the Looking-Glass – I can never remember which one of the two it was*) it’s stated that it’s possible to believe many (as in six) impossible things before breakfast. Science and associated philosophies have had to deal with impossibilities and wildly improbable things, some of which are straight forward, and some of which aren’t – perhaps to the point where something possible is in fact impossible and fundamentally wrong. Conversely, something considered impossible might in fact be possible and fundamentally right. 

A cautionary note: when it comes to what’s possible or impossible; plausible or implausible; probable or improbable, majority doesn’t rule. This isn’t a democracy. If a billion people believe nonsense, it’s still nonsense. This however is in contrast to what has been proven beyond a reasonable scientific doubt. If a billion people continue to disbelieve something that has been proved, then it’s those billion people who are nonsense, not the idea.

Time and time again the self correcting nature of scientific investigation has invalidated the norm of the day, resulting in a paradigm shift. Often the seemingly impossible has proved to be possible, even inevitable. Sometimes what’s been believed to be obviously plausible as proved to be anything but plausible. So, if today’s science says something’s impossible – well, maybe. If I say something is impossible – the same caveat applies. I tend to argue from common sense logic, which, as any philosopher or historian of science will tell you is no sure pathway to what is, and isn’t.

FIRSTLY, let’s list just a few once-upon-a-time scientific impossibilities that have proved to be anything but.

It used to be quite obvious that the Sun went around the Earth – any other configuration was considered impossible.

Once upon a time, our Universe could not be anything but static – neither expanding nor contracting. Einstein however knew the Universe should be contracting because of the attractive force of gravity. To counter that, and keep the static Universe he and the science of the times believed in, he invented his ‘cosmological constant’, a repulsive force to exactly counter gravity’s pull. He later called that his greatest blunder. However, that ‘cosmological constant’ has recently resurfaced in the form of ‘dark energy’, so Einstein might have been right after all!

Those Black Holes, while existing on paper in relativity theory, could not actually exist in reality - in practice they were quite the impossible object.

No one in their right mind would believe that it was possible that mankind had any actual evolutionary relationship with ‘lower’ life forms.

That matter actually consisted of indivisible bits called atoms - the atomic theory was nonsense.

That ‘island universes’ were actually independent conglomerations of stars and not nebulous entities part and parcel of our own Milky Way Galaxy was deemed impossible by experts.

Catastrophism in geology was considered a no-no for much of the time since it began as a legit part of earth science. All geology (especially landforms) could be explained as a gradual softly-softly, slowly-slowly, process. Violent events need not apply to explain things. Tell that to the dinosaurs! Of course we know better today. Catastrophism has taken its place and role playing in the geologic scheme of things.

Speaking of geology, the idea of continental drift was once considered preposterous pie-in-the-sky stuff. How dare a meteorologist (Alfred Wegener in 1912) tell geologists what should have been bleeding obvious! Geologists of course countered that there was no physical mechanism that could push continents around. Well, there was as it turned out, only we may no longer call it continental drift but rather plate tectonics. So, the meteorologist could the geologists flatfooted after all. 

Once upon a time, the concept of nuclear energy was pie in the sky – a subject no scientist would take seriously.

Prior to the initial test, there were ‘experts in explosives’ who said that the A-bomb would never work.

Powered flight was once considered impossible – balloons were the only feasible means of air travel.

Rocket travel was utter bilge as there was nothing in space for the rocket’s exhaust to push against.

It was impossible for the human body to travel faster than the speed of a (fill in the blank) without suffering fatal physiological consequences.

The sound barrier would never be broken. 

It was considered impossible for stones to fall from the sky – witnesses to the contrary are damned. Today, we incorrectly call them ‘shooting stars’; more correctly meteors, and when then hit the ground, meteorites. 

The Titanic was ‘unsinkable’.

The city of Troy was mythology, pure and simple. There was no such place in reality. 

SECONDLY, let’s look at a few really bona fide actual or statistical impossibilities according to today’s scientific thinking.

It’s impossible to divide any number by zero.

It is impossible to travel at the speed of light if you have mass. That’s because at light speed, mass becomes infinite; time stops; your length contracts to zero. However, travel faster than the speed of light seems to be okay (albeit with weird consequences), if only one could figure out how to get from sub-light to faster-than-light without actually crossing the speed of light threshold. It’s like driving your car from zero to sixty km/hour without actually passing through the 30 km/hour region. 

It is considered impossible for a macro object to escape from a Black Hole. To escape from a Black Hole would require passing through that speed of light threshold.

Perpetual motion machines are a big no-no. There’s no such thing as a free lunch! No country’s patent office will even remotely consider proposals for devices that operate on perpetual motion ideals.

It’s apparently impossible to get around the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle part and parcl of quantum physics. Einstein tried for decades to do so and failed each and every time.

It’s impossible to ever reach a temperature of absolute zero (zero on the Kelvin temperature scale) where all molecular, atomic and subatomic activity ceases and all is motionless. It’s impossible because it violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and also because of the vacuum energy, also known as quantum fluctuations. At the extreme micro level, virtual particle pairs pop into and out of existence borrowing from the, and returning energy to, that energy reserve that pervades the cosmos – quantum foam. Finally, energy is spread across the Universe, and can not be created nor destroyed. Although the Universe is expanding, that just means that available energy is being spread thinner and thinner – the energy density of the Universe is therefore decreasing**. But, as long as our Universe retains a finite volume, that density can never reach zero.

No matter what the merits of reincarnation are (and there are none IMHO), it is impossible to recall past lives. The egg and the sperm from which you were conceived had no past memory of your alleged past lives since they came from individuals not so related to your past existences. So, you started out from the get-go with no memory. Any and all memories you now have started from day of conception onwards – full stop***.

On a lighter note, films often give you impossibilities. You know they are impossible, but you accept them anyway, at least while the film is running. Superman’s flying comes to mind, or for that matter the original premise behind the various attributes of all our celluloid superheroes. It’s impossible to have any such of a thing as an invisible person. That person would be functionally blind as light would pass right through their eyeballs. A standard of sci-fi are insects the size of houses – impossible as they would quickly die of suffocation.  A fifty foot human is also impossible because their scaled up legs get scaled up far less than the increase in body mass, and so the individual couldn’t stand up. Similar physiological problems arise if you shrink humans to standard insect size. The standard impossibility is hearing the noise and sounds a spaceship or space battles make while in the vacuum of space. I’m sure any readers could think up dozens of other examples. Most films never get the science right, but of course it’s just entertainment not to be taken as accurate representation of reality.

Lastly, there’s one impossible thing you just can’t think of and believe before breakfast, or any other time. It’s impossible to think that you don’t exist (either as an actual or simulated being) for who’s doing the thinking if not you? Therefore, the famous observation and quote, “I think therefore I am”.

To be continued….

* Having since looked it up, I’ve confirmed it as the White Queen’s statement from Through the Looking-Glass.

**There’s one caveat to that. If ‘dark energy’ is a property of space, and if space is expanding, then the amount of ‘dark energy’ is not thinning, but increasing. More space means more ‘dark energy’.

   

***When I mentioned this observation to a friend, she immediately suggested that the memory of a past life or lives was due to the implantation of your soul. It’s your soul (assuming there is such a thing) that has the memory.

Actually I was under the impression that it was one soul per person, but maybe not. One soul might be passed down from one person to that person’s reincarnation to that person’s reincarnation for however long the process goes on for. Maybe like in Doctor Who you only get so many regenerations (or in this case reincarnations).

Anyway, I was also under the impression that the soul is intangible or nebulous – it has no actual substance, a thing that can be examined in the laboratory and under a microscope.

Memory however has to be something part and parcel of the biochemical’s and biochemistry and energy flows that happens in your brain whenever you remember something. Memory must have some physical substance – it has mass and energy. Memory can be affected by chemicals and energy. A soul doesn’t have mass or energy and presumably can’t be influenced by external influences. So, if your soul contains the memories of your past lives, then no amount of foreign drugs, disease or injury will make you forget past lives because the soul is indestructible. Sorry, but if you have a memory of a past life then I suggest that memory, even though it’s a false or delusional memory, can be affected by physical influences, like drugs, disease or injury.

Evidence and the Twelfth Man: How Much Is Enough? Part Three

A phrase has appeared in many popular science books as well as sceptical books about various aspects of the paranormal and pseudoscience, but which has, in classic meme fashion, spread to other subjects as well. That phrase is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. However, I feel that phrase has well outlived its original purpose, is total nonsense, and has passed its ‘use by’ date by several decades at least. 

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is often the mantra when it comes to the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH).

 Many ideas or fads, be they in the sciences or the arts, don’t last long – theories come and theories go and actual fashions and fashion in music change yearly. What’s ‘in’ and what’s ‘out’ is often pretty fickle. A lot of what was popular in 1947 (the birth year of the modern UFO era) has fallen by the wayside now - but, interestingly enough, not the UFO ETH. The UFO ETH is as popular as ever, maybe even more so now than in 1947, not that popularity equates of necessity to something factual. If a billion people believe a stupid idea – like an invisible friend who art in heaven – it’s still a stupid idea. However, over six decades on, despite all the professional and amateur sceptics and the universal naysayer, the government denials, scientists professing ‘no evidence’, the ‘giggle’ factor and the ‘silly season’ publicity, the UFO ETH is alive and well thank you very much. Something must be driving this. Perhaps, at least as far as many of the great unwashed are concerned, there is some signal in the noise – some sort of evidence (albeit not physical enough to be acceptable to many professional scientists) that’s swaying the general public.

It is suggested, with good reason, that the whole issue of the UFO ETH must be judged on the basis of the evidence. And, it is claimed, that the evidence for visitation is so poor that very few scientists find it convincing. And that is true, at least the part that few scientists, publicly at least, find the UFO ETH somewhat lacking in solid evidence. Thus, the UFO ETH has garnered somewhat of an aura of being a ‘silly season’ subject, unworthy of scientific study. [To be honest, I’d often like to survey academics / scientists for their private opinions!]

UFOs vs. evidence for the ETH – there is no absolute smoking gun - yet. I’d be the first to acknowledge that. I’d suggest however that this is a case of where there’s smoke, there’s smoke. The fire has yet to be seen through the smoke. There however has got to be something suggestive about the nature of that smoke to drive lots of people, even some quite intelligent people, to accept the possibility of the UFO ETH. I mean the idea just didn’t pop out of the ether – out of thin air. Something very suggestive is driving it. 

I would ask the question whether by evidence one means a physical artefact that can be put under the microscope, or is human testimony, the sort that would convict someone of a crime and put them on death row enough evidence? I’m 99% convinced scientists would say the former, yet the evidence for the UFO ETH is 99% the latter (plus a few radar returns and films). Actually IMHO it’s ludicrous for UFO ETH sceptics to poo-poo and give the thumbs down to eyewitness testimony. After all, it’s accurate eyewitness testimony that enables the trained investigators to properly identify the vast majority of UFO reports, turning them into identified flying objects. So, when sceptics need eyewitness testimony to be accurate and turn UFO cases into something with ordinary and mundane causes – that’s fine. But when the tables are turned, sceptics turn turncoat as well so as to re-enforce their already-minds-made-up point of view. That is, eyewitness testimony that turns a UFO sighting into an unexplained bona fide UFO case, well then clearly the eyewitness testimony counts for nothing in terms of bona fide evidence.   

Now there are lots of current concepts in science that have absolutely no evidence to support them, yet are taken quite seriously by physical scientists. A partial list would include concepts like the Multiverse, the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics, string theory or its related M-Theory, the possible existence of ten or eleven dimensions, the Ekpyrotic (two branes colliding origin of the) Universe theory, and, shock horror for those interested in SETI, the total lack of any under-the-microscope, hard core evidence whatsoever for any intelligent life forms other than intelligent terrestrial life forms. Yet it is acceptable for scientists to research these areas without being subject to having their sanity questioned. I fail to see why the UFO ETH is an exception to this.

Scientists need more than 20 fingers and toes to list all of the there-is-no-evidence-for- these-way-out-theories in science that ultimately had to wait years, decades, longer even for experimental confirmation. If scientists had put these in the too hard basket, or dismissed them with a ‘I just don’t believe it - it can’t be therefore it isn’t’ attitude, well we’d still all believe that the sun goes around the Earth, black holes would be confined to the pages of science fiction, and as for gravity bending light rays – forget it.

There are other ‘the nature of the evidence’ parallels with UFOs – physical phenomena that don’t stand still; you can’t poke and prod, put under the microscope, examine at your leisure and which are unpredictable in space and in time. Ball lightning comes to mind; ditto Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP); and you can’t rewind the clock and prepare for (instruments at the ready) and witness the one-off Tunguska event. There seems to be a double standard for evidence here. UFOs have a ‘giggle factor’; ball lightning does not, yet both have theoretical underpinnings that make their existence plausible. In the case of UFOs, it’s the Fermi Paradox – if advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist, they’ve had enough time to colonize the galaxy, so where is everybody?

So, that ultra overused phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is nonsense. Claims of course require evidence, but again the word ‘extraordinary’ is in the mind of the beholder. What’s extraordinary to one is routine, boring, commonplace and downright bloody obvious to another. And speaking of the common phrase, another one that can be applied to the UFO ETH is “absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence”.

Conclusion: If you make a claim, extraordinary or otherwise, you’ve got to be prepared to back it up with your evidence, your whole evidence, and nothing but your evidence. The 12^th man would require no more, and no less.

Evidence and the Twelfth Man: How Much Is Enough? Part Two

A phrase has appeared in many popular science books as well as sceptical books about various aspects of the paranormal and pseudoscience, but which has, in classic meme fashion, spread to other subjects as well. That phrase is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. However, I feel that phrase has well outlived its original purpose, is total nonsense, and has passed its ‘use by’ date by several decades at least. 

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Okay, we have to come to terms with the fact that lots of extraordinary claims have in fact come to pass, with rather ordinary evidence. Let’s list just a few once-upon-a-time scientific impossibilities (extraordinary claims) that have proved (via ordinary evidence) to be anything but.

It used to be quite obvious that the Sun went around the Earth – any other extraordinary claim of another configuration was considered impossible.

Once upon a time, our Universe could not be anything but static – neither expanding nor contracting. Einstein however knew the Universe should be contracting because of the attractive force of gravity. To counter that, and keep the static Universe he and the science of the times believed in, he invented his ‘cosmological constant’, a repulsive force to exactly counter gravity’s pull. That was his extraordinary claim. He later called that his greatest blunder. However, that ‘cosmological constant’ has recently resurfaced in the form of ‘dark energy’, so Einstein might have been right after all!

Those extraordinary Black Holes, while existing on paper in relativity theory, could not actually exist in reality - in practice they were quite the impossible object. There’s massive evidence now that they do indeed exist.

No one in their right Biblical mind would believe that it was extraordinarily possible that mankind had any actual evolutionary relationship with ‘lower’ life forms. Evolutionary biologists can give you lots of ordinary evidence to the contrary.

That matter actually consisted of rather extraordinary indivisible bits called atoms - the atomic theory was nonsense. The atomic theory was an extraordinary claim. Particle physicists can give you ordinary evidence to the contrary.

That ‘island universes’ were actually independent conglomerations of stars and not nebulous entities part and parcel of our own Milky Way Galaxy was deemed extraordinarily impossible by experts. Ordinary observational evidence eventually proved otherwise.  

Catastrophism in geology was considered an extraordinary no-no for much of the time since it began as a legit part of earth science. All geology (especially landforms) could be explained as a gradual softly-softly, slowly-slowly, process. Violent events need not apply to explain things. Tell that to the dinosaurs! Of course we know better today. Ordinary evidence shows that Catastrophism has taken its place and role playing in the geologic scheme of things.

Speaking of geology, the idea of continental drift was once considered extraordinarily preposterous pie-in-the-sky stuff. How dare a meteorologist (Alfred Wegener in 1912) tell geologists what should have been bleeding obvious! Geologists of course countered that there was no physical mechanism that could push continents around. Well, there was as it turned out, only we may no longer call it continental drift but rather plate tectonics. The ordinary evidence is in; geologists accept it.

Once upon a time, the concept of nuclear energy was extraordinary pie in the sky – a subject no scientist would take seriously. Does anyone dispute the evidence for it today?

Prior to the initial test, there were ‘experts in explosives’ who said that the A-bomb would never work. That it would would have been an extraordinary claim to the contrary. The evidence that it did work is evident now. 

Powered flight was once considered extraordinarily impossible – balloons were the only feasible means of air travel. Today, the verdict is in.

Rocket travel was utter extraordinary bilge as there was nothing in space for the rocket’s exhaust to push against. Yet the moon landings became so ordinary that the public quickly got bored with them.

It was impossible for the human body to travel faster than the speed of a (fill in the blank) without suffering fatal physiological consequences. Any person suggesting the contrary would have been forced to provide extraordinary proof.  Of course quite ordinary proof proved most satisfactory to counter the claim.

The sound barrier would never be broken; to suggest otherwise was an extraordinary claim. Again, it’s now quite ordinary to break the sound barrier; no extraordinary evidence was required, just the sound of a sonic boom.    

It was considered impossible for stones to fall from the sky – witnesses to the contrary be damned. Today, we incorrectly call them ‘shooting stars’; more correctly meteors, and when then hit the ground, meteorites. Picking up a meteorite is ordinary; although claiming it fell from the sky was once upon a time an extraordinary claim.  

The RMS Titanic was ‘unsinkable’. To suggest otherwise would have been extraordinary. The very ordinary evidence now rests at the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean.

The city of Troy was ordinary mythology, pure and simple. There was no such place in reality. To suggest the contrary was an extraordinary claim. Today, nobody doubts the ordinary evidence backing up the city’s reality.  

To be continued…

Evidence Required for Extraordinary Claims: Part Three

A phrase has appeared in many popular science books as well as sceptical books about various aspects of the paranormal and pseudoscience’s, but which has, in classic meme fashion, spread to other subjects as well. That phrase is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. However, I feel that phrase has well outlived its original purpose, is total nonsense, and has passed it’s ‘use by’ date by several decades at least. 

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is often the mantra when it comes to the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH).

 Many ideas or fads, be they in the sciences or the arts, don’t last long – theories come and theories go and actual fashions and fashion in music change yearly. What’s ‘in’ and what’s ‘out’ is often pretty fickle. A lot of what was popular in 1947 (the birth year of the modern UFO era) has fallen by the wayside now - but, interestingly enough, not the UFO ETH. The UFO ETH is as popular as ever, maybe even more so now than in 1947, not that popularity equates of necessity to something factual. If a billion people believe a stupid idea – like an invisible friend who art in heaven – it’s still a stupid idea. However, over six decades on, despite all the professional and amateur sceptics and the universal naysayer, the government denials, scientists professing ‘no evidence’, the ‘giggle’ factor and the ‘silly season’ publicity, the UFO ETH is alive and well thank you very much. Something must be driving this. Perhaps, at least as far as many of the great unwashed are concerned, there is some signal in the noise – some sort of evidence (albeit not physical enough to be acceptable to many professional scientists) that’s swaying the general public.

It is suggested, with good reason, that the whole issue of the UFO ETH must be judged on the basis of the evidence. And, it is claimed, that the evidence for visitation is so poor that very few scientists find it convincing. And that is true, at least the part that few scientists, publicly at least, find the UFO ETH somewhat lacking in solid evidence. Thus, the UFO ETH has garnered somewhat of an aura of being a ‘silly season’ subject, unworthy of scientific study. [To be honest, I’d often like to survey academics / scientists for their private opinions!]

UFOs vs. evidence for the ETH – there is no absolute smoking gun - yet. I’d be the first to acknowledge that. I’d suggest however that this is a case of where there’s smoke, there’s smoke. The fire has yet to be seen through the smoke. There however has got to be something suggestive about the nature of that smoke to drive lots of people, even some quite intelligent people, to accept the possibility of the UFO ETH. I mean the idea just didn’t pop out of the ether – out of thin air. Something very suggestive is driving it. 

I would ask the question whether by evidence one means a physical artefact that can be put under the microscope, or is human testimony, the sort that would convict someone of a crime and put them on death row enough evidence? I’m 99% convinced scientists would say the former, yet the evidence for the UFO ETH is 99% the latter (plus a few radar returns and films). Actually IMHO it’s ludicrous for UFO ETH sceptics to poo-poo and give the thumbs down to eyewitness testimony. After all, it’s accurate eyewitness testimony that enables the trained investigators to properly identify the vast majority of UFO reports, turning them into identified flying objects. So, when sceptics need eyewitness testimony to be accurate and turn UFO cases into something with ordinary and mundane causes – that’s fine. But when the tables are turned, sceptics turn turncoat as well so as to re-enforce their already-minds-made-up point of view. That is, eyewitness testimony that turns a UFO sighting into an unexplained bona fide UFO case, well then clearly the eyewitness testimony counts for nothing in terms of bona fide evidence.   

Now there are lots of current concepts in science that have absolutely no evidence to support them, yet are taken quite seriously by physical scientists. A partial list would include concepts like the Multiverse, the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics, string theory or its related M-Theory, the possible existence of ten or eleven dimensions, the Ekpyrotic (two branes colliding origin of the) Universe theory, and, shock horror for those interested in SETI, the total lack of any under-the-microscope, hard core evidence whatsoever for any intelligent life forms other than intelligent terrestrial life forms. Yet it is acceptable for scientists to research these areas without being subject to having their sanity questioned. I fail to see why the UFO ETH is an exception to this.

Scientists need more than 20 fingers and toes to list all of the there-is-no-evidence-for- these-way-out-theories in science that ultimately had to wait years, decades, longer even for experimental confirmation. If scientists had put these in the too hard basket, or dismissed them with a ‘I just don’t believe it - it can’t be therefore it isn’t’ attitude, well we’d still all believe that the sun goes around the Earth, black holes would be confined to the pages of science fiction, and as for gravity bending light rays – forget it.

There are other ‘the nature of the evidence’ parallels with UFOs – physical phenomena that don’t stand still; you can’t poke and prod, put under the microscope, examine at your leisure and which are unpredictable in space and in time. Ball lightning comes to mind; ditto Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP); and you can’t rewind the clock and prepare for (instruments at the ready) and witness the one-off Tunguska event. There seems to be a double standard for evidence here. UFOs have a ‘giggle factor’; ball lightning does not, yet both have theoretical underpinnings that make their existence plausible. In the case of UFOs, it’s the Fermi Paradox – if advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist, they’ve had enough time to colonize the galaxy, so where is everybody?

So, in conclusion, that ultra overused phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is nonsense. Claims of course require evidence, but again the word ‘extraordinary’ is in the mind of the beholder. What’s extraordinary to one is routine, boring, commonplace and downright bloody obvious to another. And speaking of the common phrase, another one that can be applied to the UFO ETH is “absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence”.

Conclusion: If you make a claim, extraordinary or otherwise, you’ve got to be prepared to back it up with your evidence, your whole evidence, and nothing but your evidence.

Evidence Required for Extraordinary Claims: Part Two

A phrase has appeared in many popular science books as well as sceptical books about various aspects of the paranormal and pseudoscience’s, but which has, in classic meme fashion, spread to other subjects as well. That phrase is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. However, I feel that phrase has well outlived its original purpose, is total nonsense, and has passed it’s ‘use by’ date by several decades at least. 

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Okay, we have to come to terms with the fact that lots of extraordinary claims have in fact come to pass, with rather ordinary evidence. Let’s list just a few once-upon-a-time scientific impossibilities (extraordinary claims) that have proved (via ordinary evidence) to be anything but.

It used to be quite obvious that the Sun went around the Earth – any other extraordinary claim of another configuration was considered impossible.

Once upon a time, our Universe could not be anything but static – neither expanding nor contracting. Einstein however knew the Universe should be contracting because of the attractive force of gravity. To counter that, and keep the static Universe he and the science of the times believed in, he invented his ‘cosmological constant’, a repulsive force to exactly counter gravity’s pull. That was his extraordinary claim. He later called that his greatest blunder. However, that ‘cosmological constant’ has recently resurfaced in the form of ‘dark energy’, so Einstein might have been right after all!

Those extraordinary Black Holes, while existing on paper in relativity theory, could not actually exist in reality - in practice they were quite the impossible object. There’s massive evidence now that they do indeed exist.

No one in their right Biblical mind would believe that it was extraordinarily possible that mankind had any actual evolutionary relationship with ‘lower’ life forms. Evolutionary biologists can give you lots of ordinary evidence to the contrary.

That matter actually consisted of rather extraordinary indivisible bits called atoms - the atomic theory was nonsense. The atomic theory was an extraordinary claim. Particle physicists can give you ordinary evidence to the contrary.

That ‘island universes’ were actually independent conglomerations of stars and not nebulous entities part and parcel of our own Milky Way Galaxy was deemed extraordinarily impossible by experts. Ordinary observational evidence eventually proved otherwise.  

Catastrophism in geology was considered an extraordinary no-no for much of the time since it began as a legit part of earth science. All geology (especially landforms) could be explained as a gradual softly-softly, slowly-slowly, process. Violent events need not apply to explain things. Tell that to the dinosaurs! Of course we know better today. Ordinary evidence shows that Catastrophism has taken its place and role playing in the geologic scheme of things.

Speaking of geology, the idea of continental drift was once considered extraordinarily preposterous pie-in-the-sky stuff. How dare a meteorologist (Alfred Wegener in 1912) tell geologists what should have been bleeding obvious! Geologists of course countered that there was no physical mechanism that could push continents around. Well, there was as it turned out, only we may no longer call it continental drift but rather plate tectonics. The ordinary evidence is in; geologists accept it.

Once upon a time, the concept of nuclear energy was extraordinary pie in the sky – a subject no scientist would take seriously. Does anyone dispute the evidence for it today?

Prior to the initial test, there were ‘experts in explosives’ who said that the A-bomb would never work. That it would would have been an extraordinary claim to the contrary. The evidence that it did work is evident now. 

Powered flight was once considered extraordinarily impossible – balloons were the only feasible means of air travel. Today, the verdict is in.

Rocket travel was utter extraordinary bilge as there was nothing in space for the rocket’s exhaust to push against. Yet the moon landings became so ordinary that the public quickly got bored with them.

It was impossible for the human body to travel faster than the speed of a (fill in the blank) without suffering fatal physiological consequences. Any person suggesting the contrary would have been forced to provide extraordinary proof.  Of course quite ordinary proof proved most satisfactory to counter the claim.

The sound barrier would never be broken; to suggest otherwise was an extraordinary claim. Again, it’s now quite ordinary to break the sound barrier; no extraordinary evidence was required, just the sound of a sonic boom.    

It was considered impossible for stones to fall from the sky – witnesses to the contrary be damned. Today, we incorrectly call them ‘shooting stars’; more correctly meteors, and when then hit the ground, meteorites. Picking up a meteorite is ordinary; although claiming it fell from the sky was once upon a time an extraordinary claim.  

The RMS Titanic was ‘unsinkable’. To suggest otherwise would have been extraordinary. The very ordinary evidence now rests at the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean.

The city of Troy was ordinary mythology, pure and simple. There was no such place in reality. To suggest the contrary was an extraordinary claim. Today, nobody doubts the ordinary evidence backing up the city’s reality.  

To be continued…