31:
117:
There's definitely a lot that can be said about ECREE – discussion of the history (eg how the older versions are different, such as "proof" in Truzzi's version), discussion of how people have used it and misused it (eg, discussed in one of the papers I cited in the AfD), arguments about its failings,
532:
suggests that this article, created 2016, is the source for all later uses of the exact term "Sagan standard". Three sources were helpfully produced in that discussion to disprove the suggestion, and I have added two here though, apologies, not following the established citation pattern for this
86:. This aphorism is commonly used in skeptical discussions, but there is little evidence of it being widely known as "the Sagan standard". There may well be enough intellectual history behind the aphorism, independent of Sagan's popularization, to merit a deeper discussion in its own article.
229:
The whole episode could be deleted or reduced to
Armstrong's actual words, but there is a larger problem that this article is about the imaginary phenomenon of ECREE being called by the name "Sagan standard" (which is no more common than the also unusual acronym "ECREE"). Also,
533:
FAC. I hope someone can fix the style of the refs, and that editors agree it's useful to include them. The sources may not be particularly "reliable" but they support the statement that the term was in use. Any earlier examples would be great, of course. @
122:; I didn't see this aphorism mentioned, but one of the points made about prior expectations and the probability of false positives was a technical version of exactly the same thing). The hard work will be digging up suitable reliable sources, to avoid
363:
Sorry, but that's not particularly convincing. There is a strong precedent in usgae for hatnotes pointing towards
Knowledge policies and essays. I have readded it and would appreciate if you gained consensus before changing the status quo. ~
329:. Unless substantially part of the article topic, do not refer to the fact that the page can be edited, nor mention any Knowledge project page or process, specialized Knowledge jargon (e.g. "PoV" in place of "biased"), or any
488:
Halfway throught the second paragraph of the section titled "Analysis and criticism" appears this extraordinary sentence (italics added): "Additionally, there are concerns that, when inconsistently applied, the standard
384:
I'm sorry you're not convinced. The guideline is a guideline for a reason, because it has strong community consensus behind it. You've also re-added content inappropriate for reusers of our content in violation of
131:
I assume we want to preserve the history of the page. There's virtually no history at the redirect page, so do we have that page deleted (admin required?) and then this one renamed? (Assuming we get consensus.) –
455:
reports that sagan's version was published in december, and truzzi's version in late 1975, so it looks like sagan's interview appears closer to two years after truzzi than to either one or three years after
345:
to make it easier for content reusers to remove the self reference and keep it from being included erroneously in printed media of these pages. But I'm not convinced this hatnote adds value for our readers.
424:
This article discusses the similarities between the SS and
Jefferson's thoughts. But isn't this comparison just OR? So far as I can see no cited source draws this parallel. Or have I missed something?
529:
47:
17:
226:
suggest that
Armstrong's wording was different, about extraordinary "allegations" and "proof", and that he was not asked the question about the standard of proof for murderers.
103:
83:
75:
443:
in the article lead, should "a year prior to Sagan" be replaced with "two years prior to Sagan"? the article body states that sagan first used the phrase in a
459:
by the way, the quoteinvestigator source mentions that truzzi's wording appeared in a letter rather than an article, which appears to be similarly asserted by
460:
109:
452:
494:
326:
151:
Well, a page mover could simply swap the two pages (three separate moves-without-redirect), so would not necessarily require an admin.
589:
575:
560:
517:
502:
478:
433:
405:
379:
358:
316:
284:
247:
239:
207:
186:
159:
141:
94:
402:
355:
281:
118:
and even a mathematical justification for it in terms of
Bayesian analysis (I saw this recently in a discussion about the use of
78:, I'd like to continue the discussion here by seconding the support for either merging the relevant bits of this article into
571:
513:
38:
585:
567:
498:
509:
265:
243:
465:
429:
221:
581:
398:
394:
351:
347:
292:
277:
273:
566:
IMO a move to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" would be much more recognizable
203:
182:
268:. We do not allow self references on Knowledge except in circumstances outlined in the guideline
493:
racial and gender biases." Surely the word intended is "exacerbates" and should be corrected.
386:
269:
534:
425:
372:
339:
309:
474:
297:
I may be reading it wrong, but I'm not sure whether the "self-reference tools" section of
137:
551:
298:
193:
178:
272:. None of those apply to this instance. Do not re-add the self reference. Thank you. —
538:
390:
174:
123:
365:
325:
Mentioning the
Knowledge community, or website features, can confuse readers of
302:
259:
152:
87:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
100:
I agree with your reasoning about the name "Sagan standard." I think we should
470:
133:
79:
542:
330:
177:
It may be useful to integrate this analysis into the article. Thanks! --
119:
222:
https://www.si.com/more-sports/2012/10/22/david-walsh-lance-armstrong
173:
A useful
Bayesian interpretation of the claim is presented at:
25:
234:
seems to be at least as common a phrasing of the aphorism as
333:
interface link in the sidebar or along the top of the screen
18:
Talk:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
447:
interview in 1977, and that truzzi's publication in
108:
It would be analogous to what we have with the page
104:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
84:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
335:. If it's to stay on the page, yes, you would use
175:https://arbital.com/p/bayes_extraordinary_claims
580:I agree and have started a move request below.
76:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Sagan standard
323:I was looking at this passage in particular:
8:
508:Correction has been made. Good catch.
324:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
110:Correlation does not imply causation
74:As a followup to the inconclusive
24:
218:The sources cited, and this one
29:
561:07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
453:cited quoteinvestigator source
1:
434:09:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
264:The self reference was added
82:or replacing the redirect at
576:14:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
248:19:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
208:22:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
187:13:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
160:16:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
142:15:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
95:07:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
608:
590:11:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
518:02:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
503:01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
479:05:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
102:replace the redirect at
451:appeared in 1975. the
406:22:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
380:21:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
359:21:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
317:21:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
285:19:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
214:Armstrong misquotations
169:Bayesian interpretation
524:First use of the term
449:parapsychology review
42:of past discussions.
301:forbids hatnotes. ~
568:CactiStaccingCrane
391:disruptive editing
510:A. Randomdude0000
205:
192:I am all for it.
162:
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
599:
558:
549:
528:A discussion at
377:
370:
344:
338:
314:
307:
296:
263:
204:
200:
197:
156:
150:
91:
70:Merge discussion
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
607:
606:
602:
601:
600:
598:
597:
596:
552:
543:
526:
486:
445:washington post
441:
422:
373:
366:
342:
336:
310:
303:
290:
257:
255:
253:Self references
216:
198:
195:
171:
154:
89:
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
605:
603:
595:
594:
593:
592:
525:
522:
521:
520:
485:
482:
440:
437:
421:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
266:with this edit
254:
251:
215:
212:
211:
210:
170:
167:
166:
165:
164:
163:
145:
144:
128:
127:
114:
113:
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
604:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
564:
563:
562:
559:
557:
556:
550:
548:
547:
540:
536:
531:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
495:75.118.14.168
492:
484:Exercerbates?
483:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
463:published in
462:
457:
454:
450:
446:
438:
436:
435:
431:
427:
419:
407:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
383:
382:
381:
378:
376:
371:
369:
362:
361:
360:
357:
353:
349:
341:
334:
332:
328:
327:derived works
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
315:
313:
308:
306:
300:
294:
289:
288:
287:
286:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
261:
252:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
236:extraordinary
233:
227:
224:
223:
219:
213:
209:
206:
202:
201:
191:
190:
189:
188:
184:
180:
176:
168:
161:
158:
157:
149:
148:
147:
146:
143:
139:
135:
130:
129:
125:
121:
116:
115:
111:
107:
105:
99:
98:
97:
96:
93:
92:
85:
81:
77:
69:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
554:
553:
545:
544:
527:
491:exercerbates
490:
487:
464:
461:this article
458:
448:
444:
442:
423:
374:
367:
311:
304:
256:
240:73.89.25.252
235:
231:
228:
225:
220:
217:
194:
172:
153:
101:
88:
73:
60:
43:
37:
535:Silverseren
466:philosophia
426:Bon courage
232:exceptional
36:This is an
395:Locke Cole
389:, this is
387:WP:SELFREF
348:Locke Cole
293:Locke Cole
274:Locke Cole
270:WP:SELFREF
80:Carl Sagan
420:Jefferson
331:MediaWiki
179:Lbeaumont
61:Archive 1
539:RoySmith
155:— jmcgnh
120:p-values
90:— jmcgnh
530:MOS:NEO
456:truzzi.
340:selfref
299:WP:SELF
39:archive
582:Andrew
439:truzzi
260:HAL333
471:dying
199:gette
196:-Jord
134:Gpc62
124:WP:OR
16:<
586:talk
572:talk
514:talk
499:talk
475:talk
430:talk
244:talk
183:talk
138:talk
584:🐉(
546:Pam
469:.
393:. —
375:333
368:HAL
312:333
305:HAL
588:)
574:)
541:.
516:)
501:)
477:)
432:)
401:•
397:•
354:•
350:•
343:}}
337:{{
280:•
276:•
246:)
238:.
185:)
140:)
106:."
570:(
555:D
537:@
512:(
497:(
473:(
428:(
403:c
399:t
356:c
352:t
346:—
295::
291:@
282:c
278:t
262::
258:@
242:(
181:(
136:(
126:.
112:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.