I mean, how do you describe bullshit, complete and utter bullshit, being posted to the blog of a periodical that the general public trusts?
"Extraordinary" claims do not require extraordinary evidence, according to this writer on the Psychology Today blog.
In order to take him seriously you have to completely misunderstand what Sagan meant in the first place.
Extraordinary claims: i.e., outside the realm of the normal or natural, i.e. supernatural
Extraordinary evidence: pretty much the same thing
Apparently there's a brouhaha in the psychology field since the publication of an article claiming to prove precognition. And this idiot is arguing against demanding "extraordinary" evidence in this manner:
The problem with the dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.” In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe.
Well, there's the natural world and the non-natural world. If you want to claim that the supernatural is natural you do indeed need some damn good proof because you're not just filling in the gap in some huge field of knowledge; you'd be turning all knowledge about the world upside-down.
And apparently "science" is so trendy your a dinosaur if you don't go along with the latest gibberish:
Worse, what counts as extraordinary depends also on the scientific fads and fashion of the time. The claims of race and sex differences in intelligence were not at all extraordinary a hundred years ago. They are considered to be extremely extraordinary today, requiring extraordinary evidence.
Bingo. Just like religionists, pseudoscientists perform linguistic sleight-of-hand when it suits them:
The claims of race and sex differences in intelligence were not at all extraordinary a hundred years ago. They are considered to be extremely extraordinary today, requiring extraordinary evidence.
So now we're speaking of "extraordinary" in the sense of unusual, not supernatural. In Science, knowledge changes based on evidence, testing, and retesting. That's not faddish, it's the way science is supposed to work. It's entirely possible for an unusual phenomenon to change the way experts think. That doesn't mean that supernatural claims shouldn't be held to a higher standard.
Meanwhile, only believers in precognition will believe this stuff.
The offending article is here if you have the stomach for it: