Replies to post #480888 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[ignatiusrielly35]

The eclipse experiment I believe confirmed general relativity, not special relativity, no? The curvature of space-time around the Sun. 

[Investor2014]

Ok let's see what our friend ChatGPT has to say about your repeat claim that Carl Sagan was wrong.

Does extraordinary claims in science require higher standards of proof?

ChatGPT

Yes, **extraordinary claims in science require higher standards of proof**. This principle, often paraphrased as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," reflects the need for robust, compelling, and reproducible evidence when proposing ideas that challenge established knowledge or seem implausible given current understanding.

### Why Higher Standards of Proof Are Necessary
1. **Alignment with Existing Knowledge**:
- Science operates within frameworks of well-established theories and observations. An extraordinary claim often suggests a paradigm shift or substantial revisions to foundational principles, necessitating rigorous testing to ensure validity.

2. **Potential Impact of Errors**:
- Extraordinary claims often carry profound implications. Erroneous claims could mislead future research, waste resources, or undermine public trust in science, making careful validation imperative.

3. **Reproducibility**:
- Claims that contradict or expand significantly on current science require evidence that is replicable across different studies and experimental designs. This ensures findings are not the result of random chance, errors, or biases.

4. **Philosophical Underpinning**:
- This standard is grounded in Bayesian reasoning: the less probable a claim is relative to existing evidence, the stronger the new evidence must be to shift the balance of belief.

### Examples in Practice
- **Extraordinary Claim**: The discovery of cold fusion in the 1980s, where researchers claimed to achieve nuclear fusion at room temperature. It challenged core principles of nuclear physics.
- **Outcome**: Scrutiny revealed that the experimental results could not be reliably reproduced, and the claim was dismissed.

- **Extraordinary Claim**: The theory of relativity by Einstein, which challenged Newtonian physics.
- **Outcome**: Strong evidence, such as the bending of light during a solar eclipse, provided robust proof.

### Characteristics of High-Standard Proof
- **Independent Verification**: The claim must be confirmed by independent researchers and methods.
- **Peer Review**: Findings are subjected to critical examination by experts.
- **Reproducibility**: Other scientists should reliably replicate results under similar conditions.
- **Comprehensive Evidence**: Data supporting the claim must be robust, transparent, and withstand alternative explanations.

### Conclusion
While all scientific claims require evidence, the burden of proof increases with the extraordinariness of the claim. This principle protects the integrity of scientific inquiry and ensures that paradigm-shifting discoveries are not adopted prematurely.

Missling could have lifted that burden of proof a little higher by showing a simple chart of his slide 26 claim. It would have been a powerful illustration that would have taken very little work to - in fact there is little doubt that chart exist, but would show something that would not go down quite so well.It didn't work because those who can see through this stuff didn't buy it.