The Sagan Standard: A Crucial Framework for Rational Thinking
Written on
Chapter 1: Understanding the Sagan Standard
In an ideal world, individuals would frequently utilize the 'Sagan Standard' when evaluating remarkable beliefs. This straightforward guideline can significantly improve critical thinking and help assess the validity of extraordinary claims.
What should one say to those who hold beliefs that contradict overwhelming evidence? Recently, Washington D.C. saw turmoil as groups of fervent Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, fueled by their conviction that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from them.
On January 2, Ted Cruz and several Republican Senators issued a statement disputing the election results, citing supposed "allegations of voter fraud, breaches, and lax enforcement of election laws, among other voting irregularities."
“Such allegations are not merely held by a single candidate; they resonate widely. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, alarmingly, 39% of Americans believe the election was rigged—this sentiment spans Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).”
Despite numerous recounts in contested states and over sixty unsuccessful court challenges, claims of electoral misconduct are evidently unfounded. The election was conducted fairly, and the results are clear: Biden won, Trump lost.
So why is there resistance to accepting this reality? Why do significant portions of the population cling to beliefs such as a flat Earth or the bizarre theories propagated by QAnon?
I attribute this troubling phenomenon, at least partially, to inadequate critical thinking skills, which often lead to oversimplified views of proof, evidence, and belief.
A simple yet effective critical tool can address this pervasive issue: the ‘Sagan Standard’. This is how you can engage with those who entertain such beliefs.
Section 1.1: The Challenge of Evidence and Belief
There are valid reasons behind the belief that the 2020 election was fraudulent, that the Earth is flat, and that various QAnon conspiracies hold truth. Each of these beliefs can be backed by some form of evidence, leading many to mistakenly conclude that evidence alone legitimizes a belief. This assumption, however, is flawed.
In teaching critical thinking skills to countless young individuals, I have repeatedly encountered the intuitive notion that beliefs should be based on evidence. The argument "I have evidence for X, so I believe X" is superficially appealing, yet fundamentally misguided.
This misconception arises because it overlooks the significance of both the quality and quantity of evidence. For instance, magicians can create convincing illusions, but despite the evidence of our senses, we shouldn’t automatically conclude they possess supernatural powers.
Subsection 1.1.1: The Sagan Standard Explained
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
This principle, known as the Sagan Standard, was articulated by Carl Sagan in episode 12 of his groundbreaking series, Cosmos, in 1980. Sagan emphasized that the basis for belief must not be derived from what sounds plausible, nor from the desires we hold, but rather from what is substantiated by rigorous and scrutinized evidence.
He argued that although numerous witness accounts claim that aliens have visited Earth, such beliefs are so extraordinary that they necessitate a correspondingly high standard of proof.
The Sagan Standard is a sensible guideline, integral to the scientific method and rational thought. It asserts that mere evidence is insufficient to justify a belief; instead, the evidence must be robust enough to support the claim being made.
There is substantial evidence indicating that the 2020 Presidential election was conducted fairly—supported by observers, checks and balances, multiple recounts, state investigations, and numerous court rulings. Given this context, the assertion that the election was ‘stolen’ demands extraordinary proof, which has not been provided, thereby warranting the dismissal of such suspicions.
Chapter 2: Historical Roots of the Sagan Standard
The Sagan Standard is not a novel concept. While Carl Sagan popularized it in contemporary discourse, its origins can be traced back to the philosophical thought of the Enlightenment.
In 1812, French polymath Pierre Laplace noted in his Analytic Theory of Probability that the strength of evidence for an extraordinary claim must correspond to its unusualness. Similarly, in an 1808 correspondence, Thomas Jefferson remarked that for unusual phenomena, the proof required should match the difficulty of the claim.
These ideas likely draw from philosopher David Hume's work. In his influential text, On Miracles (1748), Hume criticized the belief in the supernatural, asserting that “the wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” He further posited that to validate a miracle, the evidence must be more astonishingly wrong than the miracle itself occurring.
Thus, Hume provides a straightforward yet powerful framework for evaluating extraordinary claims: the more improbable a claim, the greater the quality and quantity of evidence required to substantiate it.
In Conclusion
When confronted with beliefs that starkly contradict overwhelming evidence, one should respond, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Evidence alone rarely suffices to substantiate a belief; it must be proportional to the claim being made. Widespread awareness of this principle could lead to a more rational and sane world. What are your thoughts?
This video, "Could Carl Sagan's Methods Be Used to Make Design Inferences?" delves into the relevance of the Sagan Standard in evaluating extraordinary claims, examining the interplay between evidence and belief.
Another insightful video, "How to Apply Science Standards in the STEM Classroom," explores how the principles of the Sagan Standard can be integrated into educational contexts, emphasizing critical thinking and scientific reasoning.