David Hume – Quote Investigator®

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Carl Sagan? Marcello Truzzi? Pierre-Simon Laplace? David Hume? Benjamin Bayly? Elihu Palmer? William Craig Brownlee? F. B. Barton? William Denton? Ely Vaughan Zollars? Joseph Rinn? James Oberg? Arthur C. Clarke?

Dear Quote Investigator: Tabloid newspapers have printed remarkable claims about alien abductions, mischievous ghosts, bigfoot sightings, and other anomalies. Skeptics have countered these reports by stating that the evidence is inadequate. Here are two versions of a pertinent adage:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

This saying has been attributed to astronomer Carl Sagan, sociologist Marcello Truzzi, and mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace. Would you please explore this topic?

Quote Investigator: These sayings form a natural family although the vocabulary and phrasing varies. The following overview with dates shows the evolution:

1708: These matters being very extraordinary, will require a very extraordinary proof (Benjamin Bayly)

1738: As it is a matter of an extraordinary kind, it is but reasonable in us to require extraordinary evidence for it

1740: Every man has a right to demand extraordinary evidence for any extraordinary fact (Arthur Ashley Sykes)

1741: Assertions so contrary to fact … require some extraordinary proof to gain our credit and assent (John Straight)

1748: A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence (David Hume)

1748: No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish (David Hume)

1800: Miracles being very unusual and extraordinary facts, they require very strong evidence to support them (Beilby Porteus)

1804: I ought to have extraordinary evidence, to induce me to believe extraordinary things (Elihu Palmer)

1810: Plus un fait est extraordinaire, plus il a besoin d’être appuyé de fortes preuves (Pierre-Simon Laplace)

1810: The more extraordinary a fact, the more it needs to be supported by strong proofs (Translation of Pierre-Simon Laplace)

1824: Extraordinary claims can rest only on extraordinary proofs (William Craig Brownlee)

1826: For extraordinary facts, we should have extraordinary evidence

1852: Extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary proof

1854: An extraordinary, an unnatural event, demands extraordinary evidence (F. B. Barton)

1871: Extraordinary evidence is needed to establish extraordinary facts (William Denton)

1895: Extraordinary claims always call for extraordinary proof (Ely Vaughn Zollars)

1906: Wonderful phenomena need wonderful evidence in their support (Joseph F. Rinn)

1975: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (Marcello Truzzi)

1976: Extraordinary proof is necessary for extraordinary claims (Kendrick Frazier credited Marcello Truzzi)

1977: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Carl Sagan)

1979: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. (James Oberg)

Below are selected citations in chronological order.

Continue reading Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

A Little Philosophy Inclineth Mans Mind to Atheism; But Depth in Philosophy, Bringeth Mens Minds about to Religion

Francis Bacon? Theophilus Gale? David Hume? Apocryphal?

Dear Quote Investigator: The famous English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon made an intriguing assertion about atheism. Here are three versions:

(1) A little philosophy makes men atheists, though a great deal would cure them of Atheism.

(2) A little knowledge drives man away from God, but deeper knowledge brings him back.

(3) A little knowledge may take us away from God, but further knowledge will bring us back to him.

Would you please help me to find the correct phrasing and a citation?

Quote Investigator: The 1625 collection titled “The Essayes Or Covnsels, Civill and Morall” by Francis Bacon included the original version of the statement under analysis. The spelling in the 1625 text differed from modern spelling. For example, the letters “u” and “v” were sometimes swapped. The following passage employs updated spelling. Emphasis added to excerpts by QI:^[1]1625, The Essayes Or Covnsels, Civill and Morall, of Francis Lo. Vervlam, Viscovnt St. Alban. Newly Written, Chapter: of Atheisme, Quote Page 90, Printed by John Haviland for Hanna Barret, London. … Continue reading

I had rather believe all the Fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, then that this universal Frame, is without a Mind. And therefore, God never wrought Miracle, to convince Atheism, because his Ordinary Works convince it. It is true, that a little Philosophy inclineth Man’s Mind to Atheism; But depth in Philosophy, bringeth Men’s Minds about to Religion.

Below is a scan of the 1625 book page showing the text above followed by additional selected citations in chronological order. Continue reading A Little Philosophy Inclineth Mans Mind to Atheism; But Depth in Philosophy, Bringeth Mens Minds about to Religion

References

References
↑1	1625, The Essayes Or Covnsels, Civill and Morall, of Francis Lo. Vervlam, Viscovnt St. Alban. Newly Written, Chapter: of Atheisme, Quote Page 90, Printed by John Haviland for Hanna Barret, London. (Google Books Full View) link

Never Attribute to Malice That Which Is Adequately Explained by Stupidity

Robert Heinlein? Napoleon Bonaparte? Ayn Rand? David Hume? Johann Wolfgang von Goethe? Robert J. Hanlon? Arthur Cushman McGiffert? William James Laidlay? Ernst Haeckel? Thomas F. Woodlock? Nick Diamos?

Dear Quote Investigator: It is easy to impute hostility to the actions of others when a situation is actually unclear. A popular insightful adage attempts to constrain this type of bitter speculation. Here are two versions:

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity

Don’t ascribe to malice what can be plainly explained by incompetence.

This notion has been attributed to military leader Napoleon Bonaparte, to science fiction author Robert Heinlein, and to others. It is often called “Hanlon’s Razor”. Would you please explore its provenance?

Quote Investigator: QI has found no substantive support for ascribing the statement to Napoleon Bonaparte. Robert Heinlein did include a thematically similar remark in a 1941 short story.

The earliest close match known to QI appeared in the 1980 compilation “Murphy’s Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong” edited by Arthur Bloch. Boldface added to excerpts by QI:^[1]1980, Murphy’s Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong, Compiled and Edited by Arthur Bloch, Quote Page 52, Price/Stern/Sloan Publishers Inc., Los Angeles, California. (Verified with … Continue reading

HANLON’S RAZOR:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

The description “Hanlon’s Razor” was used because the creator was a computer programmer named Robert J. Hanlon. The phrase “Hanlon’s Razor” was analogous to the phrase “Occam’s Razor”. Both referred to heuristics designed to prune sets of hypotheses by favoring simplicity. More details about Hanlon are presented further below based on the research conducted by quotation expert Mardy Grothe appearing in the 2011 book “Neverisms”.

Many people have expressed similar thoughts over the years and additional selected citations in chronological order are shown below.

Continue reading Never Attribute to Malice That Which Is Adequately Explained by Stupidity

References

References
↑1	1980, Murphy’s Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong, Compiled and Edited by Arthur Bloch, Quote Page 52, Price/Stern/Sloan Publishers Inc., Los Angeles, California. (Verified with scans)