The criticism that there is no reliably reproducible demonstration of psi

How can you misunderstand something as simple as this: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It known to Hume, Laplace, Wiseman and a whole bunch of others too, but not you. Which is requires better evidence. A hot stove will burn your fingers if touched? Or there's this mysterious stuff we know is there but which does not interact with ordinary matter or itself, but only interacts through gravity?

Are you serious steve? The stove example is an obviously poor one. You're mistaking "extraordinary evidence" and "better evidence" for "evidence that is not easily ascertained". The evidence may be harder to come by, "extraordinarily" difficult to get, you might say, but that doesn't make the evidence itself extraordinary. 

What do you even mean by extraordinary evidence? What would that be in your estimation? Just as you mindlessly repeat "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", another could say "evidence IS evidence". You can debate about a piece of evidence's strength, which would actually be productive; or, you can play games and say nebulous things like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

How can you misunderstand something as simple as this: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It known to Hume, Laplace, Wiseman and a whole bunch of others too, but not you. Which is requires better evidence. A hot stove will burn your fingers if touched? Or there's this mysterious stuff we know is there but which does not interact with ordinary matter or itself, but only interacts through gravity?

I'll just weigh in by saying that I always thought the whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" a bunch of hogwash. It is one of the few things Carl Sagan ever said that I thought was total BS. 

It feels like an extra (higher) bar that some would put in place to make particular (not so desirable to some?) things harder to prove. If such super duper proof is not required for other non-psi claims it has no place here. 

All that said: this extraordinary level of proof isn't even defined by anyone, so it is a standard that is impossible to meet even if one WERE to endeavor to do so,, which I will not.

I assume you've  include Hume, Laplace and Sagan. At least I'm in good company.

Actually no, Steve. This instead would be a nice opportunity to use the beloved critical thinking that Sagan et al. were so keen to promote.

If there exist a better standard of scientific evidence that allows us not to fool ourselves with things such as ESP/PSI, why the heck are we using an inferior one for things like finding cures to deadly illnesses, sending people in space or finding out how the cosmos work?

Postulating that such higher standard exists is admitting that most of our scientific knowledge stands on pretty shaky grounds.

Cheers

I'll just weigh in by saying that I always thought the whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" a bunch of hogwash. It is one of the few things Carl Sagan ever said that I thought was total BS. 

It feels like an extra (higher) bar that some would put in place to make particular (not so desirable to some?) things harder to prove. If such super duper proof is not required for other non-psi claims it has no place here. 

All that said: this extraordinary level of proof isn't even defined by anyone, so it is a standard that is impossible to meet even if one WERE to endeavor to do so,, which I will not.

He wasn't by far the first to say that.

Actually no, Steve. This instead would be a nice opportunity to use the beloved critical thinking that Sagan et al. were so keen to promote.

Well if we're talking about "I had no need of that hypothesis", the Laplace story is apocryphal.

 I'm less convinced about Sagan and Hume are such vaunted figures in terms of skepticism of the paranormal. They arguably have admirable qualities in other matters though.

Are you serious steve? The stove example is an obviously poor one. You're mistaking "extraordinary evidence" and "better evidence" for "evidence that is not easily ascertained". The evidence may be harder to come by, "extraordinarily" difficult to get, you might say, but that doesn't make the evidence itself extraordinary. 

What do you even mean by extraordinary evidence? What would that be in your estimation? Just as you mindlessly repeat "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", another could say "evidence IS evidence". You can debate about a piece of evidence's strength, which would actually be productive; or, you can play games and say nebulous things like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I guess my exaggerated example didn't work. I assume you've  include Hume, Laplace and Sagan. At least I'm in good company.

 I'm sure you can think of at least one extraordinary claim. I'll start with two, the heliocentric universe, the germ theory of disease. Your turn.

He wasn't by far the first to say that.

That may be true, but he always comes to mind when I hear that lame line.

Well if we're talking about "I had no need of that hypothesis", the Laplace story is apocryphal.

 I'm less convinced about Sagan and Hume are such vaunted figures in terms of skepticism of the paranormal. They arguably have admirable qualities in other matters though.

Hume’s Syndrome: Irrational Resistance to the Paranormal

One of the obstacles to progress in psychical research is irrational resistance to the phenomena. Among eighteenth-century Enlightenment writers, one type of resistance was evident that has persisted until present times. To illustrate, the present paper looks at David Hume’s discussion of miracles in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748/1955). Hume’s essay actually lays out a good case for some extraordinary events reported about the death of the Jansenist Francois de Paris—phenomena produced by the so-called ‘‘convulsionaries of St. Medard.’’ The contradiction is resolved by Hume himself, who naively reveals what motivates him to deny the overwhelming testimony he reviews: namely, his fear of validating religion. 

This paper notes the same pressure to deny ‘‘miracles’’ in another eighteenth-century writer, Edward Gibbon; Gibbon, however, unlike Hume, yields to the pressure of evidence and admits one startling instance of a well-documented preternatural event. 

A third figure from the same century is cited, a rationalistic Promotor Fidei of the Catholic Church, Prosper Lambertini, who, ironically, may be cited as having advanced the cause of the scientific investigation of psychic phenomena. The lesson from history is not to be seduced by stereotypes: an empiricist can deny and distort facts; a religious believer can be critical and objective.

See also:

When Science Becomes Scientism: Carl Sagan and His Demon-Haunted World

There's some stuff R.A.Wilson also noted questioning Sagan's integrity that I'll dig up.

I guess my exaggerated example didn't work. I assume you've  include Hume, Laplace and Sagan. At least I'm in good company.

 I'm sure you can think of at least one extraordinary claim. I'll start with two, the heliocentric universe, the germ theory of disease. Your turn.

I said extraordinary evidence, not extraordinary claim, so this is irrelevant. Nonetheless, I would say the multiverse and string theory.