Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: evaluating nodule-associated dark oxygen production

Critical Thinking in Anesthesia

We read with much interest McCoy et al's report on 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors associated with reduced frequency of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms in males with androgenetic alopecia (AGA).1 Incidentally, a day later, a previously healthy 40-year-old man treating his AGA with 1 mg oral finasteride daily since 2 years reported having suffered from confirmed infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) only two months earlier. Clinical symptoms of COVID-19 were severe, with fever (>38°C), dry cough, shortness of breath, pneumonia, sore throat, anosmia, ageusia, nausea, anorexia, headache, fatigue, myalgia and lower back pain, despite having remained on his medication with finasteride during the whole course of the infection. The disease duration was 3 weeks. Goren et al originally published their hypothesis of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infectiveness and the androgen pathway, which presumably results in an androgen-mediated higher SARS-CoV-2 vulnerability and mortality rate from COVID-19 in males,2 and suggested that patients with AGA were at a particular risk of severe symptoms based on the underlying peculiarities of androgen metabolism. However, their respective studies3-5 have been scrutinized and not found to be convincing by other authors with regard to the accuracy and validity of the statistics.6, 7 And yet, the same league of authors, just in slightly different combinations, has continued to provide within a short time a number of publications aiming at corroborating their hypothesis. Ultimately, they suggested that antiandrogen treatment, including the 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors, could have a therapeutic benefit, while experts challenged the protective effect of androgen deprivation therapy in a study of patients aged ≥70 years with metastatic prostate cancer.8 The novel viral pandemic COVID-19 has sparked uncertainties and controversies worldwide as to its origin, natural course and treatment. In this situation, the medical disciplines strive to contribute to a better understanding of the disease, some with a sound and sober approach, and the best available evidence gained from the scientific method of observation and statistics, and others with a propensity for publicity with the respective reverberation in the social media.9 Science Integrity Digest (www.scienceintegritydigest.com) has recently drawn attention to the practice of some groups of authors cranking up the number of papers on their resumes. In one of the journals indicted in this practice, allegedly, the Editor-in-Chief and associates, many from the editorial board with invited co-authorships of reputed dermatologists involved in hair, publish dozens of papers, frequently in form of letters to the editor, on COVID-19, with some peer reviews taking less than 24 h, and then cite themselves in other publications. Finally, despite the dermatologic nature of the respective journal, and the corresponding background of the authors, some of these papers have nothing to do with dermatology. We are aware that despite all odds there are ongoing studies on both 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (dutasteride) and antiandrogens (proxalutamide) in the treatment of COVID-19, regardless of some experts discouraging the compassionate use of drugs that suppress pituitary gonadotropin secretion or inhibition of androgen synthesis or the androgen receptor in an attempt to decrease SARS-CoV-2 infection risk or to alleviate the course of COVID-19.10 Notwithstanding our own observation, we are eager to see whether the results of randomized, controlled clinical trials will finally provide the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims, beyond pretty graphics and catchpenny pretences. None. All authors (RMT, AR, NC-U, MFRGD and HDR) have nothing to disclose. The patient in this manuscript has given written informed consent to publication of his case details.

This chapter looks at Carl Sagan's famous dictum: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The gist seems to be that one does not have sufficient reason to credit an extraordinary claim unless one also has commensurately extraordinary evidence to support it. This looks reasonable enough at first glance but its vagueness leaves it open to several interpretations, some of which are incompatible with the norms of rational inquiry. In particular, while Sagan's dictum is a justified skeptical response to claims that are known to be highly improbable or contrary to well-substantiated science, it is irrational and contrary to scientific objectivity to demand extraordinary evidence for those that are merely amazing or bizarre, and thus Sagan's dictum must be handled with caution in astrobiology. The chapter then sets out the conditions under which an appeal to Sagan's dictum is justified and those under which it is not, with special reference to existing and anticipated astrobiological debates.

Dishman challenged kinesiologists to seek a compromise between “the ideal physiological prescription and a manageable behavioral prescription.” High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is the first exercise modality that has been claimed to meet this challenge, combining substantial benefits for fitness and health with pleasure and enjoyment. If true, these claims may revolutionize the science and practice of exercise. In this paper, four claims are critically appraised: (a) HIIT lowers the risk of mortality more than moderate-intensity continuous exercise, (b) HIIT doubles endurance performance after only 15 min of training over 2 weeks, (c) 1 min of HIIT is equivalent to 45 min of moderate-intensity continuous exercise, and (d) HIIT is more pleasant and enjoyable than moderate-intensity continuous exercise. The evidence for these claims appears questionable. Kinesiology should heed the principle endorsed by Hume, Laplace, and Sagan, namely that extraordinary claims should be supported by commensurate evidence.

Roberts (2020, Learning & Behavior, 48[2], 191–192) discussed research claiming honeybees can do arithmetic. Some readers of this research might regard such claims as unlikely. The present authors used this example as a basis for a debate on the criterion that ought to be used for publication of results or conclusions that could be viewed as unlikely by a significant number of readers, editors, or reviewers.

In 1979 astronomer Carl Sagan popularized the aphorism “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). But Sagan never defined the term “extraordinary.” Ambiguity in what constitutes “extraordinary” has led to misuse of the aphorism. ECREE is commonly invoked to discredit research dealing with scientific anomalies, and has even been rhetorically employed in attempts to raise doubts concerning mainstream scientific hypotheses that have substantive empirical support. The origin of ECREE lies in eighteenth-century Enlightenment criticisms of miracles. The most important of these was Hume’s essay On Miracles. Hume precisely defined an extraordinary claim as one that is directly contradicted by a massive amount of existing evidence. For a claim to qualify as extraordinary there must exist overwhelming empirical data of the exact antithesis. Extraordinary evidence is not a separate category or type of evidence--it is an extraordinarily large number of observations. Claims that are merely novel or those which violate human consensus are not properly characterized as extraordinary. Science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge.

We read with interest the issues raised by Veirman et al. (2023) about our article, ‘The Relationship of Alexithymia to Pain and Other Symptoms in Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis’ (Habibi Asgarabad et al., 2023). Here, we reflect on some of the points they raised—agreeing with some and challenging others. Regarding the assessment of alexithymia with the TAS, we agree that self-report scales have their limitations, and various criticisms have long been made about the self-report of alexithymia generally and of the TAS specifically. Although a few non-self-report measures of alexithymia and emotional awareness exist, the vast majority of studies have used the TAS for assessing alexithymia, as noted in a larger review and meta-analysis of the role of alexithymia in chronic pain (i.e., Aaron et al., 2019). Also, there are long-discussed concerns about the reliability and validity of the externally oriented thinking facet of the TAS, although the scale developers have advocated for interpreting only the full scale rather than the separate facets. Importantly, we noted all of these concerns about the TAS in our article's discussion, appropriately reporting the limitations and pointing to alterative interpretations, including the recommendation that future studies assess alexithymia using observer-rated measures or structured interviews. But our larger goal was to review and meta-analyse the literature as it currently exists, despite its measurement limitations. Veirman et al. (2023) remind us to be mindful of the fact that validity of a measure may vary across populations and contexts, that we should be cautious when using the TAS in people with medical conditions and that some of its items might better reflect constructs other than alexithymia. We generally agree with these concerns, although we find it ironic that they justify these points by referring to their own research (Veirman et al., 2021), which was conducted on a small sample of healthy college students, not people with pain or health problems, which was the focus of our review. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that Veirman et al. (2021) found support for the validity of two facets of the TAS (difficulty identifying feeling and difficulty describing feelings) in their sample of students. We also agree with the need for caution regarding the interpretation of the observed cross-sectional associations as indicating that alexithymia is a risk factor for FM, and we noted in our discussion that there are alternative interpretations (third-variable and reverse causality). We agree that prospective studies are desirable, and there exist prospective studies that support the view that various emotionally salient problems or emotionally dysregulating events predict later widespread pain and FM. More generally, there is evidence for the role of traumatic events, post-traumatic stress disorder and other emotion dysregulations as contributing to FM and related centralized problems. We consider alexithymia to be one common manifestation of emotional dysregulation; thus, although prospective research on alexithymia per se as a risk for FM may be lacking, there is substantial research on related processes. Furthermore, there are several valuable integrative models of the development of FM, and disturbed emotional processes such as alexithymia play a role in such models—albeit certainly not the only role (Pinto et al., 2023). Yet, even prospective studies are limited. Not only are they difficult to conduct well and require years to complete, but they remain correlational and susceptible to uncontrolled variables, competing constructs and complex iterative processes. Prospective studies commonly yield continued questions and debate, which can lead to the usual recommendation of ‘more research is needed’. Rather than waiting for decades for a sufficient number of prospective studies of alexithymia and FM to be conducted, we recommend another approach to test possible causality of a risk factor for a health problem: one can experimentally reduce or eliminate the risk factor and determine the effects on the health problem. Indeed, our recommendation for using emotion-focused therapies for FM follows this logic. It also has the advantage of actually trying to help people with FM now, rather than wait for the slow accretion of supportive correlational evidence before (possibly) intervening. Intervention research can and should be conducted both to test hypotheses and help people in need—sooner rather than later. Finally, we challenge the authors' core thesis: ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. Did we make an ‘extraordinary claim’? Such a charge would fit if we claimed the validity of supernatural cures, extrasensory perception or alien abduction. Few scholars, however, find ‘extraordinary’ the claim that problematic emotional processes, often stemming from difficult developmental experiences, contribute to many cases of FM and related centralized problems, and research should test interventions to address these problems. All authors declare no conflict of interest.

High-harmonic generation (HHG) provides for efficient and coherent XUV generation for a wide range of spectroscopic applications, enabling attosecond spectroscopy, ultrafast photo-emission spectroscopy, or ultrahigh spatial resolution imaging [1]. Conventionally HHG is based on the use of high power amplified femtosecond laser pulses, special phase matching techniques, or intra-cavity field enhancement. As a compelling alternative, resonant plasmonic field enhancement in metallic nanostructures has been proposed to achieve the necessary peak intensity for HHG. Using nJ pulses from a Ti:S oscillator, XUV generation attributed to plasmon-enhanced HHG was reported in 2008 by the group of Seung-Woo Kim from KAIST in Daejeon, Korea, first in Ar [2] and later

Extraordinary Claims Don’t always Require Extraordinary Evidence, but They Do Require Good Quality Evidence

Knowledge of true mortality trajectory at extreme old ages is important for biologists who test their theories of aging with demographic data. Studies using both simulation and direct age validation found that longevity records for ages 105 years and older are often incorrect and may lead to spurious mortality deceleration and mortality plateau. After age 105 years, longevity claims should be considered as extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. Traditional methods of data cleaning and data quality control are just not sufficient. New, more strict methodologies of data quality control need to be developed and tested. Before this happens, all mortality estimates for ages above 105 years should be treated with caution.

Veksler and Gunzelmann (2017) make an extraordinary claim, which is that sleep deprivation effects and the vigilance decrement are functionally equivalent. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is missing from Veksler and Gunzelmann's study. Their behavioral data offer only weak theoretical constraint, and to the extent their modeling exercise supports any position, it is that these two performance impairments involve functionally distinct underlying mechanisms.

In the modern epoch, the question of life on Mars dates from the pioneering observations of the great Italian astronomer Giovanni Virginio Schiaparelli (1835–1910) who recorded the presence of linear features on Mars’ surface that were thereafter interpreted by Percival Lowell (1855–1916) — an influential if somewhat eccentric American astronomer — as artificial canals, aqueducts built by an advanced civilization to link the planet’s icy water-rich poles to its arid equatorial deserts. By 1924, belief in “life on Mars” had become so widespread, so notably pervasive, that in August of that year — when the orbits of Earth and Mars were especially close — governments worldwide urged their citizens to turn off their home radios so that supersenstitive receivers could listen during an hour-long period for signals from beings on the Red Planet. Though this attempt, of course, came to naught, and though even to the present day there remains no firm evidence of any type of life on Mars — past or present, primitive or advanced — the question of life on the Red Planet has lingered on, lying dormant for years at a time only to rise again in the public mind as it did most recently in August 1996, spurred by NASA’s now famous report of possible evidence of “ancient Martian microbes.”. Though the report first looked promising, it has since failed to meet the test. The late Carl Sagan phrased it well: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and, plainly put, there is still no clearcut evidence, no “smoking gun,” to back this extraordinary claim. But it would be wrong to think that the matter is closed, for in truth the question of life on Mars simply remains unanswered — no more, no less — a status captured by another telling Saganism: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!”

A device — referred to as a photonic quantum heat engine — was reported in Nature Photonics [J. Kim, S. Oh, D. Yang, J. Kim, M. Lee and K. An, A photonic quantum engine driven by superradiance, Nat. Photon. 16 (2022) 707–711] with an efficiency of [Formula: see text]%. Moreover, in a related News & Views contribution in the same issue [M. Kim, M. Scully and A. Svidzinsky, A supercharged photonic quantum heat engine, Nat. Photon. 16 (2022) 669–670], this device was reported to exceed the Carnot limit, an extraordinary claim. As Carl Sagan once remarked, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Here, we outline the fundamental lack of empirical evidence that would be required to support such a claim, show that the actual efficiency of the device is [Formula: see text] 0% and bring to attention critical aspects of the operating physics of the device.

The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore

ABSTRACTWe propose a Bayesian framework as an important theoretical and methodological tool to improve the scientific study of religion. At a theoretical level, the Bayesian predictive processing framework has the potential to provide a unifying account of religious beliefs and experience by stressing the central role of error monitoring and error correction in belief maintenance. At a methodological level, Bayesian statistics are needed to provide the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary theoretical claims regarding the causes and consequences of religion.