This is a basic tenet in most jurisprudence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Anyone who makes wild claims about anything had better bring a whole load of evidence with them.
“This is a basic tenet in most jurisprudence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
Hmm. I was a trial lawyer for 25 years and never ran into this one. Civil trials require a preponderance of evidence. Criminal, beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you had this other standard, then whoever gets to define what’s extraordinary wins almost every time.