Personally I don't really like the wording of 'extraordinary evidence'. In fact, for most extraordinary claims the level of evidence the scientific community re

Personally I don't really like the wording of 'extraordinary evidence'. In fact, for most extraordinary claims the level of evidence the scientific community requires isn't that extraordinary at all. There is also a very real danger of misinterpreting the adjective 'extraordinary'. Take for example statistics. It might be tempting to say that a higher correlation and/or significance is more extraordinary, but I would say any significant result should suffice. My point is that, 'extraordinary' should not apply to the result, but to the experiment itself. To test an (extraordinary) hypothesis, we should design experiments as if we really want to disprove the hypothesis.