There appears to be a missing therefor in the article. He seems to be hinting that the old adage “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” isn’t as

There appears to be a missing therefor in the article. He seems to be hinting that the old adage “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” isn’t as convincing as it sounds because strong (but really extraordinary) evidence is all around us. However, there is a decided lack of extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. That’s why they strike us as extraordinary. We’ve never seen them before. We’ve never seen anything like them. In fact all prior evidence has been strong evidence for ordinary claims.