You don't get to claim yourself that the evidence you obtained is extraordinary

Go through Lisper's history, he is quite literally never incorrect, even when he has no evidence or outright dodges all questions.

His performance in a philosophy thread a while back was extraordinary, explaining the truth and true value of various philosophy and philosophers, despite not having read it.

This is the power of The Science, nothing is more powerful, and nothing can be more powerful.

Yes, extraordinary is just a function of replication (number, diversity, quality, reputation) and sigmas. It has to satisfy a significant majority of scientists (peers), with diverse relevant qualifications (theoretical, experimental, across relevant disciplines), for a significant time.

They didn't, and that's obviously not what I meant.