‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’, is false. Any claim requires exactly one thing: sufficient evidence. The problem is that people would rather be impressed by something extraordinary than convinced by something sufficient. Sufficient evidence may be dull, ordinary, commonplace, not very impressive, but if it’s sufficient, then that’s all that is needed. Of course, evidence may be spectacular, jaw-dropping, amazing – but these factors have nothing to do with the sufficiency qua sufficiency . The problem, as I said, is that people conflate and confuse being convinced with being impressed, and take the latter to be the former. This is sloppy thinking.