Why do sceptics always demand MORE evidence than believers need?

This has been nagging at me for a while and I want to genuinely understand the logic: why is it that to convince a sceptic of something paranormal, you need multiple independent peer-reviewed studies with reproducible results and control groups, but to convince a believer, a photo that might be pareidolia and a story from someone's mate is sufficient?

I'm not saying believers are stupid - I'm saying the epistemic standards are wildly different depending on which direction the belief goes. And I'm curious if sceptics realize how intellectually unfair that is, or if they've got a good justification I'm missing.

Is it just that "burden of proof" argument? Because that argument assumes the default state is disbelief, but that's also an assumption. Why should disbelief be the default?

The burden of proof thing isn't arbitrary - it's because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim the car in your driveway is red, I'll probably believe you. If you claim it turned invisible at midnight, I want more evidence. That's not unfair, that's just rational calibration.

Why should disbelief be the default?

But the poster makes a fair point about asymmetry. Believers will accept anecdotal evidence as valid data. Sceptics will dismiss the same anecdotal evidence without even engaging with it. Both are wrong. We should all be applying consistent epistemological standards - that means taking anecdotes seriously *and* recognizing they're not definitive proof.

The real issue is we live in a world where almost nothing can be proven absolutely. We work with probabilities and explanatory power. An explanation that fits all available evidence is better than one that requires ignoring inconvenient data. Scepticism of the paranormal usually has better explanatory power because it doesn't require new physics.

I think the poster's right that there's an asymmetry, but not the way they frame it. It's not that sceptics demand more evidence - it's that they demand evidence that *falsifies* alternative hypotheses. A blurry photo doesn't do that. It's consistent with "ghost" and "misidentification" and "camera artifact." Sceptics want to rule out the mundane explanations first.

Here's a thought: what if instead of debating who demands more evidence, we agreed that *all* claims need proportionate evidence? Small claim, smaller evidence threshold. Massive claim, massive evidence threshold. That seems fairer than the current state where people pick their favorite explanation and then set the evidence bar accordingly.