Carl Sagan popularized the maxim, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“. And, as heuristics go, it’s not a bad policy. If Sam says, “I had a delicious tiramisu last night”, and Chris says, “I demonstrated cold fusion in my apartment last night”, then Chris should face a much higher evidentiary standard than Sam.
■ Similarly, extraordinary recognition should require extraordinary merit. We do not use the same standards for naming park benches and national parks. This does not stop people from making contests out of individual name choices, like whether William McKinley really deserves to eclipse the traditional name of Denali. At least, though, we can recognize the need for elevated standards.
■ Doris Miller’s actions on the day Pearl Harbor was attacked were worthy of extraordinary recognition, not because we can do any more to applaud him in life, but because he stands as a lofty role model worth emulating. Plans to name an aircraft carrier after him seem like a worthy way to recognize him (with the intent of urging sailors to live up to a similar standard).
■ Talk of rescinding that name would be a serious mistake. Names aren’t everything, but they do stand for something. How we choose to apply those names says a lot about what we profess to value most.
