Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00486)

Steve, you wrote:

> Note that the researchers said "no conclusions can be
> reached on the phenomena observed and described in
> this account because they occurred under informal
> conditions."
> 
> They were not discounting the possibility of unusual
> phenomena, but merely said that they and not Sai Baba
> had to control the conditions before the stories would
> have scientific validity. That standard can also be
> applied to other reputed miracle stories, such as
> those of Blavatsky. If the stories indicate that the
> conditions were poorly controlled, the miracles may be
> real, but the stories do not constitute scientific
> evidence. The Hartmann story is clearly in this
> category. So is the Ootan Liatto story. This is not
> aggressive skepticism, as has been charged, nor is it
> an effort to "bother" fundamentalists with
> uncomfortable truths or to "explain away" something
> someone else might wish to believe in. It is simply a
> canon of scientific and historical criticism which
> does not imply any judgement on the events being
> recorded.

Steve, much of what you say above merits thoughtful consideration and 
I agree with the thrust of what you say.

I certainly agree that we should have a positive skepticism toward 
various claims, etc. But I believe we should realize that there is a 
brand of skepticism, whether one calls it "agressive" or not, that 
can "explain away" any paranormal experience or for that matter any 
claim in science.. For good examples of this, I refer you to the 
extensive literature produced by many members of CSICOP and published 
by Prometheus Press. Read for example C.E.M Hansel's 
book "debunking" the paranormal.

This type of "debunking" and "skepticism" can explain away even the 2 
paranormal cases (HPB) that you mention in one of your previous posts.

I repeat again below what I wrote earlier regarding the type of 
argument and method employed in this type of skepticism.
----------------------------------------------

Steve, you wrote:

". . . . if chicanery is a plausible explanation, then the story 
is not evidence of anything." 

Steve, here is a statement that clearly shows me that you do NOT 
fully understand the vital difference between possible/plausible and 
probable. You can take ANY experience of the paranormal and ANY 
experiment in parapsychology and think up plausible and/or possible 
natural explanations for the experiences or experiments. 

C.E.M Hansel in his skeptical books on parapsychology is a master of 
looking for plausible or possible counterexplanations for the most 
famous experiments in parapsychology.

Here is an example from another writer. 

In the current web version of his book THE UNKNOWING SAGE, David 
Christopher Lane wrote:

". . .I have yet to unearth an airtight, empirical case for genuine 
psychic powers. There are always some uninspected loopholes which 
reveal that natural (versus supernatural) processes were 
involved. . . . "

David's words sound quite similar to remarks made by the Amazing 
James Randi, who is a member of CSICOP.

Notice that David Lane says that he has not discovered one AIRTIGHT 
case for genuine psychic powers; and that in all such 
cases "uninspected" [I assume this is a typo for "unsuspected"?] 
loopholes ....reveal that natural processes were involved."

Exactly how does Lane define "airtight"?

One dictionary defines "airtight" as follows:

"having no noticeable weakness, flaw or loophole." 

But the crucial question to ask is: Are those "unsuspected" 
loopholes "real" or only possibilities or plausibilities. 

Also, as far as I know, nothing is 100% airtight, or flawless.

James MClenon has written about the skeptical strategy of "unpacking" 
any successful parpsychological experiment.

"The goal of the critic using this strategy is to 'unpack' and 
examine in detail any experiment, and to demonstrate how 
methodological flaws *could* have entered into the experimental 
process, thereby producing an invalid results.. . .The 
critic ...thinks of some...methodological flaw that *could* have 
occurred. . . .His or her 'unpacking' of methodological assumptions
tends to render the experiment into an anecdotal form. . . .This 
unpacking strategy makes the 'perfect' ESP experiment an 
impossbility. Sooner or later, the critic will ask for information 
that is no longer available, or for a degree of experimental control 
and exactitude that is desirable in principle but impossible in 
practice. . . .[Another] rhetorical ploy is to demand total 
perfection. It is always possible for critics to think of more rigid
methodological procedures after an experiment has been conducted...
The a priori arguments of the critics mean it is highly logical to 
assume that, within *all* experiments which successfully 'prove' the 
existence of psi, there must be an 'error some place'."

This unpacking method can ALSO be used on paranormal experiences.

Ray Hyman, a psychologist and also a skeptic of the paranormal, has 
agreed that in using such A METHOD OF ARGUMENT, "it is ALWAYS 
possible to 'imagine' SOME scenario in which [for example] cheating 
[or lying], no matter how implausible, COULD HAVE occurred."

Using such a METHOD is "illegitimate" [as Marcello Truzzi, a 
sociologist and another skeptic of the parnormal points out] because 
by its use, "one can 'hypothetically' explain away ANY result [even] 
in science."

Turning from paranormal experiments, consider "suspected" flaws in 
regular scientific experiments. Pray tell, is there even one 
experiment in science that has no "possible" or "plausible" flaws?

In effect, this TYPE OF ARGUMENT and the process of UNPACKING an 
experiment or a testimonial account becomes a game in which the 
skeptic cannot lose!

Turning to the realm of NORMAL historical inquiry, the historians 
Barzun and Graff point out:

"If you receive a letter from a relative that [1] bears what looks 
like her signature, that [2] refers to family matters you and she 
commonly discuss, and that [3] was postmarked in the city where she 
lives, the probability is very great that she wrote it."

"The contrary hypothesis would need at least as many opposing signs
[of evidence] in order to take root in your mind---though the 
possibility of forgery. . .is always there."

Please note that the hypothesis that the letter is really written by 
your relative is supported by three positive signs of evidence. But 
as Barzun and Graff point out, even in spite of all that, the 
POSSIBILITY or PLAUSIBILITY of forgery is ALWAYS there! An 
critic using the UNPACKING method could take the ball at this step 
and try to "explain away" the three pieces of evidence.

For example, the skeptic could "reason":

"Isn't it possible or plausible that [1] the relative's signature was 
forged, and, isn't it possible or plausible that [2] some "forger" 
was somehow privy to family matters, and, furthermore, isn't it 
possible or plausible that [3] the forger could have mailed the 
letter in the city where your relative lives to throw you off the 
track?"

And if you (the level-headed researcher) objected to such speculation 
by your resident skeptic, he might quip:

"Prove to me that the three statements, I just listed, aren't 
possible or plausible! Didn't Barzun and Graff admit that THE
POSSIBILITY OF FORGERY ...IS ALWAYS THERE?"

But the perceptive researcher should point out to his skeptical friend
that POSSIBILITIES and PLAUSIBILITIES are not to be confused with 
PROBABLITIES. Barzun and Graffe clearly enunciate an important 
dictum for the researcher:

"The rule of 'Give Evidence' is not be be violated. . . .No matter how
possible or plausible the author's conjecture it cannot be accepted
as truth if he has only his hunch [which is not evidence] to support 
it. Truth rests not on possibility or plausibility but on 
probability. Probability means the balance of chances that, GIVEN 
SUCH AND SUCH EVIDENCE, the event it records happened in a certain 
way; or, in other cases, that a supposed event did not in fact take 
place."

Unfortunately, far too many skeptics of the parnormal become fixated
on "possibilities" AND "plausibilities" and never progress beyond to 
considering "probabilities." Such skeptics---after pointing out that 
if two or more explanations are possible or plausible, none are 
proved---SEEM TO BE UNINTERESTED in the question of where the 
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE lies. Many of these skeptics fixate and 
speculate (almost ad infinitum and ad nauseam) on various 
possibilities and plausibilities ---hoping that careless readers will 
ASSUME that 'something' has been proven or disproven by such 
rhetoric."

So when David Lane writes: "I have yet to unearth an airtight, 
empirical case for genuine psychic powers. There are always some 
uninspected loopholes which reveal that natural (versus supernatural) 
processes were involved," is he referring to "possible" 
or "plausible" loopholes that he has conjured up in his imagination 
or is he talking about loopholes that can be documented with 
evidence? 

Furthermore, if by "airtight" David Lane wants to convey the meaning 
of perfect, flawless, 100% confirmed, then I would say he is living 
in a "fairytale" world. What is completely flawless? For example, is 
there a medical test in the world that will give accurate results 
anytime, anywhere, under any and every condition?

One of my major criticisms of K. Paul Johnson's books was his 
excessive speculations about what might be plausible or possible 
without ever going to THE NEXT STEP and trying to determine what is 
most PROBABLE in light of all the known evidence, both pro, con and 
neutral.

Steve, your statement: ". . . . if chicanery is a plausible 
explanation, then the story is not evidence of anything." shows me 
that you also do not fully understand the vital difference between 
possible/plausible and probable.

IN SUMMARY, there is no historical account and no scientific 
experiment where there are not plausible or possible 
counterexplanations. Therefore as Truzzi says: "one 
can 'hypothetically' explain away ANY result [even] in science" by 
using plausible/possible arguments.

Steve, in closing, I give again the Hartmann account below which I 
think you multilated in your UNPACKING method.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc

HARTMANN'S ACCOUNT:

This morning at half-past eleven I went upstairs to Madame 
Blavatsky's room and had a conversation with her in regard to
society 
matters. After this conversation the thought came in my mind to ask 
her opinion in regard to a certain subject of which I had been 
thinking. Madame Blavatsky advised me to apply to the Master 
himself, to ask him mentally, and that the Master himself would 
surely answer my question. A few minutes later she said she felt his 
presence, and that she saw him writing. I must say that I too felt 
his influence and seemed to see his face, but of course this 
circumstance will carry conviction to no one but myself. 

Just then another lady came in, to my great annoyance, and expressed 
her wish to have a pair of pincers, which she needed for some 
purpose, and remembering that I had such a pair of pincers in the 
drawer of my writing desk, I went downstairs into my room to get 
them. I opened the drawer, saw the pincers and a few other things in 
there, but no vestige of any letter, as I had removed my papers the 
day before to another place. I took the pincers and was about to 
close the drawer, when --- there lay in the drawer a great envelope, 
addressed to me in the well-known handwriting of the Master and 
sealed with the seal bearing his initials in Tibetan characters. On 
opening it, I found a long, very kind and somewhat complimentary 
letter, treating of the identical questions, about which I had just 
been talking with Madame Blavatsky, besides giving a detailed and 
satisfactory answer to the very question which had so perplexed my 
mind, and a satisfactory explanation of certain matters, which for 
some time had been foremost in my mind, but of which I had said 
nothing at all. 

Moreover, there was in the same envelope a photograph, cabinet-size, 
of the Master's face, with a dedication to me at the back. This 
picture will henceforth be considered as the greatest treasure in my 
possession. 

Now, if I know anything at all, I know that my drawer contained no 
such letter, when I opened it, and that there was nobody visible in 
my room at that time. The letter, giving a detailed answer to my 
question, must have been written, sealed and put into the drawer in 
less than four minutes, while it took exactly forty minutes to copy 
it the next day; and finally, it treated a very difficult problem in 
such an elaborate and yet concise manner, that only an intelligence 
of the highest order could have done the same.