Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00489)

----------
> From: danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World The "possibility/plausibility" method of argument:
An example
> Date: Saturday, December 22, 2001 11:59 PM
> 
> "Truth rests not on possibility or plausibility but on probability."
> --- Barzun and Graffe, THE MODERN RESEARCHER


I don't think so. Better to say "That which is probably true rests not on
possibility or plausibility but on probability." 


> The "possibility/plausibility" method of argument is a very useful 
> tool in unpacking and throwing doubt on ANY normal or paranormal 
> event/experience/experiment.


Agreed.

> I give below an excellent example of this method of argument from THE 
> TRANSCENDENTAL TEMPTATION by Paul Kurtz, a founding member of 
> CSICOP. Notice how Kurtz focuses on POSSIBILITIES/PLAUSIBILITIES. I 
> put certain words in CAPS to show his technique.
> 
> "Many psychic investigators were apparently impressed by the Fielding 
> report on Eusapia Palladino [the famous Italian medium]. . . .Were 
> some of the medium's manifestations genuine? . . . Or MAY WE SURMISE 
> that Eusapia was more clever than Feilding and his associates? DID 
> EUSAPIA HAVE accomplices --- PERHAPS Italians, scientists, and 
> friends who had attended several seances, or even Carrington? DID 
> SHE USE every trick in the book, changing them to suit her purposes? 
> Since she was a voluptuous woman, WERE HER MALE SITTERS taken in by 
> her erotic charms and DID THEY FAIL to take the proper precautions? 
> Eusapia was OBVIOUSLY a master illusionist, well-versed in her craft; 
> and those who sat with her, through skilled in their specialties, MAY 
> PERHAPS have been outsmarted by her. The Feilding report denies the 
> POSSIBILITY of accomplices or prearrangments in the hotel. But 
> should we accept the denial?"
> 
> MAY WE SURMISE....PERHAPS...MAY PERHAPS.
> 
> "Where's the beef?" Kurtz offers only POSSIBILITIES & 
> PLAUSIBILITES. But Kurtz does NOT offer any evidence to his readers 
> to help them answer his questions. Some readers might falsely assume 
> that "something" has been proven or disproven by Kurtz's use of this 
> method of argument.

Kurtz offers possibilities. One must either prove the possibilities
impossible or acknowledge them as possibilities however slight. One thing
is for sure: Whatever is probable is also possible.


> 
> It should be pointed out that in contrast to Kurtz's "perhaps", the 
> Feilding Report offers various kinds of EVIDENCE in support of the 
> authors' conclusions.
> 
> That is not to say that the questions entertained by Kurtz are not 
> worthy of consideration. But such questions should lead to further 
> research on the subject and to the accumulation of evidence. 
> 
> In fact, the Feilding Report contains EVIDENCE that would actually 
> answer many of Kurtz's questions.
> 
> The above example illustrates Ray Hyman's statement that "it is 
> ALWAYS possible to 'imagine' SOME scenario in which cheating no 
> matter how implausible, COULD HAVE occurred."
> 
> By using this "possibility/plausibility" method of argument, "one 
> can 'HYPOTHETICALLY' explain away ANY result [even] in science [or 
> history or the paranormal]."
> 
> My notebooks are full of hundreds of such examples from the skeptical 
> literature on the paranormal.

What evidence do you have that the two incidents under discussion were not
drug related, despite the particular language used to describe them and the
historical context in which they occurred? 

Bill
> 
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>