Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00502)

----------
> From: Steve Stubbs <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World The "possibility/plausibility" method of
argument: An example
> Date: Sunday, December 23, 2001 11:56 AM
> 
> 
> --- danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I give below an excellent example of this method of
> 7> argument from THE 
> > TRANSCENDENTAL TEMPTATION by Paul Kurtz, a founding
> > member of 
> > CSICOP.
> 
> CSICOP exists for the purpose of pleading a case
> decided before the fact, just as theosophical
> fundamentalism does. What I am saying is that the
> question remains open until solid evidence is
> produced. There is an important difference there.
> 

Agreed

> > 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. 
> 
> The questions should be dealt with by replicating the
> experiment with improved test conditions.

I think that developing a test to verify Olcott's paranormal experiences
is impossible. Olcott is dead. 

> As we have seen with Sai Baba, some people are so good
> at sleight of hand and some witneses ae so dishonest
> that even seeing is not believing. The only way to
> prove that dishes can be materialized out of thin air
> is to do it yourself. That was you can absolutely
> rule out sleight of hand and every sort of other
> nonsense. Once you prove it possible, then you prove
> the plausibility of claims made in the past.


The claims are that certain individuals because of their individuality are
capable of certain psychic phenomena that other individuals in the
scientifically exact same conditions are not capable of. Proving that Sai
Baba could materialize gold out of thin air would only prove that it could
be done by Sai Baba -- not by Bill or Steve or HPB. This is the problem
that evades the scientific inquiry.

> > 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."
> 
> That's not quite fair. I open the regrigerator and
> pull out an orange. You can say it materialized out
> of thin air a moment before. I say I put it there
> when I got home from the store last Friday. Neither
> theory can be proved to a True Believer in the other. 
> But which one makes more sense?
>

What very well could have happened is that the orange you put in the fridge
last Friday has been eaten already and the orange that you now pull out
(while it looks, smells, feels, and tastes like your orange from last
Friday is really an orange your wife placed in the fridge yesterday
(Saturday). Which makes more sense? In my family my story does.


> > By using this "possibility/plausibility" method of
> > argument, "one 
> > can 'HYPOTHETICALLY' explain away ANY result [even]
> > in science [or 
> > history or the paranormal]."
> 
> Not true. I place a pot of water over a fire. The
> water boils. The experiment can be replicated. How
> would you explain that away?
>

I place a (very large) pot of (frozen) water (20 feet up) over a (match)
fire. The water does not boil. The experiment can be replicated. The
validity of comparison between experiments (experiences) is in the
details. A psychic phenomenon is individualized by definition. If
everyone could produce flowers out of thin air it would not be a paranormal
experience. 


> Bear in mind the question here is not of urging people
> to believe or disbelieve what fundamentalists believe.
> The question is one of how to think clearly and
> evaluate evidence.


I agree. In my mind the only evidence of a paranormal experience that I
could accept as proof of probability over possibility would be my own
observation of my own experience. And even then I could be delusional. 
But I wouldn't know about that.

Bill
> Steve
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>