Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00038)

In recent postings, Steve Stubbs has tried to draw a DEFINITE and 
VITAL DISTINCTION between (1) Blavatsky-related phenomena that he 
considers as "not evidence of anything" and (2) Blavatsky-related 
phenomena that in fact "constitutes scientific evidence". The gist 
of Steve's argument and reasoning can be found in the following four 
excerpts:

(1) "The historical problem is. . . whether a specific alleged 
phenomenon was produced under conditions which would exclude 
chicanery as a plausible alternative explanation. That is not to say 
that the phenomenon WAS produced by chicanery, but if chicanery is a 
plausible explanation, then the story is not evidence of 
anything. . . ."
[Quoted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4210 ]

(2) ". . . I said some months ago that there were two [Blavatsky-
related] phenomena which seemed to satisfy the requirements for 
constituting scientific evidence. . . . The Ootan Liatto story is not 
one of them. Nor is the account by Hartmann that you published."
[Quoted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4253 ]

(3) "If the [miracle] stories [of Blavatsky] 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." 
[Quoted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4420 ]

In response to these three statments, I wrote:

"Steve, please briefly cite the TWO CASES regarding Blavatsky's 
phenomena that . . . you think constitute 'scientific evidence'."

Steve replied:

(4) "One of them occurred at the Gephard house and is outlined in 
Sinnett's INCIDENTS. It involved the reported materialization of a 
letter and was very carefully observed by a trained conjurer, who 
said he saw no evidence of chicanery."

"The other was reported by both Sinnett and Olcott and described in 
great detail by both. It involved the reported materialization of 
dishes which were dug from the ground. Tree roots were said to have 
grown thickly around the stuff in question, and the ground was 
undisturbed, meaning (1) the dishes were there for some very 
considerable period of time, or (2) the phenomenon must have been 
real."

"Both of those accounts impress me, which is another way of saying 
they baffle me. . . . Most of the rest are quite easily
explained."
[Quoted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4449 ]

Brigitte, since you have just today quoted the Judge narrative and 
implied that it can be [plausibly] explained [away] as one of 
Blavatsky's psychological tricks [employing fumigations or something 
else??], then I ask you: 

Do you agree with Steve's assessment about the two cases: (1)letter 
received in the Gebhard house and (2) the cup and saucer incident?

If I understand Steve's reasoning, then he is maintaining that these 
two incidents CANNOT be plausibly explained away as instances of 
chicanery. If this could be sucessfully done, then the two incidents 
would have to be classified in the category of "not evidence of 
anything". Instead Steve contends these two accounts are in the 
other category of "scientific evidence". 

Brigitte, from reading scores of your postings in the past months, I 
cannot believe that you would agree with his assessment and reasoning.
Would you please state your position on these two cases and if you 
disagree with Steve's reasoning, can you explain why you disagree?

If in fact you disagree with Steve, then what is the crux of the 
matter in this disagreement?