Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00515)

Daniel: "Steve, if I understand your reasoning, you
are 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 you contend
these two accounts are in the other category of
"scientific evidence". Right?

Almost. What I said is that they baffle me, and
therefore look like excellent candidates for
scientific evidence, whereas the Ootan Liatto and
Hartmann stories are not candidates at all. One of
them was carefully observed by a trained observer
(i.e., the Gephart incident). What is required is for
someone with the skill level of David Copperfield to
give a more competent opinion.

Steve

--- danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SUBJECT: Steve Stubbs: ". . . if chicanery is a
> plausible 
> explanation, then the story is not evidence of
> anything. . . ."
> 
> In several postings, Steve, you have tried to draw a
> DEFINITE 
> DISTINCTION between (1) Blavatsky-related phenomena
> that you consider 
> as "not evidence of anything" and (2)
> Blavatsky-related phenomena 
> that in fact "constitutes scientific evidence". The
> gist of your 
> argument and reasoning can be found in the following
> four excerpts 
> from your postings:
> 
> (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
> ]
> 
> [The Ooton Liatto story can be found at:
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcottooton.htm
> The Hartmann story is at the very bottom of the page
> at:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4421
> ]
> 
> 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,you 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." [For this
> account, see
>
http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/books/esotericworld/chapter14/
> Narrative 14b ]
> 
> "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." [For these accounts, see Sinnett at:
>
http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/books/esotericworld/chapter10/
> Narrative 10a and Olcott at:
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcott01.htm ]
> 
> "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
> ]
> 
> Steve, if I understood your reasoning and thinking
> on this issue,
> you are saying that the cup and saucer and the
> Gebhard letter 
> incidents CANNOT plausibly be explained away as:
> 
> (1) some kind of hallucination caused by drugs
> 
> (2) a faked and staged event (like your "planting of
> the
> Hartmann letter" explanation) or
> 
> (3) by some other "plausible alternative
> explanation".
> 
> Steve, if I understand your reasoning, you are
> 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 you contend these two accounts
> are in the other 
> category of "scientific evidence".
> 
> Right?
> 
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com