Brian/Brigitte on "valid" evidence about The Mahatma Letters
Nov 01, 2002 07:11 AM
by Daniel H. Caldwell
"It would be nice in that case to see valid evidence [that the
mahatma] letters are what they say they are. And what constitute
valid evidence does not depends on me. At the moment there no
evidence, it only depends on if you want to believe it or not."
Brian/Brigitte's above comment got me thinking.
A critic may say that he is opened minded toward the issue of the
Mahatma Letters and whether "what they say they are" is true or not.
Such a critic may further state that he is cautious in his approach
and therefore needs "valid" evidence, "trustworthy" evidence to
convince him of the Mahatma Letters' "claim".
I think such a position is quite understandable and rational.
I do not know if Brian/Brigitte is that open-minded or not. I suspect
But if such a critic wants "valid" evidence before accepting the ML
claim, then it seems that the critic should be able to define (at
least in his own mind!) what kind of evidence he would accept as
In other words, such a critic should be able to specify in advance
the type of evidence (if found) that he would consider "valid"
If Brian/Brigitte will specify what kind of VALID evidence he/she has
in mind, some of us on this forum may be able to find just this kind
"At the moment there [is] NO EVIDENCE . . . . " caps added.
It is not evident exactly what is meant by this.
But this vague statement certainly reminds me of the position of
the "scoffer" of the paranormal. Here is Dr. Marcello Truzzi's
"The perspective of the scoffer, as with most dogmatists, tends to
distinguish only black from white and fails to acknowledge gray
areas. . . . Scoffers use a similar foreshortening towards issues of
evidence. It is common to hear statements to the effect that 'there
is no evidence supporting a claim' when in fact it is merely
inadequate evidence that has been presented. Evidence is always a
matter of degree, some being extremely weak; but even weak evidence
can mount up (as shown by meta-analysis) to produce a stronger case.
Weak evidence (most commonly anecdotal rather than systematic and
experimental evidence) is often discounted, however, by assertions
[by the scoffer] that it falls below some threshold of what science
should consider evidence at all. This, of course, eliminates the
evidential basis for most of clinical medicine and the social
sciences, but that seems to hold no terror for the scoffer who
invokes such criteria." Quoted from:
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application