Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00356)

Concerning the "Gebhard Letter" account which can be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8451

Steve Stubbs recently commented on this forum:

"The Shannon letter and the Gebhard letter are GOOD CANDIDATES for 
evidence that some letters were delivered by PHENOMENAL means."

Quoted from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8398
caps added

Now Bhakti Ananda Goswami writes:

"SPEAKING OF 'MIRACLES', ABOUT A PREVIOUS POST HERE CONCERNING THE 
LETTER BEHIND THE PICTURE...IF IT HAD A CLOTH OR PAPER BACKING ON IT, 
AS MANY FRAMED PICTURES DO, A RAZOR SLICE COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO 
CONSEAL THE LETTER, BY SLIPPING IT INSIDE OF THE FRAME, BEHIND THE 
PICTURE UNDETECTED."

Quoted from:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8718 

Goswami's comments are an excellent example of what I have written 
about many times on this forum. 

To briefly explain, I quote an extract from "Deviant Science: The 
Case of Parapsychology" by James McClenon where he is writing about a 
critic's strategy of "unpacking" any successful parapsychological 
experiment.

"The goal of the critic using this strategy is to 'unpack' and 
examine in detail any experiment, and to demonstrate how 
methodological flaws could have entered into the experimental 
process, thereby producing an invalid results. . . . The 
critic ...thinks of some...methodological flaw that could have 
occurred. . . .His or her 'unpacking' of methodological assumptions 
tends to render the experiment into an anecdotal form. . . .This 
unpacking strategy makes the 'perfect' ESP experiment an 
impossibility. Sooner or later, the critic will ask for information 
that is no longer available, or for a degree of experimental control 
and exactitude that is desirable in principle but impossible in 
practice. . . .[Another] rhetorical ploy is to demand total 
perfection. It is always possible for critics to think of more 
rigid methodological procedures after an experiment has been 
conducted. . . . The a priori arguments of the critics mean it is 
highly logical to assume that, within all experiments which 
successfully 'prove' the existence of psi, there must be an 'error 
some place'." 

Ray Hyman, a psychologist and skeptic of the paranormal, has agreed
that in using such a METHOD OF ARGUMENT:

"it is ALWAYS POSSIBLE to'imagine' SOME scenario in which cheating no 
matter how implausible, COULD HAVE occurred." caps added

In effect, this type of argument and the process of unpacking an 
experiment or a testimonial account becomes a game in which a critic 
cannot lose.

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

For more details and additional information, see my article at:

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/possibleversusprobable.htm

For more examples of the UNPACKING strategy and the method of 
argument by POSSIBILITIES, see:

Example 1: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4423
Example 2: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/6173
Example 3: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/6146

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc