Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00610)

Steve, you initially wrote to Bart:

". . . please share your thoughts on the 
three pohenomena which IMO are impossible to
explain (unless we assume bad reporting.)" 

And one of the three phenomena cited by Steve
was the Gebhard letter phenomenon.

Bart, you replied:

"From the description [of the Gebhard letter phenomenon]
<http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/200203/tt00008.html>, 
I can see at least one natural explanation. It WAS 
secreted beforehand, and Blavatsky took advantage of
the fact that it did not drop down immediately. It 
was not mentioned whether or not the letter had a wax 
seal, but if it did, this could be used to stick the 
letter behind the painting, and would explain a delay
between shaking the painting and the letter dropping. 
Mr. Gebhard's objection was based on the delayed drop 
being planned."

So Steve, you said it was "impossible to explain"
the Gebhard letter phenomenon. Did Bart do the
"impossible"?

Of course, it all depends upon what we mean by
"explain"? Did Bart really explain?

I refer both of you again to my article at:
http://blavatskyarchives.com/possibleversusprobable.htm
http://theosophy.info/possibleversusprobable.htm

Notice that Bart is able to do EXACTLY what Ray
Hyman said:

"it is ALWAYS possible to 'imagine' some scenario 
in which cheating, no matter how implausible, 
could have occurred." 

In the Gebhard letter, the scenario was cheating AND the
"suggestion" that the letter "did not drop down immediately".

Notice the other description I gave in my article:

"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."

The author of the above is talking about experiments and
the Gebhard letter phenomenon could not be called an experiment, yet
the same strategy is used. 

Bart UNPACKED the phenomenon. He looked for POSSIBLE flaws or other 
possible factors that would invalidate the paranormal feature.

As I said in my article,

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

And this type of argument can be used in "explaining" NORMAL events 
and experiences.

Notice what Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff point out in their book 
The Modern Researcher:

"If you receive a letter from a relative that [1] bears what looks 
like her signature, that [2] refers to family matters you and she 
commonly discuss, and that [3] was postmarked in the city where she 
lives, the probability is very great that she wrote it."

"The contrary hypothesis would need at least as many opposing signs 
[of evidence] in order to take root in your mind---though the 
POSSIBILITY of forgery. . .is always there." 

For example, the skeptic could argue:

"Isn't it possible that [1] the relative's signature was forged, and, 
isn't it possible that [2] some "forger" was somehow privy to family 
matters, and, furthermore, isn't it possible that [3] the forger 
could have mailed the letter in the city where your relative lives to 
throw you off the track?"

My point is that it is ALWAYS POSSIBLE to suggest cheating or forgery.
But to make these suggestions does not PROVE that the letter is a 
forgery. In other words, what does this "isn't it possible" type of 
argument actually prove?

Apply the above to the Gebhard letter phenomenon.

In my next posting I will address Steve's and Bart's comments about 
the cup and saucer phenomenon.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc
http://theosophy.info