Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00622)

Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:
> 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." 
That is true. In which case, one must decide which explanation is MORE 
plausible.

> 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. 
Well, perfection IS impossible, however, by setting up proper controls, 
an experiment CAN be made where the explanation of ESP is more plausible 
than the natural explanation. Also, very often, a natural explanation 
can be tested by redesigning the experiment to exclude the possibility 
of that natural explanation.

A major problem with the current scientific paradigm is that it is 
designed to eliminate the factor of consciousness, which makes it very 
difficult to measure and test phenomena that involve the factor of 
consciousness. However, nobody has yet come up with a solution to that 
problem.

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

> "this type of argument and the process of unpacking an experiment or 
> a testimonial account becomes a game in which the critic cannot lose."
Only if the "unpacked" explanation is more plausible than the 
"supernatural" one. For example, another "unpacked" explanation would be 
that Gebhart had been hypnotized into planting the letter himself, and 
to forget about it later. However, that is highly implausible.

> "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." 
That doesn't mean that there isn't evidence that makes the possibility 
of a forgery MORE probable. And that doesn't mean that there isn't a 
possibility that the teacup and letter were true occult phenomena.

> "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?"
And your actions depends on the cost of trusting the letter vs. not 
trusting it. For example, these days, people often receive emails from 
people they know, postmarked from their email address, sometimes even 
containing personal information, containing virus attachments (the last 
occurs when there is a lucky guess). I would NEVER open up an 
unsolicited .exe or similar attachment without first checking with the 
sender, regardless of how authentic the email appears.

> 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?
Nothing. However, when does not have enough information to tell 
something for sure, then one is stuck with going by the weight of the 
evidence at hand. And I was specifically asked if I could come up with a 
plausible explanation as to how it could have been trickery.

Bart