Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00631)

I am sure Daniel's comments are made in good faith, but they 
constitute special pleading.

The fact is, almost none of HPB's demos constitute satisfactory 
scientific proof of phenomena (even though very one of them may have 
been phenomenal.) The scientific proof of an experiment is to 
replicate the experiment. To scientifically validate materialization 
you or Bart would need to materialize a teacup under scientifically 
controlled conditions. We have most of the pieces of the puzzle if 
we assume HPB did it with yoga (you would need to do some 
experimenting to figure out the rest of it.) In other words, if it 
really was a phenomenon, it is only partially mysterious. All of the 
theory and much of the practice is known. If you materialized a 
teacup or anything else under satisfactory conditions the problem of 
proof would be resolved. If anyone doubted the experiment they could 
do the same thing.

The only problem is, HPB said this was a dangerous area in which to 
experiment. So if you beliebve she was telling the truth, there is 
the question of whether it is rational to assume the risk.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> 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