Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00130)

Bart recently wrote about the cup and saucer
incident.

"I never said 'years before'; it COULD HAVE
been buried just a few days before. And it
also COULD HAVE BEEN palmed, although I
suspect that it was planted before, especially
considering that it was Blavatsky who
suggested (insisted on) the spot for the picnic."
Bold added.

Here in Bart's words I detect that he is simply
using what I have called the "isn't it possible?" method
of argument.

This is one of the favorite tools of skeptics especially
of those of the CSICOP persuasion.

Notice this SAME technique used by Paul Kurtz, a founding
member of CSICOP:

"Many psychic investigators were apparently 
impressed by the Fielding report on Eusapia Palladino 
[the famous Italian medium]. . . .Were some of the medium's 
manifestations genuine? . . . Or MAY WE SURMISE 
that Eusapia was more clever than Feilding and his 
associates? DID EUSAPIA HAVE accomplices --- 
PERHAPS Italians, scientists, and friends who 
had attended several seances, or even Carrington? DID 
SHE USE every trick in the book [or a trick not even in
the book!!], changing them to suit her purposes? Since 
she was a voluptuous woman, WERE HER MALE SITTERS taken 
in by her erotic charms and DID THEY FAIL to take the proper 
precautions? Eusapia was OBVIOUSLY a master illusionist, 
well-versed in her craft; and those who sat with her, 
through skilled in their specialties, MAY 
PERHAPS have been outsmarted by her. The Feilding 
report denies the POSSIBILITY of accomplices or 
prearrangments in the hotel. But should we accept 
the denial?"

Notice some of Kurtz' key phrases that I have 
put in bold:

MAY WE SURMISE....PERHAPS...MAY PERHAPS.

This is the "isn't it possible?" method of argument
at work.

Notice also Kurtz's assumption:

"Eusapia was OBVIOUSLY a master illusionist, 
well-versed in her craft...."

This type of assumption [that magic tricks
were involved] we also find in
Bart's rhetoric which reads as follows:

"And the very fact that it WAS buried that way is, 
in fact, an indicator that it was faked. Why 
materialize the teacup in that manner? To make it 
look more impossible; that is the only possible
motivation. There are many magic tricks which 
involve getting an object into an "impossible" 
position. They are generally based on the fact 
that the obvious way of getting into a place is 
not the only way. Now, I wasn't there, but I 
can point out that holes do NOT have to be vertical."

The "isn't it possible?" method of argument
was also used by Richard Hodgson in his report
against Madame Blavatsky.

Below is A. P. Sinnett's assessment of Richard 
Hodgson's "method" of handling the evidence about 
H.P.B. and the Masters:

". . .His pretence is, that he is suggesting 
ways in whch the result accomplished MIGHT 
HAVE BEEN brought off by ORDINARY means, and 
he merely staggers about among the facts, 
ignoring one [fact] while he is framing a 
hypothesis [A], incompatible with it, to 
explain another [fact], and then attempting 
to get over the first fact by suggesting 
alternative hypothesis [B] incompatible with 
the second [fact]. The multiplication of theories 
on this principle ad nauseam is not legitimate 
argument, but disingenuous trickery with words, 
by which it is hoped the intelligence of careless 
readers may be ensnared. . . ." (A.P. Sinnett, 
The "Occult World Phenomena" And The Society 
For Psychical Research, 1886, pp. 32-33.) Bold added.

William Kingsland in his excellent critique of the
Hodgson Report also writes about this "isn't it possible?"
techniques used by Hodgson:

". . . Hodgson is no doubt entitled to form what opinions he likes; 
but where is the proof in all this mass of suppositions? . . . One 
reads with ever-increasing disgust these conjectural phrases with 
which almost every page [of Hodgson's Report] is freely 
besprinkled: 'it may have been'---'there is nothing which might not 
have been'---'it might well have been'---'it would appear'---'it is 
possible'---'what seems to have happened'---'probably'---'I think'---
'we may suppose'---'she might have'---'cannot be regarded as at all 
unlikely'---'there might have been'---'she may have'---etc. 
etc. . . .Is it any wonder that in the end Hodgson succeeded in 
persuading himself that all these suppositions were what really 
happened, . . . and rejects as 'unreliable', or else as 'deliberate 
lies', every scrap of evidence offered for the genuine 
explanation? . . ." (The Real H.P. Blavatsky, 1928, pp. 276-277.)

K. Paul Johnson is also a master of the "isn't it possible?"
type of argument.

In his Theosophical History review (p. 241), Dr. John Algeo mentions 
Johnson's penchant for speculation spinning and cites an example.
In 
a single paragraph, Johnson attempts to make a connection between 
Ranbir Singh and Morya using the following "possibility-plausibility" 
qualifiers: "it is not unlikely . . . may have . . . it seems 
possible that . . . perhaps . . . would have made . . . could have 
found . . . may have made . . . might have been . . ." (The Masters 
Revealed, p. 136) 

James McClenon in "Deviant Science: The Case of 
Parapsychology" writes similarly about what he
calls the skeptic's "unpacking method" used against
parapsychology:

"The goal of the critic using this strategy is 
to 'unpack' and examine in detail any experiment [or
experience], and to demonstrate how . . . flaws 
COULD HAVE entered into the . . . process, 
thereby producing an invalid result. . . . The 
critic ...thinks of some...flaw [or trick] that 
COULD HAVE occurred. . . .This unpacking strategy 
makes the 'perfect' ESP experiment [or demonstration]
an impossibility. Sooner or later, the critic 
will ask for information that is no longer available. . . .
]etc. etc.

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 [for example] 
cheating [or lying or trickery], no matter how implausible, 
could have occurred." 

This is a foolproof method that the skeptic
can always use.

This method of argument can be also used
effectively with NORMAL events.

I quote again from THE MODERN RESEARCHER by
Barzun and Graff:

"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." 

I'm sure Bart or Paul Kurtz or Richard Hodgson could just
as effectively argue using the "isn't it possible"
technique the following points:

"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?"

Of course, nothing has been given as evidence that
any of this is true, but it is a good example of what
Sinnett had called "disigenuous trickery with words."

But as the historians Barzun and Graff point out:

"The rule of 'Give Evidence' is not be be violated. . . .No matter 
how possible or plausible the author's conjecture [at step 2 in the 4 
step process] it cannot be accepted as truth [at step 4] if he has 
only his hunch [which is not evidence] to support it. Truth rests not 
on possibility or plausibility but on probability. Probability means 
the balance of chances that, given such and such evidence [at step 
3], the event it records happened in a certain way; or, in other 
cases, that a supposed event did not in fact take place." 

In other words we must deal with SUCH AND SUCH EVIDENCE as 
we can find. Not just go thru the "isn't it possible?" technique.

Daniel