Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00132)

Bart, 

You write:

"You must remember that all we have are accounts 
written by observers, and rather untrained observers 
at that. . . ."

Bart, but what should one conclude from such a statement
as you wrote above?

When you say that "....ALL we have are accounts
written by observers..." this could apply probably
to the vast majority of ALL historical events.

Read what the historians Jacque Barzun and
Henry Graff write in their book THE MODERN RESEARCHER:

"Facing the doubtful in all Reports"

"'But,' says the skeptic, 'you were not there. All 
you know is what others choose to tell you---in 
memoirs, newspapers, and your other vaunted
evidences. How can you be sure? Most people are 
notoriously bad observers; some are deliberate or 
unconscious liars; there is no such thing as a perfect
witness. And yet you naively trust any casual passerby, 
and on his say-so you proclaim: 'This is what happened.'"

Now this quote is not from some work skeptical 
of psychic phenomena. This quote is not by a 
skeptical writer or academic viewing those 
testimonies of encounters with etherial Masters or of
psychic occurrences. This quote is dealing with just "plain"
history (no paranormal, no Theosophy, etc.)

Barzun's and Graff's reply to the skeptic of history 
follows:

"Except for the words 'naively trust,' everything said 
above is true. But in its effort to discredit history 
IT PROVES TOO MUCH. The key sentences are 'You were not 
there' and 'There is no such thing as a perfect witnesss'.
Granting the force of these two statements, what follows? 
It is that if any of us had been there, there would simply 
have been one more imperfect witness on the scene. We 
might be convinced that our vision, our recollection,
our interpretation was the right one, but other 
witnesses would still feel no less certain about theirs."
Bold added.

So do we throw out all of history because "....ALL we have are 
accounts written by observers..."? 

What else could there be?

Bart, I also like your phrase:

"....rather untrained observers at that. . . ."

Yes, it is true that there was no Amazing Randi there
to act as a "trained" observer.

But there are many accounts of magicians having witnessed
psychic phenomena and having accepted the reality of
such phenomena.

For background info, see:

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/MagWhoEndors.htm

But had a trained observer been there at the picnic,
would YOU or the Amazing Randi accept it??

As far as I know, Randi does NOT accept the reality of
ANY psychic phenomena even when a trained observer [a
magician] has been there and testified that there was
no trick.

Randi and those of like mind ALWAYS have an "out":

Even a magician can be fooled by a magical trick!!

So those who think like Randi, in effect, hold a
position which is not capable of being proved or
disproved. They complain if a trained observer is
not on the scene but if one is and he testifies that
there was no trick, that as far as he can tell, there
was something paranormal, then the argument is trodded
out that even a magician can be fooled. And the implication
is usually given that the skeptical magician if he had
been there would have seen thru the trick...sooner or later.

Daniel