Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00155)

In his speculation, Bart has simply proven 
my original point which was embodied in what 
Ray Hyman had written:

". . . it is ALWAYS possible to 'imagine' 
some scenario in which [for example] cheating 
[or lying or trickery], no matter how implausible, 
could have occurred." 

It is a game that the skeptic cannot
lose but nothing has actually been proven or disproven 
by such rhetoric.

For if Bart says it is POSSIBLE that the cup
and saucer were deposited there thru a side
tunnel, it is just as valid to say that
it is POSSIBLE that the cup and saucer
was not deposited there thru a side tunnel.

And such speculation violates a cardinal rule
of historical reseach. Barzun and Graff clearly
indicate this in their book on historical investigation
and research:

"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."

And additionally, Bart ignores other relevant pieces of evidence
in speculating on the tunnel possibility.

As far as I can tell, Bart is indulging in the same
technique as Hodgson used and which Sinnett 
succinctly and accurately describes as follows:

". . .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.

A few more points:

After the picnic Henderson and Mahmood, a police
officer and judge, went back to the site of the
cup and saucer phenomena and found no evidence
of a side tunnel. If Bart's speculation was
true, there would be signs of the side tunnel in the
original hole that Henderson had dug. 

Part of the testimony reads:

"He found the ground hard and full of small 
roots of a young cedar tree near by."

But the dirt filling Bart's hypothetical tunnel
would not be HARD. And with just a little
investigation, it would be obvious that there
was actually a tunnel there filled with dirt.

But Henderson and Mahmood found no evidence
of such a tunnel although no doubt they wanted
to find such evidence.

But never fear Bart can always IMAGINE some 
other POSSIBLE scenario. It is a game
which can never be lost for Bart is
dealing in the realm of possibilities where
one is not hampered by evidence.

Furthermore, Bart does not tell us who
buried the cup and saucer and he does not
tell us how BLAVATSKY knew the exact spot
where to point ... but rest assured it is always
possible to imagine some scenario and I'm
sure Bart is up to that task! :)

Daniel