Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00187)

Bart,

You quote from Truzzi's text the following:

"The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one 
that says the claim is not proved rather than 
disproved."

Then you comment:

"Then, by your definition, I'm a true skeptic. 
I can't help what other people misquote me 
as saying."

Bart, maybe I am missing something here but
it appears to me that by Truzzi's full definition
you are NOT "a true skeptic."

How can you say that your position is AGNOSTIC???

Notice your own words:

"And the very fact that it WAS buried that way is, in fact,
an indicator that it was faked."

I refer you and other readers back to my original 
post where I quote Truzzi:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17046

And I requote below three of the KEY passages from Truzzi
and then follow that with extracts from 7 of your previous
emails on the cup and saucer phenomenon and follow that
with more of my own commentary.

--------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST KEY PASSAGE FROM TRUZZI

But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that
he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming 
psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and 
therefore also has to bear a burden of proof .

---------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND KEY PASSAGE FROM TRUZZI

many critics seem to Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be
shown to have had an opportunity to cheat, many critics seem to
assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but that he must 
have...feel it is only necessary to present a
case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than
empirical evidence. 

--------------------------------------------------------------

THIRD KEY PASSAGE FROM TRUZZI

If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that 
critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X 
can and probably did produce such results under such 
circumstances. . . . the critic who makes a merely plausible argument 
for an artifact closes the door on future research when proper 
science demands that his hypothesis of an artifact should also be 
tested. Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs 
producing post hoc counter-explanations. . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------


BELOW ARE THE EXTRACTS FROM SEVEN OF BART'S PREVIOUS EMAILS

-------------------------------------------------------------------

....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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Daniel asked: WHO planted the cup and saucer??]

Probably Blavatsky with help; most probably one of the servants;
Khitmutgar comes to mind immediately.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

We have phenomena which have never been
duplicated, and we have natural explanations. You take your pick, and
everybody else can take theirs

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, I don't know what the exact terrain was. But, if one digs in at an
angle to the roots, one can push them aside, put in the teacup, then
refill the hole with dirt, making it appear that the roots grew around
the teacup. Since the entry hole may be a couple of feet from where 
the teacup was found, it is likely that it wasn't noticed, especially 
if it were covered by a rock and moss.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, what happened to the dirt? If a cup was materialized in hard
ground, then dirt had to be displaced. Unless you are saying that
Blavatsky also dematerialized the dirt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If Blavatsky could materialize a teacup, why didn't she just do it in
full view of everybody?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bart, in most of the your quoted words above, you have what Truzzi
calls a "negative hypothesis." 

You definitely say "that a seeming psi result [the materialization of 
the cup and saucer] was ACTUALLY due to an artifact [fraud committed 
possibly this way or that way]..."

Notice again your own words:

"And the very fact that it WAS buried that way is, in fact,
an indicator that it was faked."

What pray tell is that if not a "negative hypothesis" as Truzzi calls 
it?

To again paraphrase Truzzi, you apparently "feel it is only necessary 
to present a case for [YOUR] counter-claims based upon PLAUSIBILITY 
[and possibility] rather than empirical evidence."

Notice some of your KEY phrases

... it COULD HAVE BEEN buried 

... it also COULD HAVE BEEN palmed

... although I SUSPECT that it was planted before

... Why materialize the teacup in that manner?

... that is the only POSSIBLE motivation.

... Probably Blavatsky with help; most probably one of the servants;
Khitmutgar comes to mind immediately.

... But, if one digs.... IT IS LIKELY that it [Bart's hypothetical 
tunnel] wasn't noticed

Surely Bart, what you are doing in the extracts from your emails and 
the keys phrases highlighted above can aptly be described by 
Dr. Truzzi's statement which reads:

"Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs producing 
post hoc counter-explanations. . . ."

And in that armchair, you have certainly proven (as I have repeated 
far too many times) the truth and validity of Hyman's statement that:

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

You have been imagining possible scenarios in which trickery could 
have occurred. 

Or as Sinnett so graphically described Hodgson's similar
endeavor:

". . .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.

Such armchair speculation is not what Barzun and
Graff write about either in the following extract:

"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."

Daniel