Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00220)

In one of Bart's emails, he wrote:

====================================================
Occam's Razor ("Do not unnecessarily multiply entities") 
is a method for building knowledge; if something can be 
explained by already known means, then it is a waste to 
suppose unknown means. Scientific method calls for
creating an experiment that eliminates those explanations....

Since stage magicians and charlatans have been around 
for centuries, in one form or another, one must assume that, 
if the phenomenon can be produced by means that are 
thoroughly documented, then if we assume otherwise, we end 
up with knowledge becoming random, and therefore
impossible.

=====================================================
Quoted from:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17049

Compare the ideas given in Bart's excerpt with the
points made in my previous posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17086

Especially compare Bart's view with that expressed
by Blavatsky when she writes:

==============================================================

When our correspondent's friend denies that creation
is possible for man, we can hardly assume that he
does so from any conviction that he has sounded all
the mysteries of Nature, and knowing all about the
universe,--being able to account for all its phenomena--
has ascertained that the process, whatever that may be,
which he conceives of as creation does not go on
anywhere in obedience to the will or influence of man,
and has further ascertained that there is something in
man which makes it impossible that such a process should
be accomplished. And yet without having done all that,
it is bold of him to say that creation is impossible.
Assuming that he is not a student of occult science,--
and the tone of the letter before us conveys the
impression that he is not--our friend's friend when
he makes his dogmatic statement, seems to be proceeding
on the method but too commonly adopted by people of
merely ordinary culture and even by a few men of science--
the method which takes a large group of preconceived
ideas as a standard to which any new idea must be
applied. If the new idea fits in with, and seems to
support the old ones, well and good; they smile upon
it. If it clashes with some of these they frown at
it, and ex-communicate it without further ceremony."
Quoted from:
http://blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/IsCreationPossibleForMan.htm
=========================================================

Notice Bart's words: 

"...one must assume..."

One MUST assume...???

At least....... Bart assumes....

Notice also Bart's statement beginning:

"Since stage magicians and charlatans have been around 
for centuries, in one form or another, one must assume that, 
if the phenomenon can be produced by means that are 
thoroughly documented...."

I am somewhat puzzled as to what he is actually trying to say but
considering that in his first quoted paragraph, he also writes:

"if something can be explained by already known means, then it is a 
waste to suppose unknown means...."

I would divine that he is at least saying in part:

If HPB's occult phenomena can be explained [?? hypothetically as 
in "isn't it possible?"] by already known means [that is, 
magic tricks of stage magicians and charlatans], then it is a waste 
of time [at least for Bart] to suppose unknown means [psychic forces, 
superphysical forces] as the true explantion of these phenomena.

In other words, stage magicians and charlatans for centuries have been
producing similar if not identical phenomena by "means that are 
thoroughly documented", [that is, by magical tricks, physical
means], therefore why should we assume any of the phenomena are 
produced by unknown and thoroughly UNdocumented means [supposed
paranormal powers and forces]?

If I am correct in my characterizations concerning
Bart's conclusions, are these conclusions the only conclusions that 
reasonable people can make?

I would say NO.

Even the majority of magicians, past and present, famous and not
famous, have believed in psychic phenomena regardless of the 
fact that stage magicians and charlatans for centuries have been
producing "phenomena" that might appear to be identical to so-called
psychic phenomena.

Consider these quotes from an article by George Hansen:

=========================================================

Magicians Who Endorsed Psychic Phenomena 
By George P. Hansen 
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/MagWhoEndors.htm

Conjurors have long played a role in psychical research. 
Many people are under the impression that magicians are total 
skeptics when it comes to psychic phenomena. It comes as a 
surprise to many (including some magicians), to learn that this 
is by no means the case. A number of the most prominent magicians 
in history have endorsed the reality of psychic phenomena. A 
surprising roster of modern-day conjurors also have positive views...

In 1981 Polly Birdsell, owner of California Magic & Novelty Co. 
in Pleasant Hill (on the eastern side of the San Francisco Bay Area), 
completed a masters thesis on the opinions of magicians and the 
relation of the occult to modern magic. She explored how magicians 
view their art in relation to the supernatural. For part of her 
project, she polled a group of magicians and found that 82% of them 
expressed a positive view regarding the existence of ESP. Her thesis 
has recently been published in book form....

...many magicians of the past have endorsed the 
reality of psychic phenomena. Among them were some 
of the foremost members of the profession. Many of these 
were active in exposing fraudulent mediumship and psychic trickery. 
Even today this tradition continues.... 

It is well known that J. Nevil Maskelyne reaped 
much publicity for his attacks on mediums. In fact, 
Maskelyne and Cooke began their rise to fame with 
performances of an anti-spiritualist demonstration. 
Maskelyne testified in court against several Spiritualists. 
However, in an article in the Pall Mall Gazette 
Maskelyne described witnessing table turning that he 
thought was genuine and said "myself and a few friends . . . 
produced movements of the table . . . I believe, in my 
own mind, that it must have been some psychic or nerve 
force which . . . neutralized the laws of gravitation" 
(page 5). He emphatically denied that spirits were 
involved however. Thus he rejected a supernatural 
explanation but accepted the natural physical reality of the 
phenomena....

The name of Uri Geller often sparks a dispute 
among magicians. In 1975 Abb Dickson and Artur Zorka 
investigated Geller. Their report described events which 
they could not explain. Several skeptics have sought to discredit 
the account by writing of second- and third-hand rumors of 
conversations with Abb Dickson, supposedly indicating discrepancies. 
I personally have spoken with Dickson, and he affirmed the essential 
accuracy of the report and said that he did know how Geller 
accomplished the feats observed during their investigation....

The high visibility of conjurors in CSICOP has given many 
people the idea that most magicians hold skeptical views regarding 
psychic phenomena. Surprisingly, this impression is not correct. 
Birdsell (1989) polled a group of magicians in California and found 
that 82% had a belief in ESP, and Truzzi (1983) cited a German poll 
of conjurors that revealed that 72.3% believed psi was probably real. 
Many prominent magicians have, in fact, endorsed psychic phenomena 
(Hansen, 1990a, 1990b). 
=================================================================

Daniel Caldwell
http://hpb.cc
http://theosophy.info