Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00490)

A Closer Look at Some of K. Paul Johnson's Arguments 
Concerning H.S. Olcott's Testimony about the Masters 

In "Strain at a Gnat, Swallow a Camel," K. Paul Johnson attempted to 
rebut some of my criticisms (see my work "K. Paul Johnson's House of 
Cards?") of his thesis concerning the Theosophical Masters.  I 
counted numerous fallacies, mistakes and misleading arguments in 
Johnson's rebuttal.  

For example, one of K. Paul Johnson's arguments in "Gnat" (against 
certain criticisms raised in my "House of Cards" critique) reads as 
follows:

=========================================================
In his case for evaluating all claims by Col. Olcott about the 
Masters by a single standard, Mr. Caldwell cites a letter in which 
Olcott reported being awakened from sleep in Ceylon in 1881 by Morya, 
who made him take dictation for an hour. He then goes on to describe 
a case where Morya "showed himself" to Olcott and HPB, and 
an "appearance" by Morya before six other people. All of these are 
equated with the Ooton Liatto case, which is much more clearly one of 
physically present people conversing with Olcott. But Mr. Caldwell 
does not seem to recognize that these "appearances" sound more like 
paranormal visitations than normal physical visits. How can he assume 
that such appearances, if genuine, were not Ranbir Singh, since he 
does not know whether or not the maharaja was capable of such 
phenomena? What does he know of other people who were, who might 
therefore be more plausible candidates for the Morya in these 
stories? This section of his argument shows naivete in conflating 
different categories of evidence. The principle which seems to elude 
Mr. Caldwell is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary 
proof. My explanation of HPB's relationship with the Masters relies 
on ordinary factors and is based on ordinary historical evidence. Mr. 
Caldwell is defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the Masters, 
on behalf of which he cites evidence of a far more dubious and 
ambiguous kind. . . . 
=======================================================
 
What is K. Paul Johnson's basic argument? What are the main points of 
his argument? 

Read more at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonparanormal3.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc