Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00280)

Steve, you wrote:

> Well, I don't know if it is supernatural or not, but I
> do know it could not be considered scientific evidence
> of supernatural ability. Here is what is said to have
> happened:
> 
> (1) Hartmann poses a question to Blavatsky
> 
> (2) Blavatsky tells him not to expect an answer
> immediately but to think about it long enough for
> someone to prepare a "phenomenon,"
> 
> (3) An unidentified woman comes into the room and cues
> Hartmann where to go to find the master letter,
> 
> (4) Hartmann goes there and voila! There it is.
> 
> Not very mysterious. The fact that the letter was so
> long proves it was written beforehand, whether by a
> mahatma or by Blavatsky herself. No matter how it was
> delivered it was aurely written before the fact. The
> person writing it must therefore have observed
> Hartmann closely and discerned what would be on his
> mind. Someone thousands of miles away would not have
> been able to do that. At the appropriate
> psychological moment the already writtten letter was
> planted.
> 
> The historical problem is not whether some
> Fundamentalst believes in supernatural phenomena or
> not, but whether a specific alleged phenomenon was
> produced under conditions which would exclude
> chicanery as a plausible alternative explanation. 
> That is not to say that the phenomenon WAS produced by
> chicanery, but if chicanery is a plausible
> explanation, then the story is not evidence of
> anything. The question of whether or not something
> "paranormal" could or could not happen would remain
> open if this were the only evidence.


Steve, thanks for writing your thoughts down on the Hartmann 
experience. I must say on reading your commentary that you have
multilated the account as originally given by Hartmann. Below after 
my post I will give the Hartmann account again so that the interested 
reader can carefully read Hartmann's account and compare how you have 
ignored various features of the account. The account itself is 
testimonial evidence.

I am also somewhat surprised that you are doing the same kind 
of "unpacking" of the experience/experiment that many total skeptics 
of the paranormal engage in. See further below.

Plus you make a number of assumptions based on what I do not know:

(1) "No matter how it was delivered it was aurely [sic] written 
before the fact." 

SURELY written before the fact? SURELY?? What assumption in your 
mind allows you to conclude that?

(2) "Someone thousands of miles away would not have been able to do 
that." 

Would NOT have been able? I guess you are ruling out telepathy 
here. 

(3) ". . . . if chicanery is a plausible explanation, then the story 
is not evidence of anything." 

Steve, here is a statement that clearly shows me that you do NOT 
understand the vital difference between possible/plausible and 
probable. You can take any experience of the paranormal and any 
experiment in parapsychology and think up plausible and/or possible 
natural explanations for the experiences/experiments. 

C.E.M Hansel in his skeptical books on parapsychology is a master of 
looking for plausible or possible counterexplanations for the most 
famous experiments in parapsychology.

At this point, Steve, I quote below what I wrote several years ago to 
David Christopher Lane as it applies DIRECTLY to your statement 
about "if chicanery is a plausible explanation. . . .". 

In the current web version of his book THE UNKNOWING SAGE, David Lane
has added the following:

". . .I have yet to unearth an airtight, empirical case for genuine 
psychic powers. There are always some uninspected loopholes which 
reveal that natural (versus supernatural) processes were 
involved. . . . "

David's words sound quite similar to remarks made by the Amazing 
James Randi! David says that he has not discovered one AIRTIGHT case 
for genuine psychic powers; and that in all such cases "uninspected" 
[I assume this is a typo for "unsuspected"?] loopholes ....reveal 
that natural processes were involved."

Exactly how does Lane define "airtight"?

One dictionary defines "airtight" as follows:

"having no noticeable weakness, flaw or loophole." 

But the question to ask David is: Are those "unsuspected" 
loopholes "real" or only possibilities or plausibilities. 

Also, as far as I know, nothing is 100% airtight, or flawless.

In an unpublished compilation of mine, I have a chapter entitled
"POSSIBLE FLAWS: There Must be an 'Error Some Place'." I quote
the words of James MClenon. He is writing about the skeptic's 
strategy of "unpacking" any successful parpsychological experiment.

"The goal of the critic using this strategy is to 'unpack' and 
examine in detail any experiment, and to demonstrate how 
methodological flaws *could* have entered into the experimental 
process, thereby producing an invalid results.. . .The 
critic ...thinks of some...methodological flaw that *could* have 
occurred. . . .His or her 'unpacking' of methodological assumptions
tends to render the experiment into an anecdotal form. . . .This 
unpacking strategy makes the 'perfect' ESP experiment an 
impossbility. Sooner or later, the critic will ask for information 
that is no longer available, or for a degree of experimental control 
and exactitude that is desirable in principle but impossible in 
practice. . . .[Another] rhetorical ploy is to demand total 
perfection. It is always possible for critics to think of more rigid
methodological procedures after an experiment has been conducted...
The a priori arguments of the critics mean it is highly logical to 
assume that, within *all* experiments which successfully 'prove' the 
existence of psi, there must be an 'error some place'."

Ray Hyman, a psychologist and skeptic of the paranormal, has agreed
that in using such A METHOD OF ARGUMENT, "it is *always* possible to
'imagine' *some* scenario in which [for example] cheating [or lying],
no matter how implausible, *could have* occurred."

Such a method is "illegitimate" [as Marcello Truzzi, another skeptic 
points out] because by its use, "one can 'hypothetically' explain 
away *any* result [even] in science."

David Lane, please look for "suspected" flaws in regular scientific 
experiments. Pray tell, is there even one experiment in science 
that has no "possible" or "plausible" flaws?

In effect, this type of argument and the process of "unpacking" an 
experiment or a testimonial account becomes a game in which the 
skeptic cannot lose!

Turning to the realm of NORMAL historical inquiry, the historians 
Barzun and Graff point out:

"If you receive a letter from a relative that [1] bears what looks 
like her signature, that [2] refers to family matters you and she 
commonly discuss, and that [3] was postmarked in the city where she 
lives, the probability is very great that she wrote it."

"The contrary hypothesis would need at least as many opposing signs
[of evidence] in order to take root in your mind---though the 
possibility of forgery. . .is always there."

Please note that the hypothesis that the letter is really written by 
your relative is supported by three positive signs of evidence. But 
as Barzun and Graff point out, even in spite of all that, the 
*possibility* or plausibility of forgery is ALWAYS there! An 
agressive critic could take the ball at this step and try to "explain 
away" the three pieces of evidence.

For example, the skeptic could "reason":

"Isn't it possible or plausible that [1] the relative's signature was 
forged, and, isn't it possible or plausible that [2] some "forger" 
was somehow privy to family matters, and, furthermore, isn't it 
possible or plausible that [3] the forger could have mailed the 
letter in the city where your relative lives to throw you off the 
track?"

And if you (the level-headed researcher) objected to such speculation 
by your resident agressive skeptic, he might quip:

"Prove to me that the three statements, I just listed, aren't 
possible or plausible! Didn't Barzun and Graff admit that *the 
possibility of forgery. . . is always there*?"

But the perceptive researcher should point out to his skeptical friend
that POSSIBILITIES and PLAUSIBILITIES are not to be confused with 
PROBABLITIES. Barzun and Graffe clearly enunciate an important 
dictum for the researcher:

"The rule of 'Give Evidence' is not be be violated. . . .No matter how
possible or plausible the author's conjecture it cannot be accepted
as truth 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*, the event it records happened in a certain 
way; or, in other cases, that a supposed event did not in fact take 
place."

Unfortunately, far too many skeptics of the parnormal become fixated
on "possibilities" AND "plausibilities" and never progress beyond to 
considering "probabilities." Such skeptics---after pointing out that 
if two or more explanations are possible or plausible, none are 
proved---*seem to be uninterested* in the question of where the 
*weight of the evidence* lies. Many of these skeptics fixate and 
speculate (almost ad infinitum and ad nauseam) on various 
possibilities and plausibilities ---hoping that careless readers will 
*assume* that 'something' has been proven or disproven by such 
rhetoric."

So when David Lane writes: ""I have yet to unearth an airtight, 
empirical case for genuine psychic powers. There are always some 
uninspected loopholes which reveal that natural (versus supernatural) 
processes were involved," is he referring to "possible" 
or "plausible" loopholes that he has conjured up in his imagination 
or is he talking about loopholes that can be documented with 
evidence? 

Furthermore, if by "airtight" Lane wants to convey the meaning of 
perfect, flawless, 100% confirmed, then I would say he is living in 
a "fairytale" world. What is completely flawless? For example, is 
there a medical test in the world that will give accurate results 
anytime, anywhere, under any and every condition?

Steve, if you have actually read through all of the above, I hope you 
will re-read and study the actual points I am trying to make. One of 
my major criticisms of K. Paul Johnson's books was his endless 
speculations about what might be plausible or possible without every 
going to the next step and trying to determine what is most PROBABLE 
in light of all the known evidence, both pro, con and neutral.

Your statement: ". . . . if chicanery is a plausible explanation, 
then the story is not evidence of anything." shows me that you also 
do not understand what has been written above.

THE POINT is that there is no historical account and no scientific 
experiment where there are not plausible or possible 
counterexplanations. Therefore as Truzzi says: "one 
can 'hypothetically' explain away *any* result [even] in science."

Steve, I find the above points so major and crucial that if you do 
not understand what I am getting out, I will try to elucidate the 
points if you will tell me what you do NOT understand.

In closing, I give the Hartmann account below which as I said above I 
think you multilated in your "unpacking" method.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc

HARTMANN'S ACCOUNT:

This morning at half-past eleven I went upstairs to Madame 
Blavatsky's room and had a conversation with her in regard to
society 
matters. After this conversation the thought came in my mind to ask 
her opinion in regard to a certain subject of which I had been 
thinking. Madame Blavatsky advised me to apply to the Master 
himself, to ask him mentally, and that the Master himself would 
surely answer my question. A few minutes later she said she felt his 
presence, and that she saw him writing. I must say that I too felt 
his influence and seemed to see his face, but of course this 
circumstance will carry conviction to no one but myself. 

Just then another lady came in, to my great annoyance, and expressed 
her wish to have a pair of pincers, which she needed for some 
purpose, and remembering that I had such a pair of pincers in the 
drawer of my writing desk, I went downstairs into my room to get 
them. I opened the drawer, saw the pincers and a few other things in 
there, but no vestige of any letter, as I had removed my papers the 
day before to another place. I took the pincers and was about to 
close the drawer, when --- there lay in the drawer a great envelope, 
addressed to me in the well-known handwriting of the Master and 
sealed with the seal bearing his initials in Tibetan characters. On 
opening it, I found a long, very kind and somewhat complimentary 
letter, treating of the identical questions, about which I had just 
been talking with Madame Blavatsky, besides giving a detailed and 
satisfactory answer to the very question which had so perplexed my 
mind, and a satisfactory explanation of certain matters, which for 
some time had been foremost in my mind, but of which I had said 
nothing at all. 

Moreover, there was in the same envelope a photograph, cabinet-size, 
of the Master's face, with a dedication to me at the back. This 
picture will henceforth be considered as the greatest treasure in my 
possession. 

Now, if I know anything at all, I know that my drawer contained no 
such letter, when I opened it, and that there was nobody visible in 
my room at that time. The letter, giving a detailed answer to my 
question, must have been written, sealed and put into the drawer in 
less than four minutes, while it took exactly forty minutes to copy 
it the next day; and finally, it treated a very difficult problem in 
such an elaborate and yet concise manner, that only an intelligence 
of the highest order could have done the same.