Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00313)

Thank you, Daniel, for publishing a short seminar on
how to argue disingenuously. You have performed a
real service for list members. Bear in mind I am
assuming this is entirely unconscious on your part and
not ecidence of any sort of conscious dishonesty. 
Nonetheless, everyone needs to know how to read
critically and evaluate arguments and evidence
critically. My comments below for the benefit of
readers who would like to easily spot this sort of
thing in the future.

Daniel: "Brigitte, I am going to go over Olcott's
February 1876 account and make a number of comments. 
I hope that you in turn will make some replies."

Notice this doesn't say anything because there is
nothing to reply to. I already replied to this
account, and Brigitte indicated that she agreed, as
did numerous other people. That fact is completely
ignored here. See how this works, list members?

Daniel: "Brigitte, are you willing to accept that two
REAL ADEPTS actually came to Olcott's apartment? This
is Paul Johnson's scholarly opinion in his first SUNY
book."

List members, notice that this completely evades the
issue at hand, which is how the miraculous phenomena
were produced. It also sets uo a double bind, since
if Brigitte were to deny that these two men were
there, she would have to say that the cigard were
"materialized" out of thin air and levitated in space.

Daniel: "Olcott was at the Eddy farmhouse BEFORE HE
MET MADAME BLAVATSY and observed paranormal phenomena.
Were there drugs/fumes in the air at the Eddy
farmhouse when Olcott was first there a month or two
before Blavatsky ever arrived there?"

Here, list members, notice again that the real issue
is being evaded. The real issue is not did or did not
happen at the Eddy farmhouse but what caused
specifically the Oootan Liatto phenomenon.

Daniel: "Brigitte, are you and Steve suggesting that
there was some kind of drug in the cigars?"

This question has already been answered at least three
times, and now here we have it again. Does anyone
hear a broken record playing? List members, the point
of this is to make it appear the question has not yet
been answered. That then makes the supporting
ecidence seem to go away. See how this technique
works?

Daniel: "Olcott was a smoker of cigars even before he
met Madame Blavatsky."

So is Daniel suggesting that his cigars were of
Turkish origin and specially blended? And while we
are at it, can Daniel spell out the specific date on
which Olcott began smoking cigars and tell us exactly
how many cigars he smoked on a specific date, and how
this affected his family budget? List members will
notice that those kinds of questions have been posed
as distractions in the past.

Daniel "I see no good reason to believe that there was
some kind of drug in the cigars. 

Notice that numerous good reasons have already been
given several times. Notice that not a single one of
these reasons has been acknowledged or dealt with. 
The idea is to try to make them go away by ignoring
them.

Daniel: "I could write a long article on various
paranormal phenomena being accompanied by "scents" and
"perfumes".

Notice again that "various paranormal phenomena being
accompanied by 'scents' and 'perfumes'" are not the
issue. What happened with specifically Ootan Liatto
is the issue. This statement is being used as a
distraction.

Daniel: "I myself have experienced "scents" and
"perfumes" in relationship to a person who had
"paranormal" experiences happening to him."

So Daniel visits spirit mediums and some of them use
too much after shave. What does that have to do with
the issue at hand, which is Olcott's 1876 experience? 
This technique attenpts to confuse the reader by
introducing irrelevant items into evidence.

Daniel: "Hundreds of other examples could be given."

Please don't. Only one example need be given, and
that is the story of what happened with Ootan Liatto.

Daniel: "In regards to "the production of flowers",
you and Steve may conclude that these flowers HAD TO
BE "hallucinations" produced by drugs, but if one does
a COMPARATIVE study of other phenomena produced by
Blavatsky and expands one's study to also include the
phenomena of Spirtualism as well as the experiences of
ordinary people who have had paranormal experiences, I
find many parallel accounts of similar manifestations
that had nothing to do with drugs and that also appear
to be "objective" in the sense that several people saw
the same phenomenon."

That gamely ignores the fact that there were numerous
items of ecidence of a botanical component in the
Ootan Liatto story, and in other Olcott stories, and
in the writings of Blavatsky. Notice that none of
this is acknowledged or dealt with.

Daniel: "D.D. Home (whom you already have put on the
witness stand) was apparently able to produce
"manifestations" comparable to "the production of
flowers".

DD Home was a small time crook and an enemy of
Theosophy. He admitted himself in his LIGHTS AND
SHADOWS OF SPIRITUALISM that most spiritualistic
phenomena (i.e., the sort of thing he specialized in)
were fakes and described how they were done. Even if
he could materialize flowers out of thin air, that
would have no bearing on Olcott's 1876 experience
because HOME WAS NOT THERE.

The techniques illustrated here consist of (1) quoting
irrelevant facts, (2) selectively ignoring evidence,
(3) trying to make evidence go away by asking certain
kinds of questions which are framed to make it appear
the evidence does not exist, (4) using various sorts
of distractions and diversions, and (5) bringing in
witnesses who cannot give evidence to the issue at
hand. There are numerous other techniques which are
used by others, but this short seminar is an excellent
example. This kind of thing is used all the time in
the news media, in political rhetoric, and in
theological argument. To learn how to deal with this,
the reader will do well to ignore the content of what
is being said and focus on the diversionary techniques
being used. Even though the content changes from
context to context, the basic techniques remain the
same. Learn to spot the techniques and you can learn
to easily tell when you are being had. This sort of
thing should be taught in school, but politicians, who
use this sort of thing every day, have come down
firmly against people being formally educated in
critical thinking. If disciplined thinking became
widespread, they would either have to declare an end
to democracy, or we would throw the rascals out. 
Since they control the schools, they also control the
curriculum. So you have to teach yourself.

Disciplined reasoning is not instinctive and only
becomes possible with training. Fictitious constructs
such as "IQ" or "intelliigence" which have no
scientific basis have nothing to do with it. It is
all training. For that reason people who are
scrupulously honest and very intelligent (if there is
such a thing) and untrained in disciplined analysis
will resort to such techniques unconsciously. It is
therefore desirable to be able to spot these methods
when you use them to kid yourself. Historical and
philosophical problems can only be resolved with
disciplined reasoning.

I stand by my original analysis of the Ootan Liatto
pgenomenon. Apparently, since nobody seems willing to
show why I am wrong, others do as well.

Steve

--- danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Brigitte wrote in part:
> 
> > Wouldn't you say now that indeed Olcott's
> description probably 
> > indicates a drug influence ? Or if not, what
> proof can you cite 
> that 
> > it isn't ?
> > In the opinion of others on this list it is, as
> Steve said, we see 
> > evidence of herbs burning, herbs contained within
> a lacquered case 
> > which was held to Olcott's nose, visual
> hallucinations, tactile
> > hallucinations (the room was wet), profuse
> sweating,time 
> distortion, 
> > loss of consciousness, cognitive impairment, and
> stupefaction. Can 
> > any reasonable person read this story and believe
> that there were no
> > botanical products involved in this wonder? 
> > Especially interesting is that these drugs are the
> means of "the 
> > production of flowers as the adepts do it." That
> clearly indicates 
> > that they used these substances to produce visual
> hallucinations and
> > presumably insights. . . . can we agree now that
> the . . . 
> > descripton of Olcott contains indications 
> > of drug influence ? 
> 
> Brigitte, I am going to go over Olcott's February
> 1876 account and 
> make a number of comments. I hope that you in turn
> will make some 
> replies. I will quote part of Olcott's account and
> then comment. 
> Quote more of Olcott's account and give further
> comments.
> 
> [Although my questions will be directed towards you
> Brigitte, I ask 
> Steve and other interested readers for their answers
> and comments on 
> my questions.]
> 
> Henry Olcott starts off by writing:
> 
> "Wonder treads upon wonder. I wrote an account of my
> [first]
> interview with the Brother I took for a Hindoo
> Brahmin, and was sorry
> enough afterwards I had said a word about it, either
> in letter or
> lecture. [Then] I began to doubt my own senses and
> fancy the scene
> had all been an objective hallucination but I have
> seen him again
> yesterday and another man was with him.
> 
> "Other persons have seen this man in New York. He is
> not a Brahmin,
> but a swarthy Cypriote. I did not ask him before of
> what country he
> was.
> 
> "I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when
> there came a tap at
> the door. I said 'come in' and then entered the
> Brother with another
> dark skinned gentleman of about fifty with a bushy
> gray beard and eye
> brows.
> 
> Brigitte, are you willing to accept that two REAL
> ADEPTS actually 
> came to Olcott's apartment? This is Paul Johnson's
> scholarly opinion 
> in his first SUNY book. Olcott also writes that
> other persons had 
> see Ooton Liatto in New York.
> 
> Brigitte, from some of your previous remarks one
> might assume that 
> you believe Olcott was simply a creduous person with
> a wild 
> imagination. You cite Olcott's PEOPLE FROM THE OTHER
> WORLD. From 
> your previous comments it would appear that you were
> willing to 
> attribute his observations at the Eddys to his
> "imagination" or to 
> a "fantasy". You never gave any details about what
> you really thought 
> happened so it is hard to know exactly what your
> thinking was.
> 
> But take note of this.
> 
> Olcott was at the Eddy farmhouse BEFORE HE MET
> MADAME BLAVATSY and 
> observed paranormal phenomena. 
> 
> Were there drugs/fumes in the air at the Eddy
> farmhouse when Olcott 
> was first there a month or two before Blavatsky ever
> arrived there?
> 
> But back to the 1876 account of Ooton Liatoo.
> 
> These two men knock on Olcott's door and enter. 
> 
> Brigitte, are you willing to concede that there were
> two living flesh 
> and blood persons knocking on Olcott's door? Do you
> agree or disagree 
> with Paul Johnson's assessment that there were two
> REAL flesh and 
> blood persons visiting Olcott?
> 
> "We took cigars and chatted for a while.
> 
> "He said he would show me the production of flowers
> as the adepts do
> it. At the same time pointing to the air, fancy ---
> the shadowy
> outlines of flower after flower and leaf after leaf
> grew out of
> nothing. The room was perfectly light; in fact the
> sun was shining
> in. The flowers grew solid. A beautiful perfume
> saturated the air.
> They were suspended as the down of a thistle in the
> air; each separate
> from the other. Then they formed themselves into
> bouquets and a
> splendid large one of roses, lilies of the valley,
> camelias, jessamine
> and carnations floated down and placed itself in my
> hand. Then the
> others separated again and fell in a shower to the
> floor. I was
> stupefied with the manifestation.
> 
> Brigitte, are you and Steve suggesting that there
> was some kind of 
> drug in the cigars?
> 
> Olcott was a smoker of cigars even before he met
> Madame Blavatsky. 
> 
> I see no good reason to believe that there was some
> kind of drug in 
> the cigars. 
> 
> You may respond by saying well then how did all
> these flowers start 
> appearing in the room? Your assumption may be that
> Olcott would 
> NOT have seen the flowers if he had not been
> influenced by a drug 
> that was in the cigars.
> 
> You may cite Olcott's own words:
> 
> "A beautiful perfume saturated the air" during the
> appearance of the 
> flowers.
> 
> Brigitte, do you consider this "perfume" as
> evidence of a drug or is 
> this perfume simply part of the "hallucination"
> caused by _______ ?
> 
> I could write a long article on various paranormal
> phenomena being 
> accompanied by "scents" and "perfumes". And in all
> these variety of 
> phenomena I am not aware of "drugs" being involved.
> 
> For example, the phenomena of Stainton Moses, the
> famous English 
> medium, was often accompanied by "scents" and
> "perfumes". As far as 
> I know, drugs were not involved in these phenomena.
> 
> Another example. Various meditators have
> experienced "scents" 
> and "perfumes". 
> 
> I myself have experienced "scents" and "perfumes" in
> relationship to 
> a person who had "paranormal" experiences happening
> to him.
> 
> In these instances the persons involved were not
> taking drugs. There 
> were no fumes of drugs in the air.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com