Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00506)

Steve wrote:

> > CSICOP exists for the purpose of pleading a case
> > decided before the fact, just as theosophical
> > fundamentalism does. What I am saying is that the
> > question remains open until solid evidence is
> > produced. There is an important difference there.

Bill replied:

> Agreed

Daniel comments:

Well, Steve, I agree with what you say about CSICOP but of course the 
organization and its fellows would strongly disagree with both of us.
But your point about CSICOP is off the subject of what I was trying 
to illustrate and that was the use of the "possibility/plausibility" 
method of argument. The example from the book by Kurtz is a good 
illustration and I could give you literally hundreds of other good 
examples just confining myself to the realm of the paranormal.

Daniel wrote:

> > > That is not to say that the questions entertained by
> > > Kurtz are not 
> > > worthy of consideration. But such questions should
> > > lead to further 
> > > research on the subject and to the accumulation of
> > > evidence. 

Steve replied:

> > The questions should be dealt with by replicating the
> > experiment with improved test conditions.

Bill also replied to Steve's comment:

> I think that developing a test to verify Olcott's paranormal
> experiences is impossible. Olcott is dead. 

Daniel commetns:

Yes, under IDEAL conditions one should try to replicate the 
experiment with improved test conditions. In the case of Palladino, 
instead of armchair speculation, the critics should have worked with 
Feilding and his associates to replicate the testing of Palladino and 
improve the test conditions. As far as I know, the critics of the 
Feilding report did NOT choose to pursue that avenue.

But as Bill pointed out, Olcott is now dead. Palladino too! But 
through the historical method of inquiry which underlies the subject 
matter of our discussions, one should try to research and investigate 
the cases of Olcott and Palladino and determine in light of known 
facts what is the most PROBABLE explanation to account for what 
happened regarding these individuals. Here I am NOT talking about 
what is possible or plausible for there are no doubt MANY 
plausible/possible explanations to account for what Olcott testified 
to or to account for what observers saw regarding Palladino.

Steve commented:

> > As we have seen with Sai Baba, some people are so good
> > at sleight of hand and some witneses ae so dishonest
> > that even seeing is not believing. The only way to
> > prove that dishes can be materialized out of thin air
> > is to do it yourself. That was you can absolutely
> > rule out sleight of hand and every sort of other
> > nonsense. Once you prove it possible, then you prove
> > the plausibility of claims made in the past.

Daniel replies:

But can you ABSOLUTELY rule out sleight of hand and every sort of 
other nonsense? I don't think so. To paraphrase Barzun and Graffe, 
the possibility and plausibility of some kind of nonsense is always 
there. It is only when you PROGRESS on to considering probability 
(i.e, in light of evidence, known facts, specific details) that you 
can rule out certain things, but even then never ABSOLUTELY for it is 
always possible to come up with some sort of scenario in which 
sleight of hand or some other sort of nonsense could have occurred or 
is plausible. Read the books of Houdini and the Amazing Randi and 
Paul Edwards for examples of what I'm talking about.

Notice what Bill writes later in his comments:

"In my mind the only evidence of a paranormal experience that I could 
accept as proof of probability over possibility would be my own 
observation of my own experience. And even then I COULD BE 
delusional." Caps added.

COULD BE is an admission of possibility and plausibility.

Even if you have a personal experience of materializing dishes, you 
can never rule out completely the possibility that you are 
delusional. Argument can always be plausibly made that you are 
delusional.

Of course, if you could replicate your feat time and time again then 
you have a better chance of proving to yourself as well as to others 
that you are NOT delusional and that you have the ability to 
materialize dishware.

But then another problem crops up. This problem is written about in 
Mahatma Letter No. 1:

"What then would be the results of the most astounding 
phenomena . . . ? . . . Test after test would be required and would 
have to be furnished; every subsequent phenomenon expected to be more 
marvellous than the preceding one. Your daily remark is, that one 
cannot be expected to believe unless he becomes an eye-witness. Would 
the lifetime of a man suffice to satisfy the whole world of skeptics? 
It may be an easy matter to increase the original number of believers 
at Simla to hundreds and thousands. But what of the hundreds of 
millions of those who could not be made eye-witnesses?"

I call this problem the "doubting Thomas" syndrome.

What if HPB had produced dozens of cups and saucers on demand time 
after time. Would anyone who was not an eye witness really believe 
it? And if they did, the skeptics would simply have called 
them "gullible" or "theosophical fundamentalists". 

Then another problem arises. THE PASSAGE OF TIME. Eventually all 
the eye witnesses die and all that is left are their written 
testimonies. 

If we had all of these eyewitness accounts of HPB producing dishes 
time and time again, would Brigitte living now in 2001 be willing to 
accept any of this evidence? I do NOT know what Brigitte's comments 
would be but I do know what many skeptics would say about the 
testimonial evidence. They would say that there is no really "solid 
evidence". All we have left are these written records. And that it 
is possible and plausible that all of these accounts are somehow 
flawed. Isn's it possible/plausible that HPB duped them with sleight 
of hand, isn't it possible/plausible that they were her confederates 
and if not that, then they were "true believers"?

"Would the lifetime of a man suffice to satisfy the whole world of 
skeptics?"

I don't know if I've expressed clearly the underlying thought I'm 
trying to convey. I will be more than happy to try to clarify that 
thought if I have not gotten it across successsfully. 

Regarding the two statements:

(1) Ray Hyaman's:

"It is always possible to 'imagine' some scenario in which cheating 
no matter how implausible, COULD HAVE occurred."

(2) Marcello Truzzi's:

"One can 'HYPOTHETICALLY' explain away any result [even] in science 
[or history or the paranormal]."

Maybe these are overstatements in part and one can quibble and find 
exceptions to these statements but the BASIC UNDERLYING IDEA in both 
statements is valid and indeed can be illustrated in tens of 
thousands of instances in the paranormal, in history, in science and 
in court cases.

Steve, please briefly cite the TWO CASES regarding Blavatsky's 
phenomena that you mentioned prior which you think 
constitute "scientific evidence"? However you may have phrase it; I 
am quoting from memory.

I bet you that Bill and I and other people on this list (including 
Brigitte) can come up with different scenarios in which cheating or 
malobservation, etc. COULD HAVE occurred. Furthermore, when you cite 
those two instances I would be surprised if, for example, Brigitte 
would agree with your conclusion.

And going beyond Theosophy/Blavatsky, are there other specific cases 
of the paranormal that you can cite that convince you? Cite one or 
two.

I would think that in each and every case that you might cite, "it is 
always possible to 'imagine' some scenario in which cheating . . . 
COULD HAVE occurred."

In each case using the UNPACKING METHOD one can find possible and/or 
plausible flaws which would have allowed cheating to occur.

I am not trying to be difficult in this email but I am trying to 
convey some very important ideas about possible/plausible versus 
probable. And there are several related issues to 
possible/plausible/probable that are also important to keep in mind.

I write this in a hurry with no proofreading or corrections.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc