Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00513)

SUBJECT: Steve Stubbs: ". . . if chicanery is a plausible 
explanation, then the story is not evidence of anything. . . ."

In several postings, Steve, you have tried to draw a DEFINITE 
DISTINCTION between (1) Blavatsky-related phenomena that you consider 
as "not evidence of anything" and (2) Blavatsky-related phenomena 
that in fact "constitutes scientific evidence". The gist of your 
argument and reasoning can be found in the following four excerpts 
from your postings:

(1) "The historical problem is. . . 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. . . .
[Quoted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4210 ]

(2) ". . . I said some months ago that there were two [Blavatsky-
related] phenomena which seemed to satisfy the requirements for 
constituting scientific evidence. . . . The Ootan Liatto story is not 
one of them. Nor is the account by Hartmann that you published."
[Quoted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4253 ]

(3) "If the [miracle] stories [of Blavatsky] indicate that the
conditions were poorly controlled, the miracles may be real, but the 
stories do not constitute scientific evidence. The Hartmann story is 
clearly in this category. So is the Ootan Liatto story."
[Quoted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4420 ]

[The Ooton Liatto story can be found at:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcottooton.htm
The Hartmann story is at the very bottom of the page at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4421 ]

In response to these three statments, I wrote:

"Steve, please briefly cite the TWO CASES regarding Blavatsky's 
phenomena that . . . you think constitute 'scientific evidence'."

Steve,you replied:

(4) "One of them occurred at the Gephard house and is outlined in 
Sinnett's INCIDENTS. It involved the reported materialization of a 
letter and was very carefully observed by a trained conjurer, who 
said he saw no evidence of chicanery." [For this account, see
http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/books/esotericworld/chapter14/
Narrative 14b ]

"The other was reported by both Sinnett and Olcott and described in 
great detail by both. It involved the reported materialization of 
dishes which were dug from the ground. Tree roots were said to have 
grown thickly around the stuff in question, and the ground was 
undisturbed, meaning (1) the dishes were there for some very 
considerable period of time, or (2) the phenomenon must have been 
real." [For these accounts, see Sinnett at:
http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/books/esotericworld/chapter10/
Narrative 10a and Olcott at:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcott01.htm ]

"Both of those accounts impress me, which is another way of saying 
they baffle me. . . . Most of the rest are quite easily explained."
[Quoted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4449 ]

Steve, if I understood your reasoning and thinking on this issue,
you are saying that the cup and saucer and the Gebhard letter 
incidents CANNOT plausibly be explained away as:

(1) some kind of hallucination caused by drugs

(2) a faked and staged event (like your "planting of the
Hartmann letter" explanation) or

(3) by some other "plausible alternative explanation".

Steve, if I understand your reasoning, you are maintaining that these 
two incidents CANNOT be plausibly explained away as instances of 
chicanery. If this could be sucessfully done, then the two incidents 
would have to be classified in the category of "not evidence of 
anything". Instead you contend these two accounts are in the other 
category of "scientific evidence".

Right?

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm