Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00008)

Thanks, Steve, for your comments.
I will make a few more comments after I finish another posting.

Daniel H. Caldwell
Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky 
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/esotericworldam.htm

--- In theos-talk@y..., Steve Stubbs <stevestubbs@y...> wrote:
> Daniel: "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?
> 
> Almost. What I said is that they baffle me, and
> therefore look like excellent candidates for
> scientific evidence, whereas the Ootan Liatto and
> Hartmann stories are not candidates at all. One of
> them was carefully observed by a trained observer
> (i.e., the Gephart incident). What is required is for
> someone with the skill level of David Copperfield to
> give a more competent opinion.
> 
> Steve
> 
> --- danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
> http://auctions.yahoo.com