Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00072)

Steve, you wrote:

"It appeared to me the conditions under which the teacup 
materialization (and a small number of other phenomena) were 
produced precluded the possibility of fraud. The stories 
themselves therefore constituted a prima facie case that 
materialization does occur in nature. Bart has argued with
some force that this is not the case, so that whether or 
not one believes the phenomenon was real or not is a matter 
of faith and not evidence. I appreciate his insights 
and at the same time find them rather discouraging."

Steve, your above statement indicates to me that you
still do NOT understand the difference between
"possible" and "probable."

You say that you once believed that the teacup phenomena
and a small number of other phenomena "precluded the
possibility of fraud."

Steve, you can never preclude the POSSIBILITY of fraud.

Steve, please notice what Barzun and Graff, two historians, 
write on the following NON-paranormal event:

"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." Caps added.

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 of forgery is always there. 

A critic using the unpacking method could take 
the ball at this point and try to explain away the 
three pieces of evidence.

For example, the skeptic could argue:

"Isn't it possible that [1] the relative's signature 
was forged, and, isn't it possible that [2] some "forger" 
was somehow privy to family matters, and, furthermore, 
isn't it possible 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 objected to such speculation, the critic 
might respond:

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

But one should point out that possibilities and 
plausibilities [at step 2 in the Four Step Process of Discovery] 
are not to be confused with probabilities [at step 4]. 
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 [at 
step 2 in the 4 step process] it cannot be accepted as truth 
[at step 4] 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 [at step 3], 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 critics of the paranormal 
(not to mention other subjects) become fixated on 
possibilities and never progress beyond to considering 
probabilities. Such skeptics---after pointing out that 
if two or more explanations are possible, none are proved---
seem to be uninterested in the question of where the weight 
of the evidence lies. Many of these critics fixate and 
speculate on various possibilities at step 2---hoping 
that readers will assume that something has been proven 
or disproven by such rhetoric.

Steve, as far as I can tell, Bart has only offered
possibilities. Fine and good but one should remember
as Ray Hyman once wrote:

"... it is ALWAYS possible to 'imagine' some scenario 
in which [for example] cheating [or lying or tricks],
no matter how implausible, could have occurred." 

Bart ONLY confirms the truth of Hyman's statement.

But apparently you have come to believe that Bart has
actually proven something ELSE by such rhetoric.

For more details see my essay at:

http://theosophy.info/possibleversusprobable.htm 

I hope I have conveyed THE point I am trying to explain.

Daniel