Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00173)

CHECKING OUR IDEAS AGAINST FACTS

by Daniel Caldwell

I've heard it said, regarding reincarnation, that 
a skeptic can easily come up with an alternate 
explanation. This is supposed to therefore dismiss 
the concept. If this line of reasoning is used to
justify that reincarnation cannot be proved, then 
I would suggest that this same line of reasoning can 
be used to claim that the paranormal and the metaphysical 
in general CANNOT be proved.

Skeptics belonging to the organization CSICOP 
constantly use the tactic of suggesting an alternative 
explanation as a possibility in order to show that there 
is no good proof even of ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.

In trying to explain any phenomenon -- including 
historical cases -- there are many POSSIBLE alternative 
explanations.

In scientific studies, there are many possible 
alternative explanations to explain a phenomenon but 
it is the job of the scientist to rule out the 
competing possibilities and to attempt to come up 
with THE explanation, i.e. the most probable explanation 
that can be found in light of all the known evidence.

If you see a man stumbling down the sidewalk as you drive by,
from your armchair vantage point in the car, you can come up with
many different explanations for his behavior. (1) He is drunk;
(2) he is injured; (3) he has a physical disability; (3) he is
crazy; (4) he is pretending and hoping someone will come over to
him so he can mug that person, etc.

All these alternative explanations are possible given the right
circumstances. But you will never know the real explanation
unless you are willing to get out of your car and collect more
data, information, evidence to help you answer the question: "Why
is the man stumbling down the sidewalk?"

If anybody offers an explanation the burden of proof is on that
person to submit evidence of some kind that shows that his
explanation rules out the competing explanations. To simply
offer an explanation as a possibility solves nothing.

For example, a number of people have tried to identify who the
Master Koot Hoomi really was. Richard Hodgson said K.H. didn't
exist! That's one explanation.

Many years ago, Steve Stubbs said in THE AMERICAN
THEOSOPHIST that K.H. was really a man by the name of Nisi Kanta
Chattopadhyaya. Paul Johnson has tried to identify Thakur Singh
Sandhanwalia as the man behind the K.H. prototype. Mary K.
Neff suggested that K.H. was someone else.

But for each and every explanation, has the person putting forth
the explanation really solved the problem concerning K.H. or
have they only offered a possibility with some suggestive
evidence while at the same time ignoring evidence to the contrary
which would show their explanation is way off base?

How do you prove anything? What is evidence? I have found that
far too many writers (including Theosophical writers) dealing
with Theosophical history don't even follow the simple rules of
basic research and some have the vaguest understanding about
evidence, proof, possibilities versus probability, etc.