Debunking Pseudo-Skeptical Arguments Of Paranormal Debunkers
Argument # 2: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.”
This
is one of the core mantras of hard nosed skeptics, and is usually presented
like this:
“If my friend told me that
on the way here he was delayed because his car got a flat tire, then I would
believe it because it is an ordinary claim.
However, if he claimed that on his way here he was temporarily abducted
by aliens in a UFO, then I would not believe his claim because it is
extraordinary in nature. Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Now
it would help if the skeptics who proclaim this argument specify what they
would accept as extraordinary evidence.
Otherwise, arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter
what evidence is shown, and a way to move the goal posts endlessly. While it is reasonable to expect a higher
standard of evidence for more extraordinary claims, there are nevertheless 7
problems with it to keep in mind.
1) First of all, this argument gives skeptics a shady and underhanded
way to move the goal posts any way they like.
By not defining the standards for “extraordinary”, they are free to move
the goalposts up further anytime their standards have been met on pure
semantics, which they have often done.
Definitions of what are “extraordinary claims” vary
based on prior beliefs and experiences.
Not everyone agrees on whether a claim is extraordinary or
ordinary. Suppose we were fishes for
example, and lived underwater our whole lives without ever seeing or hearing
about land. The claim of land existing
above water would be an extraordinary claim to us, though not to the creatures
living on the land above. Now obviously just because the claim of land is extraordinary to us
as fishes does not mean that the land doesn’t exist. The point is that extraordinary claims are
not extraordinary to everyone. What is
extraordinary to some is ordinary and natural to others depending on their
experience and level of consciousness.
For example, the internal body energy of chi gong (or quigong) is a mystical force to Westerners but has been a
natural everyday part of life for thousands of years in
The best solution, in my opinion, is for everybody to
put their cards on the table by honestly specifying their prior beliefs. This sets the standards for what is to be
expected and leads to a better mutual understanding of each other.
3) Third, although this rule is good as a
general guideline, the fact that 3 possible alternatives exist make this rule
fallible.
a) It is possible for something to exist without leaving behind
collectable evidence as a souvenir to us.
For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move
around without leaving “hard evidence” yet they exist. Therefore, extraordinary phenomena can exist
without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.
b) It is possible for something to exist yet the evidence for it
hasn't been found or understood yet, which is the case for almost every
discovery in history from fire and wheels to gunpowder and gravity, to planets,
atoms and electromagnetism.
c) It is possible that the evidence is already there but that it's
subject to interpretation, making it controversial. This is true for instance, of the alleged
mysterious implants found by doctors and surgeons in alleged alien
abductees. So even when something leaves
a trail, residue or mark, they are subject to interpretation anyway.
Of course, some skeptics have argued that all these
things are possible but not probable, hence the requirement for extraordinary
evidence. However, in order to really
know all that is probable and improbable in the universe and reality, it would
require that one have complete knowledge of every dimension and reality that
exists in the universe and beyond. No
one, neither skeptic nor believer, has that kind of knowledge. Therefore, it would be more accurate to state
that:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective
reality."
4) Fourth, the argument is based on an unproven
premise. It is based on the premise that
paranormal phenomena are either impossible or extremely improbable. The reason it reflects this premise is obvious. Someone who believes that paranormal events
are impossible is obviously going to need a lot more proof than someone who
believes that they are possible and normal.
However, just because miracles, ESP, sightings of apparitions, or OBE’s haven't happened to skeptics doesn't mean they
haven't happened to others. Likewise,
just because I haven’t been to
“When
a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is
almost certainly right. When he states
that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”
5) Fifth, the argument favors
conservatism or retaining the established theory in spite of contrary
evidence. This has its pros and
cons. Obviously, it makes sense to
retain what works until something better comes along. However, when it comes to modifying our
paradigms or world view we also tend to resist change, even when the data calls
for it. This argument I fear, is used as
an excuse for those who resist change.
But if we never abandoned theories or expanded them, then science would
not make progress. History has shown that
progress comes with new discoveries and abandoning old outdated theories that
no longer fit the new data acquired.
This skeptical rule does not specify a sufficient condition for
sufficient evidence. Therefore, rules should be
established to clarify whether a competing theory is promising enough to
warrant further research so that when those rules are satisfied, excuses can’t
be used to try to dismiss the evidence off hand. Otherwise, as Ron Pearson says in his article
Theoretical
Physics Back Survival:
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/theoretical/theoreticalphysics.html
“Science,
however, cannot progress by theory alone; it requires a synthesis of theory and
experiment. When observation runs ahead of theory to provide anomalies which
seem inexplicable, then as history has shown by repeating itself over and over,
the anomalies are avoided, ignored or discredited in order to maintain the
status quo: to avoid the need to injure existing intellectual vested
interests.”
6) Sixth, as my friend and
colleague Michael Goodspeed pointed out in one of his
articles, science has not historically gone by this rule:
http://www.rense.com/general51/embr.htm
“Even
hopelessly flawed arguments posited by the pseudo-skeptic can have the power to
flummox his opponents. In heated debates, he need not speak Truth to emerge
"victorious." Games of semantics, creative ad hominem,
and the deliberate misstatement of his opponents' positions are quite effective
and oft-used tactics in his intellectual battles. The potential violence of
King's English is brought to its greatest fruition by the pseudo-skeptic. With
his back against the ropes, he will daze his opponent with a well-placed quote
from Carl Sagan ("Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence!"), send him reeling with the words "You can't
prove a negative!", then slash his throat with Occam's
Razor ("The simplest explanation is also the most likely!").
These
ordinarily sound scientific platitudes are used as the ultimate "get out
of jail free" cards for pseudo-skeptics who have no answers to
inconvenient questions. Let's examine Sagan's
assertion that "extrarordinary" claims
require "extraordinary" evidence. The problem with this statement is
that popular science does not require extraordinary evidence for its
extraordinary claims. Big Bang theory may be the most extraordinary claim in
the history of popular science. Here we have an idea that can be neatly
encapsulated in eight words: "At first, there was nothing...then it
exploded." (Source: http://w3trid.com/~wboggs/comics.html)
But how can NOTHING explode? Big Bang theory "defies gravity" and
violates innumerable laws of physics, it remains a HYPOTHETICAL mathematical
model, yet it is promoted as truth by NASA and institutions of higher learning
around the world. Why has the mainstream never demanded the same standards of
Big Bang theorists that it does of "paranormal" proponents?
Where
are the "double-blind tests" validating Big Bang theory? Has Big Bang
theory been tested by JREF or other skeptical organizations?
What
about Einstein's theory of relativity? The general public seems unaware that it
has always been and is stil a matter of contention
among accredited scientists. As Marcus Coleman writes (From http://www.wbabin.net/physics/marcus.htm):
"Einstein's
relativity was not accepted by a number of his contemporaries.
"Poor
showed clearly that the actual observations were not what was claimed and that
they did not support Einstein's prediction. This is still a valid refutation of
Einstein's presumed gravitational attraction of light, and notwithstanding the
'Gravitational Lensing' phenomenon, still remains
standing as an unanswered challenge to Einstein's general theory of relativity
and theory of gravitation. As a side issue, this relegates the concept of
'black holes' to pure science fiction as many non-conventional scientists
contend - that is, despite evidence of the most recent discoveries being
claimed as proof of their existence (even to including the latest data
concerning the centre of the Milky Way), such 'proof' does not survive close
scrutiny."
My
point here is not to argue one side or another in debates over specific
cosmological questions, but rather to demonstrate that these most sacred
"truths" of popular science are in reality EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS which
have never required EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.
A
more accurate phrase to describe the standards of pseudo-skeptics (and, I'm
sorry to say, much of the mainstream) is, "UNPOPULAR claims require
extraordinary evidence." In its time, Galileo's thesis was considered
quite extraordinary, as was
Extraordinary
evidence for 4 phenomena
7) Seventh, from a certain standard, it could be said that we already
have some extraordinary evidence for certain types of paranormal claims. Take the following 4 types of phenomena for
instance.
UFO's (Unidentified Flying Objects): It can be said that there is extraordinary
evidence to support the existence of UFO's from unexplainable photographs,
video camera footage, multiple eyewitness sightings, abduction reports, Air
Force radar reports, etc. All of these constitute
convincing evidence for some people, but not for others. Although much of it can be explained as
misperceptions, natural phenomena, weather balloons, aircraft, birds, balls of
lightning, luminous Earth lights, etc. there are still many cases which are
unexplainable and display features not known of any natural phenomena. One example is the White House Merry Go Round Incident of July 1952 where Air Force
fighters repeatedly chased UFO’s that kept appearing on Air Force radar was
never adequately explained. Even
skeptics admit that some cases are unexplainable, though they claim that
unexplainable does not mean inexplicable. (See Argument # 11)
Since it’s not always possible for extraordinary
things to leave behind some type of tangible evidence, if I saw a UFO at close range
and didn't have my camera with me and then it flew away, how am I expected to
have extraordinary evidence? Am I
supposed to be able to call that UFO back as if it were under my command or
chase it like Superman? The fact that
this event happened without our control makes us unable to satisfy this
criteria. The same goes with ghosts and
other things.
For hard nosed skeptics though, even good evidence
will not be enough, since their mentality is to debunk rather than to discover
and learn. You see, even if I had a
piece of a crashed flying saucer and showed it to them, they would just say
that it is probably just a piece of top secret military aircraft that we don't
know about yet. They would want the full
saucer itself to be convinced. Then if I
found a whole saucer and showed it to them, that would still not be enough
because then they could say that there is no proof that the saucer is
extraterrestrial in origin and that it could just be a secret type of aircraft
invented by the military. Of course, if
they had real alien bodies in front of them, then it'd be much harder to
dismiss <g> but you get the idea here.
They will continually raise the bar.
It's their mentality that causes them to close their minds and ignore
everything that doesn't fit into their viewpoint. Nevertheless, many brilliant researchers have
concluded that UFO’s, whatever they are, are definitely real. Author and nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman
who has spent years in this field has written a series of articles on this,
which you can find at: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sf_Articles.html He has also published some well researched
and convincing books such as Crash
at Corona: The U.S. Military Retrieval and Cover-Up of a Ufo
and TOP
SECRET/MAJIC. (Incidentally, Friedman has
issued a public challenge to the US Air Force to publicly debate the
Ghosts and Spirits: The same goes with ghosts. There are many credible witnesses who have
seen ghosts and experienced unexplainable things taking place in haunted
houses, such as sudden apparitions, the feeling of an unseen presence,
unnatural movement of objects, frequent displacement of things around the
house, sounds, voices, etc. Paranormal
investigators have even used geiger counters that
detected electrical activity in a haunted area.
Plus, there are also countless stories of hauntings
in all around the world from the mundane to the incredible and uncanny. Although these claims are largely anecdotal,
we must understand that while anecdotal evidence is not completely reliable, it
is not completely unreliable either and is considered to be evidence in
societal functions depending on various factors. (See Argument # 5 regarding
the validity of anecdotal evidence) In
addition, the amount of anecdotal evidence is also relevant because the higher
the number and the more credible the witnesses, the stronger the evidence.
However, die hard skeptics will not consider
anecdotal evidence to be valid evidence regardless of the amount. To them, credible evidence has to be
measurable in some conventional way and reproduced at our beck and call. The problem with this is that what we can
measure is limited to our level of technology.
For instance, before we had the technology to measure seismic-activity
in the Earth’s crust, they still existed even though they couldn’t yet be
measured. Furthermore, since we can’t
see radio waves, electromagnetism, air, gravity, magnetic force, etc. but they
exist anyway, it is logical to assume that there are other things that could exist but aren’t yet
measurable. Our technology may not be up
to the level to measure other things that could be there. Or it may be that our technology can only
detect things of the physical plane and not the spiritual plane. Looking for physical evidence of something
spiritual is like looking for evidence in the ocean for the existence of Mars
rather than looking for it in space.
ESP (Extra Sensory Perception) and Telepathy: This is also especially true for ESP and
telepathy. Experiments under controlled
conditions have been done that revealed consistent well above chance results,
which strongly point to the conclusion that ESP and telepathy exist at least to
a small degree. (See Dean Radin’s The
Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic
Phenomena and
Bernard Gittelson’s Intangible
Evidence for more specifics) These experiments, particularly the Ganzfeld and Autoganzfeld
experiments done from 1974 to 1997, were repeatable too, with 2,549 sessions
showing above average results. (See Argument # 17) The problem is that not all
scientists and researchers are able to produce the same results. Skeptics usually point to the failures of psi experiments and ignore the successes. They will accept the failed psi experiments as evidence against psi,
but not the successful psi experiments as evidence
for psi. This
is an obvious double standard, which is typical of closed-minded skeptics. One skeptic I debated did not consider the
high success of the Ganzfeld experiments as evidence
for psi. She
pointed out that the few failed experiments invalidated the other successful
ones! She wanted a 100 percent success
rate. (and even if she got a 100 percent success rate, she would obviously have
moved the goal posts and charged fraud!
Very few things are 100 percent!)
Of course, not all skeptics are that closed-minded,
but this gives you an idea of the mentality of closed-minded skeptics. I’m not saying that we should only pay
attention to the successes and ignore the failures either, but that we should
take them both into account, and when we do so, there is in fact strong
consistent evidence that psi exists, both from
scientific experiments and overwhelming anecdotal evidence (as
studies show most of the world has experienced ESP). It is possible of course, that some
scientists skew the psi results because they are
eager to find evidence for psi, but why do skeptics
automatically assume that it must be that?
Obviously it’s because of their preconceived beliefs (which they will
not admit). If ESP and telepathy exist,
it doesn't mean that it has to be controllable at our beck and call like some
raw energy. We've only begun to scratch
the outskirts on the nature of the whole thing anyway.
Besides experiments, countless accounts of psychic
experiences abound, both documented and undocumented. In fact, studies show that about 2/3 of
Americans claim to have had psychic experiences, making them quite common rather
than “extraordinary”. For instance:
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysteries-of-the-Mind/ESP-Researchers.html
“In their biennial report on the state of science
understanding released in April 2002, the National Science Foundation found
that 60 percent of adults in the
The most common type of psychic experience is
telepathy, such as when loved ones and close friends from vast distances apart
know at the exact time when something traumatic happened to the other. Sometimes, every detail of the traumatic
event is observed or felt from afar.
They are extremely powerful personal proof. I've had a few of these kind myself. Often, what was suddenly felt out of nowhere
about what happened to the loved one is later verified to be true, occurring at
exactly the time it was dreamt or felt.
This suggests some subconscious telepathic link between people who are
close. Experiences of this kind are in
fact very common.
Skeptics of course say that these kind of things are
nothing but pure coincidence, but this is unsubstantiated and a rush to
judgment. They just don’t realize that
just because something happens that they can’t understand doesn’t mean that it MUST
be coincidence or chance. In the same
manner, if someone spoke Spanish and I didn’t, that doesn’t mean that the
person speaking Spanish is speaking random gibberish. If someone living in a tribe in Africa saw me
turning channels with my remote and didn’t understand how remote controls work,
that doesn’t mean that my pushing buttons on the remote and the channels
changing are just a coincidence!
Mystical Experiences: And what about mystical experiences,
spiritual enlightenment, being "born again", Near Death Experiences
and Out of Body Experiences? These can
also be said by those who experience them to be extraordinary evidence as well,
because they are often self-authenticating and life changing in themselves. As the 1994 New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
states under Mysticism:
“Mysticism
in general refers to a direct and immediate experience of the sacred, or the
knowledge derived from such an experience.……. First, the experience is
immediate and overwhelming, divorced from the common experience of reality.
Second, the experience or the knowledge imparted by it is felt to be
self-authenticating, without need of further evidence or justification. Finally, it is held to be ineffable, its
essence incapable of being expressed or understood outside the experience
itself……. the experience itself is always of an Absolute that transcends the
human efforts or methods of achieving it. (New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
1994)”
Experiencers will describe these
experiences not as faith-based, but an “inner knowing.” The fact that these type of experiences are
dramatically life changing makes them “extraordinary evidence” themselves
simply because ordinary experiences don't alter people's lives in this way. To say that these self-authenticating, life
changing experiences are just pure imagination is closed-minded to say the
least. As Faith, a practitioner of Shakti Gaivism and one who has
had all-pervasive cosmic transcendental experiences of God in Unity state,
constantly reminds us on my email group:
“But remember .. there is "Belief" a chosen activity of mind... and there is an
actual Knowing... via direct experience.
They are 2 differnt things. I never could accept chosen Belief.. THAT is
why I was an Agnostic.
I like the example of the person working
in an inner office with no windows. A
co-worker could come in and tell them it is raining out. IF they accept That as truth... it is ONLY a
chosen belief. But.. If they were to go
outside themselves and stand in the driving rain and get soaking wet... then
that is no longer a chosen belief... that would qualify as an actual Knowing..
by Direct experience.
Your Mind is Limited... but "YOU" are far greater than
your mind... you are ALL that is..... you just cannot see it yet. Mind keeps you contracted.... but You can
go beyond individual mind and tap the All Knowing. The only way you can KNOW this... is by
experiencing it. I am not talking about
"Belief" here... but direct
experience. IF you were to accept what
I say here.... THAT would be a Belief.... No Good in my book or yours either I
am sure. So... I will NOT be
disappointed if you do not ACCEPT what I say.... on the other hand..... You
cannot really know that what I say is really illogical babble either...... I
think the fairest thing to do is... stay open to the possibilities.... That
there are things beyond the scope of Science, things that your current logic based min has not been exposed to....
but that are none the less Possible.” - Faith (FaithRada@aol.com)
“Extraordinary evidence” is subject to perspective
because those who have firsthand direct experience of the phenomena already
have their “extraordinary evidence” while others who haven’t, don’t. (See
Argument # 5 regarding anecdotal evidence.)
For instance, those who have had full blown OBE’s
already have a realization and knowing that separation of body and spirit can
and has taken place, and that there is life after death, especially if they are
able to witness specific details at a distance which are later verified as
accurate. For them the experience is as
apparent as it would be apparent to you whether you were in your own car or
house. Similarly, those with
transcendent mystical experiences describe it as an “inner knowing” that transcends
all description and removes all doubt.
In the same fashion, those who have seen Bigfoot or ghosts firsthand at
close point-blank-range also have their “extraordinary evidence.”
Previous
Page Back to
Table of Contents Next
Page
