Debunking Pseudo-Skeptical Arguments Of Paranormal Debunkers
Argument # 5: The “anecdotal evidence is invalid” argument.
Stated as:
“All that we have to support paranormal claims is anecdotal evidence,
which is unreliable and invalid evidence.”
Corollary: “Anecdotal evidence is worthless as
scientific evidence.”
The
“anecdotal evidence is invalid” argument is perhaps the one most often used by
skeptics, and also the core philosophical difference between believers and
skeptics. In fact, this issue is often
the impasse point that the debates between believers and skeptics reach. The term “anecdote” technically refers to an
unpublished story or personal testimony.
But in this case, it refers to any eyewitness account or claim of a
paranormal nature without hard evidence to corroborate it.
This
classification is one of the main categories that skeptics put paranormal
evidence into in order to dismiss it. (Another category being the “unreplicable / uncontrolled” group that scientific
experiments supporting psi are often put into. See Arguments # 17, 18) Skeptics who use this argument often
claim that the evidence we have for paranormal claims is largely anecdotal and
therefore worthless as scientific evidence.
They also claim that anecdotal evidence is invalid because it is largely
untestable and subject to error. Some skeptics will even go so far as to say
that anecdotal evidence is zero evidence.
Not surprisingly though, skeptics tend to quote anecdotal evidence when
it supports their side! (another double standard)
Therefore it appears that classifying evidence as “anecdotal” is simply
a dimissal tactic to try to discredit evidence that
skeptics can’t explain away.
There
are many factual and critical problems with this tactic.
1) While it may be true that most of the
paranormal evidence is largely anecdotal in nature, by no means is it true that
they are worthless or invalid. The fact
is that most anecdotes, personal accounts, and what we remember check out most
of the time or at least point to something real. Rarely is it ever based on nothing at
all. For example, if someone told me
that there was a man dressed in a Santa Claus suit at the local mall taking
photos with kids, the odds are that if I went to the mall to verify it, it
would check out most of the time (and if the Santa dressed man isn’t there at
the time, he was there earlier at least).
Or, if I went to the supermarket and asked the staff what aisle number
the bread was at, most of the time the aisle he would tell me would be the one
that has bread. Likewise, if I was inside a building and someone came in and said it was
raining outside, most of the time it would check out. Either it would be raining now, or the wet
floor would show that it was raining earlier.
Similarly, when someone tells me what the ending is of a movie or book,
it usually always checks out when I watch the movie or read the book. It’s that simple! There are countless examples like this that I
could use, most of which are very mundane.
Obviously, these types of simple ordinary everyday anecdotes point to
something real. Now, since the skeptical philosophy about anecdotes doesn’t hold up
when applied to simple mundane examples, why should it be used to evaluate
paranormal experiences and claims?
It makes no sense at all.
One argument I use that always gets these skeptics
goes like this. I ask them about a
country they’ve never been to before, such as
Suffice to say, if these skeptics truly believed
that anecdotal evidence in general is invalid, then they could not function in
life, for they would not believe anything told.
They would refuse directions when they are lost, they would disbelieve
every story told to them during their family reunions (even by the most honest
and credible of their family members), invalidate all
reports given to them in their workplace, etc.
They know it too, and most likely do not live that way. Therefore, as mentioned before, this is all
just a word game play to them, not about seeking the truth.
2) Anecdotal is not considered zero evidence or
worthless by our society. Anyone with
common sense who isn’t detached from society knows this. Courts consider eyewitness testimony as
admissible evidence (though not proof).
Employers consider reference letters, character references of friends
and former employers, and background checks to be evidence of a job candidate’s
performance. Marketing people conduct
surveys to get important useful information about the market. A degree of anecdotal evidence is relied upon
in everyday society. Obviously, if
anecdotal evidence was of zero value, it wouldn’t be like this. But it is, so this demonstrates that these
philosophical skeptics are all about playing a closed-minded philosophical
word/labeling game, rather than being realistic about anything. Yet when confronted with reality, they continue
to just throw labels and semantics out at them, until those who know better
simply ignore them. It’s obvious that
they either lack the most basic common sense, are in denial, or playing a
deliberate game of philosophy.
Factors
measuring degree of reliability in anecdotal evidence
3) What these pseudo-skeptics don’t realize is
that not only is anecdotal evidence mostly reliable with regard to everyday
things, but its degree of validity is can be measured based on several factors.
a) The number
of eyewitnesses, testimonials and claims.
b) The
consistency of the observations and claims.
c) The
credibility of the witnesses.
d) The
clarity of and proximity of the observation.
e) The
state of mind of the witnesses.
Here is an elaboration on these variables that
determine the degree of reliability of anecdotal evidence, and how they have
been more than adequately met for many paranormal phenomena.
a) The number of eyewitnesses, testimonials
and claims. The more eyewitnesses,
testimonies, and claims there are, the greater the weight of evidence. Anyone knows that, and almost everyone
operates that way, except pseudo-skeptics of course. Now, if there was only one claim in the world
of a psychic experience, that wouldn’t be much.
But if a considerable number of people told me the same thing including
people I know and trust, then I might think that there could be something to
it. And if has to do with a sizable
proportion of the world population throughout history, then that’s incredibly
significant. To put it simply, something
is MORE likely to be true the more people attest to it. It’s not an absolute rule of course, just a
general tendency overall. In the case of
psychic experiences, surveys show that two-thirds of Americans claim to have
had them, which is a significant number ranging over two hundred million in
this country alone, not counting the rest of the world! Even the skeptical organization CSICOP admits this stat in articles on their
website such as http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/alternative.html
and http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00047.html
b) The consistency in the observations and
claims of witnesses. The consistency
in the reports we get is also a significant factor that people consider. People trust consistency because it makes
lying or mistake much less likely. Of
course, consistency in observations and experiences does not mean that what was
perceived was really what occurred, but it helps rule out fraud for the most
part and points us in the right direction.
This criteria is also met for some paranormal phenomena. In multiple witness sightings of ghosts and
UFO’s for instance, there are accounts of several or more people witnessing the
same thing and describing the same details.
Even more striking is consistency among people who don’t know each other
nor live near one another. For example,
in the case of NDE’s, we have great consistency among
experiencers in the form of seeing their body below
them, moving through a tunnel, going to a great light of love that some call
God, going through a life review, returning with permanent life changes,
etc.
c) The credibility of the witnesses. The credibility of those making the reports
and claims is also relevant. Factors
that influence credibility include integrity, character, whether they’ve been
known to lie before, education and expertise, mental stability, how well we
know them personally (obviously you would place more value in the claim of
someone you know and trust as opposed to a stranger), etc. We definitely have anecdotal evidence from
this group for various paranormal/psychic phenomena. That is indisputable. Doctors and scientists of esteemed
reputations have attested to miracles or paranormal phenomena. Trained radar personnel and Air Force
observers have observed UFO’s both on radar and in the sky. Accomplished quantum physicists have found
quantum evidence that make psychic phenomena more plausible, such as the
discovery that particles behave differently when observed as opposed to
unobserved, the nonlocality and connectedness of twin
particles that are split, etc. (see Fred Alan Wolfe’s Taking
the Quantum Leap and Michael Talbot’s The
Holographic Universe) Prominent Psychiatrists such
as Dr. Brian Weiss, author of Many
Lives, Many Masters, have discovered and documented clinical evidence that past life memories
are real and can be verified. Besides
experts, people that we know and trust also claim to experience or observed
things of a paranormal nature. Note that
I’m not saying that an appeal to authority means that it’s right, only that it
carries more weight as a general rule.
d) The proximity and clarity of the
observation. How close and clear an
observation or experience takes place also an important factor. If someone thinks they see Bigfoot as a speck
in the distance, then it could be dismissed as almost anything. However, if they saw Bigfoot at close-up
point-blank-range, then it would be much more compelling and harder to
dismiss. For the person to be mistaken
at point-blank-range, he/she would have to be either lying or greatly
hallucinating and in need of help. Otherwise, the skeptics should do some
serious thinking about their beliefs!
Again, this criteria has been met for some
paranormal phenomena such as Bigfoot, UFO’s and apparitions, which have been
reportedly seen at point-blank-range in crystal clarity. Any research into will reveal lists of
testimonials of this close-up nature.
e) The state of mind of the witness at the
time. Another variable is the mental
state of the witness, which include factors such as their alertness level,
fatigue level, intoxication level, emotional level, fear and panic level,
etc. This criteria
has also been satisfied for paranormal/psychic phenomena because many of the
witnesses were sober, awake and sane at the time of their observations and
experiences.
f) What the witnesses/experiencers
stand to gain from their testimony or claim. Whether the witnesses profit in any way is
also a factor to consider, since it would put doubt on their sincerity if they
have ulterior motives which might skew their objectivity. On the other hand, if they have nothing to
gain then they are less likely to be manipulating us unless it was out of their
genuine belief. This is especially so if
they’ve suffered ridicule and damage to their reputation for their claims. The latter has been true for both paranormal experiencers as well as those who made new discoveries that
validated paranormal phenomena. Esteemed
scientists and experts in their fields have risked their reputations to share
their discoveries. These include
physicist David Bohm (a protйgй
of Einstein and author of Wholeness
and the Implicate Order) who postulated consciousness related quantum physics theories that
contradicted the reductionist views of the universe,
Miami Chair of Psychiatry Dr. Brian Weiss (author of Many
Lives, Many Masters) who endured ridicule and criticism from his peers for his clinical
reports and discoveries in past life regression, and others.
Now
of course not all of the evidence for every paranormal and psychic phenomena have met all these criteria, but many of them have
met some or all of them. Therefore we
can conclude that the evidence for them is overwhelmingly strong,
and certainly not zero evidence like pseudo-skeptics claim.
Ordinarily,
anecdotal evidence this strong is accepted as valid evidence in most
circumstances, so why not in regard to paranormal or psychic phenomena,
especially when it’s so common? The
reason is because skeptics and certain scientists don’t think these things are
possible, therefore they assume that the fallibility of anecdotes must be the
cause. In my experience with skeptics
though, no matter how much better evidence you give them, they will still find
excuses to reject them, even if it means imposing double standards, denying
facts or preferring false explanations over paranormal ones. It is apparent that closed-minded skeptics
aren’t looking for evidence, but ways to shut it out to protect their
views. After all, if they’re really
looking for evidence, then why would they shut it out every time it comes up?
Even
arch skeptic Bob Carroll of The
Skeptic's Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com) says that while
anecdotal evidence may not be proof, but it helps point us in the right
direction. (http://www.skepdic.com/comments/ndecom.html) This isn’t saying of course, that we should
believe every anecdotal claim out there.
That would be foolish. This is
just saying that just because an anecdotal claim doesn’t fit one’s world view,
doesn’t mean that it must be due to
mistake, fraud or hallucination. The
bottom line here is that although lots of people saying something doesn’t mean
it’s true, (the ad populum argument) it at makes it
MORE likely to be true compared to if no one at all said it was true.
It
can also be said that the skeptic’s subjective dismissal of another’s
experience is just as unreliable as any anecdotal evidence. Greg Stone, a consciousness expert and fierce
knowledgeable debater on my discussion list, makes some intriguing points about
how skeptics treat anecdotal evidence:
(referring to the writings of Skeptic Paul Kurtz):
“I
suggest that rather than rejecting the eyewitness accounts of so many as
unreliable, that he understand that his offhand subjective dismissal of
another’s experience is equally unreliable. What is missing is his attempt at
understanding what is -- based upon the accounts. That they are laden with the
complexity of personal observation does not mean the underlying phenomena are
not actual and real. The confusion of the scientist in sorting out complex
evidence does not itself render the phenomena unreal...it only means the
scientist lacks the insight or tools to do the work. Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the
evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their
place.”
The
Ebay feedback test that a skeptic failed,
demonstrating what they’re really about
To
give you an example of the ridiculous extent they will carry this argument to,
I once tested the skeptics on my own list by asking them if they a) considered
the feedback rating on Ebay.com to be of any significance, and b) if they would
trust someone more if they had a higher feedback rating rather than a negative
one, and c) if they would bid on an item from a person with a 99 percent
positive feedback rating or someone with much less and many negative comments
in their seller profile. This was a
no-win situation for them, for if they admitted that feedback ratings mattered
in their decisions, then they would be acknowledging
that anecdotal evidence was evidence after all.
If they didn’t, and remained consistent, then they would be denying a
simple reality that every user of Ebay, even fools
and children, knew, which was that the higher the positive feedback rating on a
seller, the more reliable and trustworthy, and vice versa. Yet these skeptics chose the latter, giving
plenty of outlandish reasons for doing so, saying that feedback ratings didn’t
affect their decisions on Ebay, even claiming that
they were too easily faked. It was
obvious they knew nothing about Ebay and the
mechanisms set in place to prevent such things.
One who calls himself Dr. H said:
> }> Feedback rating are not a reliable indicator
> }> because
> }> the feedback ratings themselves are unreliable.
I challenged Dr. H to find
me even one experienced Ebay seller (with over a
thousand positive feedback comments) who would agree that feedback ratings mean
nothing with regard to trustworthiness.
They couldn’t and didn’t. Though
Dr. H claimed to have used Ebay before, he refused to
give me his Ebay username ID (which was public
information anyway) so I could check up on how experienced he really was in Ebay transactions.
After dodging the question many times, he finally answered:
> }Again, what is your Ebay user name? Let me check
> to> }see how experienced you are.
> }> }WELL??????? Why did you dodge the question?
> > I don't give out my personal information casually.
> > That's one of the reasons that I don't get scammed.
Then, he agreed to give me
his Ebay username after I give him my social security
number, driver’s license, and credit card information.
> }> }Dr H, let me see how experienced you are on
> Ebay. > }> }Tell me your Ebay user name so I can look up
> your> }> }transactions. If you want to look me up, my
> user> }> name
> }> }is WWu777.
> }> > }> First give me your SS#, driver's license #, and
> }> major credit card #
> }> with expiration date. Oh and the 3-digit
> security> }> code on the back, too.
> }> > }> LOL.
> }> > }> Dr H
When I called his bluff and
provided that information, he didn’t follow through. How can you trust these bet-welching skeptics to seek the truth? When I pressed him on it, he finally gave me
a username “Hiawatha”.
However, the user ID
“Hiawatha” had ZERO feedbacks on Ebay, proving that
he lied about having a lot of experience on Ebay! Furthermore, the user name “Hiawatha” was
listed as being located in
|
7 years 10 months |
MI, |
Under
that, Ebay lists these similar variations.
|
Close Matches: |
|||||||
|
|
2 years 7 months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 years 1 month |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 years 9 months |
MA, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 years 10 months |
CA, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 years 9 months |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
5 years 7 months |
IL, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 years 8 months |
ME, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 years 8 months |
WA, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 year 10 months |
VT, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 year 10 months |
WI, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 years 7 months |
|
|
|
|||
