Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00491)

I agree with Bill on this one, and regarding Daniel, in following two 
links I present historical information all of it from the 
recognised "Thesosophical History Quarterly" publications.
My presentations have notting to do with "skeptic's" or not, its 
historical, and valid from a perspective of researching the origins 
of Blavatsky's theosophy, and the history of the TS.
And I am still whaiting for Daniel to respond in a more historical 
responsible manner. "Skeptic'" or "historians" are two differrent 
things.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4222

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4242

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4199


Brigitte

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Bill Meredith" <bilmer@s...> wrote:
> 
> 
> ----------
> > From: danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@y...>
> > To: theos-talk@y...
> > Subject: Theos-World The "possibility/plausibility" method of 
argument:
> An example
> > Date: Saturday, December 22, 2001 11:59 PM
> > 
> > "Truth rests not on possibility or plausibility but on 
probability."
> > --- Barzun and Graffe, THE MODERN RESEARCHER
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Better to say "That which is probably true rests 
not on
> possibility or plausibility but on probability." 
> 
> 
> > The "possibility/plausibility" method of argument is a very 
useful 
> > tool in unpacking and throwing doubt on ANY normal or paranormal 
> > event/experience/experiment.
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > I give below an excellent example of this method of argument from 
THE 
> > TRANSCENDENTAL TEMPTATION by Paul Kurtz, a founding member of 
> > CSICOP. Notice how Kurtz focuses on 
POSSIBILITIES/PLAUSIBILITIES. I 
> > put certain words in CAPS to show his technique.
> > 
> > "Many psychic investigators were apparently impressed by the 
Fielding 
> > report on Eusapia Palladino [the famous Italian 
medium]. . . .Were 
> > some of the medium's manifestations genuine? . . . Or MAY WE 
SURMISE 
> > that Eusapia was more clever than Feilding and his associates? 
DID 
> > EUSAPIA HAVE accomplices --- PERHAPS Italians, scientists, and 
> > friends who had attended several seances, or even Carrington? 
DID 
> > SHE USE every trick in the book, changing them to suit her 
purposes? 
> > Since she was a voluptuous woman, WERE HER MALE SITTERS taken in 
by 
> > her erotic charms and DID THEY FAIL to take the proper 
precautions? 
> > Eusapia was OBVIOUSLY a master illusionist, well-versed in her 
craft; 
> > and those who sat with her, through skilled in their specialties, 
MAY 
> > PERHAPS have been outsmarted by her. The Feilding report denies 
the 
> > POSSIBILITY of accomplices or prearrangments in the hotel. But 
> > should we accept the denial?"
> > 
> > MAY WE SURMISE....PERHAPS...MAY PERHAPS.
> > 
> > "Where's the beef?" Kurtz offers only POSSIBILITIES & 
> > PLAUSIBILITES. But Kurtz does NOT offer any evidence to his 
readers 
> > to help them answer his questions. Some readers might falsely 
assume 
> > that "something" has been proven or disproven by Kurtz's use of 
this 
> > method of argument.
> 
> Kurtz offers possibilities. One must either prove the possibilities
> impossible or acknowledge them as possibilities however slight. 
One thing
> is for sure: Whatever is probable is also possible.
> 
> 
> > 
> > It should be pointed out that in contrast to Kurtz's "perhaps", 
the 
> > Feilding Report offers various kinds of EVIDENCE in support of 
the 
> > authors' conclusions.
> > 
> > That is not to say that the questions entertained by Kurtz are 
not 
> > worthy of consideration. But such questions should lead to 
further 
> > research on the subject and to the accumulation of evidence. 
> > 
> > In fact, the Feilding Report contains EVIDENCE that would 
actually 
> > answer many of Kurtz's questions.
> > 
> > The above example illustrates Ray Hyman's statement that "it is 
> > ALWAYS possible to 'imagine' SOME scenario in which cheating no 
> > matter how implausible, COULD HAVE occurred."
> > 
> > By using this "possibility/plausibility" method of argument, "one 
> > can 'HYPOTHETICALLY' explain away ANY result [even] in science 
[or 
> > history or the paranormal]."
> > 
> > My notebooks are full of hundreds of such examples from the 
skeptical 
> > literature on the paranormal.
> 
> What evidence do you have that the two incidents under discussion 
were not
> drug related, despite the particular language used to describe them 
and the
> historical context in which they occurred? 
> 
> Bill
> > 
> > Daniel H. Caldwell
> > BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> > http://hpb.cc
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> >