      |
|
|
Debunking the Arguments of PseudoSkeptics and Debunkers
Argument # 5: The “anecdotal evidence is invalid” argument.
"Pure
logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world.
All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it." - Albert Einstein
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unpublished story or personal testimony.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 and 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 pseudoskeptics 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 pseudoskeptics 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
pseudoskeptics claim.
In
reality though, anecdotes are part of the scientific process of collecting raw
data. They may not constitute scientific
proof, but they are definitely a form of evidence. One of the world’s top NDE experts, Dr. Peter
Fenwick, explained this to a caller on a radio show here:
This
isn’t saying of course, that we should believe every anecdotal claim out there,
which would be foolish. But 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.
Ordinarily,
anecdotal evidence this strong is accepted as valid evidence in normal
situations, so why not in regard to paranormal or psychic phenomena, especially
when it’s so common? The reason is
because pseudoskeptics don’t think these things are possible, therefore they
assume that the fallibility of anecdotes must be the cause. In my experience with skeptics, no matter how
much 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 were really looking for evidence, then why would they
shut it out every time it comes up?
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 challenge where a skeptic failed and was caught lying
red-handed
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 years 3 months |
VA, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 years 1 month |
FL, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 years 11 months |
MI, |
|
|
|
|
|
As you can
see, the user name he gave me, "Hiawatha", has ZERO feedback, and the
user name is listed as being from
Dr H has
been TOTALLY UNABLE to explain this discrepancy. Instead, he sidestepped
it and questioned my ability to look up Ebay user names (like that’s soooooooo
hard). It's funny of him to say that, since he has zero feedbacks whereas
my Ebay user name "WWu777" now has 84 feedback points, demonstrating
that I am a real Ebay user while he is a pseudo and fraud.
Those are
the undeniable facts.
To confirm
his trickery, I challenged Dr H to email my Ebay user name from his through
Ebay’s site, to prove that it is his. Anyone can send a message from
their Ebay user name to another. Yet he refused to comply, or respond to
the request, cause deep down, he knows he can't, cause he gave a false Ebay
user name, and has no way to weasel out of it. Thus he remained silent
about it.
If these
pseudoskeptics are dishonest about such little things, then why should we
trust them in matters of the afterlife, paranormal, and scientific
research??!! This is the kind of fishy
dodgeball they play. Obviously, this big
argument of theirs that “anecdotal evidence is invalid” doesn’t even work with
simple down-to-earth venues like online auction transactions, so why use it as
a measuring tool for reality and truth?
Anyone with common sense knows that in regard to the Ebay test, they are
utterly and completely wrong. Yet, as I
mentioned, these skeptics are not about truth or reality at all, but about
playing philosophical word games.
Previous
Page
Back to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
