        |
|
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking PseudoSkeptical 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unpublished story or personal testimony.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 Argument
# 17
and Argument
# 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.
f) What
the
witnesses/experiencers
stand to gain from their testimony or claim.
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 that a pseudoskeptic 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 further
expose his BS, 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. So he remained
silent
about it.
Now, 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 Ebay feedback
being relevant,
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
