- #1
- 8,142
- 1,760
Almost all fringe topics have these common traits:
1). The events described seem to defy prosaic explanations.
2). Events described are transient by nature and, unless an explanation is found, not reproducible upon demand.
3). The only evidence for the event is eyewitness testimony. On rare occasion some physical evidence may remain but is either inconclusive, or suspect due to the nature of the claims. In other words, no smoking gun is found.
4). The events described are relatively rare. Some small percentage of the population claims direct observations of the alleged phenomenon.
5). We find observers, believers, and crackpots associated with the claim.
One of the most common errors made is to use of the word believer, or crackpot, to describe an observer. A moment of thought reveals the obvious truth in this statement. One might observe a phenomenon but have absolutely no belief about what was seen or how to explain the observation. But to insist that one saw what one believes that they saw, is not the makings of a crackpot, it is justified by our daily experiences. We all depend on observations and interpretations of those observations, in order to cross the street, make coffee, or to do any of the many tasks that we consider to be almost automatic. We learn to trust our observations. That's how we function each day.
When confronted with claims of ghost, UFOs, ESP, or any fringe topic, most scientists either dismiss the whole business as nonsense, even though they almost certainly know very little about it, which is irrational, or they will demand evidence, when what they really mean is proof. Simply put, most scientists will avoid any serious discussion of fringe topics by any means possible, including to demand proof that they know full well doesn't exist. Its a good thing that scientists don't act so irrationally when it comes to other topics. If we need proof of an explanations before we begin, we would never study anything.
Now, one can argue that the fringe topics are a different problem since we are talking about demanding proof that an alleged event took place; not how it could have taken place. If we compare this problem to evolution, the Big Bang, or String Theory, as examples, we can argue that we exist, the universe exists, and the laws of physics exist even if we haven't figured out all of the details. There is no doubt [in the prosaic sense] that these statements are true. But, as a random example, did the chair in the living room move all by itself as claimed? Who can ever really say for sure except the observer, and even that person can't have absolute certainty. And what would constitute proof if it did happen? A film or video, one hundred witnesses, a thousand...? I think it is easy to see that there is no evidence that would ever suffice - the nature of that particular "event", being now in the past, precludes any possibility of obtaining physical evidence that satisfies science.
So what is the role of science in these situations? Many would argue that science has no role without physical evidence. But as soon as evidence, such as photographic evidence, is presented, it's dismissed as [assumed to be] a hoax or a fluke. And, as soon as someone pops up with an explanation that sounds vaguely reasonable, no matter how unlikely, even if the explanation lacks any good evidence, the skeptics jump on the bandwagon; abandoning their skeptical posture like a bad habit. So, what this shows is that many people are not really skeptical, they are using skepticism to further a personal agenda. That is why observers are lumped together with true believers and crackpots. It provides an easy out to avoid dealing with questions for which we have no answers. It's really about fear.
There is nothing wrong with accepting that person is being honest even if that presents a problem for our personal beliefs. And, of course, people do lie, but in many cases we have several or many witnesses, and it reaches the point of absurdity to dismiss all as nonsense based solely on one's personal expectations or the inability to account for the claim. There is nothing wrong with the answer: I don't know. But it is wrong and illogical to automatically attack anyone who claims to have experiences that we don't understand. And I would add, it is dangerous for amateurs to play pop psychologist. This has become very trendy and itself is a form of pseudoscience.
Sorry for the late edits...paste and cut, paste and cut...
1). The events described seem to defy prosaic explanations.
2). Events described are transient by nature and, unless an explanation is found, not reproducible upon demand.
3). The only evidence for the event is eyewitness testimony. On rare occasion some physical evidence may remain but is either inconclusive, or suspect due to the nature of the claims. In other words, no smoking gun is found.
4). The events described are relatively rare. Some small percentage of the population claims direct observations of the alleged phenomenon.
5). We find observers, believers, and crackpots associated with the claim.
One of the most common errors made is to use of the word believer, or crackpot, to describe an observer. A moment of thought reveals the obvious truth in this statement. One might observe a phenomenon but have absolutely no belief about what was seen or how to explain the observation. But to insist that one saw what one believes that they saw, is not the makings of a crackpot, it is justified by our daily experiences. We all depend on observations and interpretations of those observations, in order to cross the street, make coffee, or to do any of the many tasks that we consider to be almost automatic. We learn to trust our observations. That's how we function each day.
When confronted with claims of ghost, UFOs, ESP, or any fringe topic, most scientists either dismiss the whole business as nonsense, even though they almost certainly know very little about it, which is irrational, or they will demand evidence, when what they really mean is proof. Simply put, most scientists will avoid any serious discussion of fringe topics by any means possible, including to demand proof that they know full well doesn't exist. Its a good thing that scientists don't act so irrationally when it comes to other topics. If we need proof of an explanations before we begin, we would never study anything.
Now, one can argue that the fringe topics are a different problem since we are talking about demanding proof that an alleged event took place; not how it could have taken place. If we compare this problem to evolution, the Big Bang, or String Theory, as examples, we can argue that we exist, the universe exists, and the laws of physics exist even if we haven't figured out all of the details. There is no doubt [in the prosaic sense] that these statements are true. But, as a random example, did the chair in the living room move all by itself as claimed? Who can ever really say for sure except the observer, and even that person can't have absolute certainty. And what would constitute proof if it did happen? A film or video, one hundred witnesses, a thousand...? I think it is easy to see that there is no evidence that would ever suffice - the nature of that particular "event", being now in the past, precludes any possibility of obtaining physical evidence that satisfies science.
So what is the role of science in these situations? Many would argue that science has no role without physical evidence. But as soon as evidence, such as photographic evidence, is presented, it's dismissed as [assumed to be] a hoax or a fluke. And, as soon as someone pops up with an explanation that sounds vaguely reasonable, no matter how unlikely, even if the explanation lacks any good evidence, the skeptics jump on the bandwagon; abandoning their skeptical posture like a bad habit. So, what this shows is that many people are not really skeptical, they are using skepticism to further a personal agenda. That is why observers are lumped together with true believers and crackpots. It provides an easy out to avoid dealing with questions for which we have no answers. It's really about fear.
There is nothing wrong with accepting that person is being honest even if that presents a problem for our personal beliefs. And, of course, people do lie, but in many cases we have several or many witnesses, and it reaches the point of absurdity to dismiss all as nonsense based solely on one's personal expectations or the inability to account for the claim. There is nothing wrong with the answer: I don't know. But it is wrong and illogical to automatically attack anyone who claims to have experiences that we don't understand. And I would add, it is dangerous for amateurs to play pop psychologist. This has become very trendy and itself is a form of pseudoscience.
Sorry for the late edits...paste and cut, paste and cut...
Last edited: