My Challenge to “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”

  • Thread starter Thread starter fintastic79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fintastic79

Guest
When I ask skeptics why they don’t believe in the supernatural, they often say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I argue that skeptics also make an extraordinary claim without proof.

Throughout history, millions of people have claimed to have supernatural experiences (ghosts, hauntings, angels, demons, miracles, near-death experiences, profound mystical or religious experiences, etc.) Even if 95 percent of them can be easily attributed to hoaxers seeking money or attention, believers with overly active imaginations, or ignorant people misinterpreting natural phenomena, there remain thousands of investigated, documented cased where the witness meets most or all of the following criteria:

-Professes certainty about witnessing or experiencing something that has no obvious natural or scientific explanation. (“I know what I saw. That coffee mug flew eight feet across the room and hit me in the face!”) This lowers the probability of misinterpretation. (If it flew eight feet across the room instead of just falling off the shelf, it probably wasn’t a tremor or rodents or something like that.)

-Offers testimony that is corroborated by other witnesses or fits a pattern of other reported events. (“You say weird stuff is happening in your house? That is weird. The previous occupants said the same thing. That’s why they moved.”) This lowers the probability of a hoax.

-Shows how the experience completely changed their life. (“Even though we fell in love with this house and it’s close to our jobs and good schools, we’re moving anyway and taking a huge hit financially because we’re terrified.”) This indicates sincerity.

-Has no history of criminality or hoaxing and comes across as sane and honest. This means the witness passes the “smell test.”

-Is educated and employed in a respectable profession. This rules out the dullards with nothing to lose.

-Claims to have no strong religious beliefs or interest in the supernatural. This lowers the probability of wishful thinking or an overly active imagination.

-Seeks no payment for their story. This rules out the profit motive.

-Seems reluctant to go on the record, regrets doing so after suffering public ridicule, or asks to remain anonymous. This lowers the probability that the person was just seeking attention.

Published reports by researchers and journalists have identified thousands of seemingly credible people with no obvious motive for making up a story. There only two possible explanations:
  1. The supernatural is real.
  2. All these people are either lying or mistaken.
Both explanations are unproven, extraordinary claims. Let me be clear: It’s NOT extraordinary that someone could lie or be mistaken about a claimed supernatural event; however, it IS extraordinary that thousands of people meeting the above qualifications could be lying or mistaken. Furthermore, unless skeptics can investigate and debunk every single case, it’s also an unproven extraordinary claim.

When it comes to the supernatural, it’s not a question of accepting or rejecting an extraordinary claim. It’s a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe. By rejecting the extraordinary claim of the supernatural, skeptics implicitly accept the extraordinary claim that all seemingly credible witnesses are lying or mistaken. Either way, the truth is extraordinary. Therefore, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural. You’re simply substituting one extraordinary claim for another.

I suppose you could argue, “One claim is more extraordinary than the other claim.” However, that’s a subjective judgment that depends on your worldview. If you’re a committed materialist, just about any natural explanation—no matter how unlikely or preposterous it might seem given the facts and circumstances of the case—will seem less extraordinary *to you *than a supernatural explanation. On the other hand, if you’re open-minded about the possibility of supernatural events, it’s easier to accept a supernatural explanation for some cases than to believe that all these people are lying or mistaken.
 
That’s a great essay, fintastic! I don’t have much to say, apart from agreeing with you. You’ve wrapped it up very well. 🙂
 
fintastic79 said:
When I ask skeptics why they don’t believe in the supernatural, they often say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I argue that skeptics also make an extraordinary claim without proof.

Throughout history, millions of people have claimed to have supernatural experiences (ghosts, hauntings, angels, demons, miracles, near-death experiences, profound mystical or religious experiences, etc.) Even if 95 percent of them can be easily attributed to hoaxers seeking money or attention, believers with overly active imaginations, or ignorant people misinterpreting natural phenomena, there remain thousands of investigated, documented cased where the witness meets most or all of the following criteria:

-Professes certainty about witnessing or experiencing something that has no obvious natural or scientific explanation. (“I know what I saw. That coffee mug flew eight feet across the room and hit me in the face!”) This lowers the probability of misinterpretation. (If it flew eight feet across the room instead of just falling off the shelf, it probably wasn’t a tremor or rodents or something like that.)

-Offers testimony that is corroborated by other witnesses or fits a pattern of other reported events. (“You say weird stuff is happening in your house? That is weird. The previous occupants said the same thing. That’s why they moved.”) This lowers the probability of a hoax.

-Shows how the experience completely changed their life. (“Even though we fell in love with this house and it’s close to our jobs and good schools, we’re moving anyway and taking a huge hit financially because we’re terrified.”) This indicates sincerity.

-Has no history of criminality or hoaxing and comes across as sane and honest. This means the witness passes the “smell test.”

-Is educated and employed in a respectable profession. This rules out the dullards with nothing to lose.

-Claims to have no strong religious beliefs or interest in the supernatural. This lowers the probability of wishful thinking or an overly active imagination.

-Seeks no payment for their story. This rules out the profit motive.

-Seems reluctant to go on the record, regrets doing so after suffering public ridicule, or asks to remain anonymous. This lowers the probability that the person was just seeking attention.

Published reports by researchers and journalists have identified thousands of seemingly credible people with no obvious motive for making up a story. There only two possible explanations:
  1. The supernatural is real.
  2. All these people are either lying or mistaken.
Both explanations are unproven, extraordinary claims. Let me be clear: It’s NOT extraordinary that someone could lie or be mistaken about a claimed supernatural event; however, it IS extraordinary that thousands of people meeting the above qualifications could be lying or mistaken. Furthermore, unless skeptics can investigate and debunk every single case, it’s also an unproven extraordinary claim.

When it comes to the supernatural, it’s not a question of accepting or rejecting an extraordinary claim. It’s a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe. By rejecting the extraordinary claim of the supernatural, skeptics implicitly accept the extraordinary claim that all seemingly credible witnesses are lying or mistaken. Either way, the truth is extraordinary. Therefore, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural. You’re simply substituting one extraordinary claim for another.

I suppose you could argue, “One claim is more extraordinary than the other claim.” However, that’s a subjective judgment that depends on your worldview. If you’re a committed materialist, just about any natural explanation—no matter how unlikely or preposterous it might seem given the facts and circumstances of the case—will seem less extraordinary *to you *than a supernatural explanation. On the other hand, if you’re open-minded about the possibility of supernatural events, it’s easier to accept a supernatural explanation for some cases than to believe that all these people are lying or mistaken.
Click to expand...
Very well done. I have studied such claims for a long time, including claims that fall outside the supernatural category, and in all cases, the incidents involve an intelligence of some kind. Many witnesses are reluctant to give their names, and will only speak to someone on the condition of remaining anonymous. In some cases, people go to the authorities with some claims, only to be dismissed or ridiculed or brushed off.

Nothing extraordinary needs to be demonstrated in most cases. Even in cases where obvious damage is done, police investigators will take any explanation over the word of the victim, since they are not willing to go on the record themselves, or claim to not want to waste their time. Competent investigators are few, and the TV ghost hunter shows make it a bigger joke when episode after after episode proves ZERO.

I am not going to even suggest why science gets nowhere. However, I have a good recent book where a few police detectives leave it as a given that some people with an extraordinary ability do help them solve crimes and, as they state, whether science accepts it or not.

Peace,
Ed
 
DaddyGirl:

Thanks for the response. Those are good points. I suppose there are many other possible psychological-emotive explanations for supernatural claims that I did not consider. Still, I’m sure many cases make these explanations unlikely. Who has a “psychological need” to see coffee mugs flying across the room and hitting them in the face–especially if they’re asking exorcists or paying witch-doctors to get rid of the problem?

If an atheist believes in the supernatural, they’ve surrendered any right to claim a fact-based, scientific worldview. As with the claim of multiple universes, they’ve asserted the existence of something that, by definition, can’t be proven by the scientific method. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve drifted into the realm of leprachauns, fairies, UFOs, Bigfoot, cornflakes-that-look-like-Mary, and every other “fringe” phenomenon they typically group together with religious claims. Like us, they’ve taken a “leap of faith.”
 
fintastic79 said:
DaddyGirl:

Thanks for the response. Those are good points. I suppose there are many other possible psychological-emotive explanations for supernatural claims that I did not consider. Still, I’m sure many cases make these explanations unlikely. Who has a “psychological need” to see coffee mugs flying across the room and hitting them in the face–especially if they’re asking exorcists or paying witch-doctors to get rid of the problem?

If an atheist believes in the supernatural, they’ve surrendered any right to claim a fact-based, scientific worldview. As with the claim of multiple universes, they’ve asserted the existence of something that, by definition, can’t be proven by the scientific method. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve drifted into the realm of leprachauns, fairies, UFOs, Bigfoot, cornflakes-that-look-like-Mary, and every other “fringe” phenomenon they typically group together with religious claims. Like us, they’ve taken a “leap of faith.”
Click to expand...
Careful where you drift. Atheists can’t experience supernatural events? That’s not logical. And there are other phenomena that get short shrift via hand waving as opposed to actual research.

Our faith includes real miracles. Pope John Paul II is one miracle away from sainthood and yes, they will call in doctors, scientists and other experts as needed, to verify whatever happens.

Peace,
Ed
 
For accuracy’s sake, the expression is: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
fintastic79 said:
…]

Published reports by researchers and journalists have identified thousands of seemingly credible people with no obvious motive for making up a story. There only two possible explanations:
  1. The supernatural is real.
  2. All these people are either lying or mistaken.
…]
Click to expand...
I’d suggest there’s at least one other: We don’t currently have an explanation.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
I’d suggest there’s at least one other: We don’t currently have an explanation.
Click to expand...
More hand waving. Some of the phenomena have been going on for centuries. We don’t have an explanation doesn’t wash. I think the real question is: why don’t we have an explanation yet? That is the real question, not the phenomena.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
More hand waving. Some of the phenomena have been going on for centuries. We don’t have an explanation doesn’t wash. I think the real question is: why don’t we have an explanation yet? That is the real question, not the phenomena.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Not enough information?
 
Who judges what makes a claim “extraordinary”? And equally, who judges what makes a claim not extraordinary?

For example, is the claim that God exists extraordinary, while the claim that the universe accounts for its own existence not extraordinary? By what logic? By what authority?
 
fintastic79 said:
When I ask skeptics why they don’t believe in the supernatural, they often say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I argue that skeptics also make an extraordinary claim without proof.

Throughout history, millions of people have claimed to have supernatural experiences (ghosts, hauntings, angels, demons, miracles, near-death experiences, profound mystical or religious experiences, etc.) Even if 95 percent of them can be easily attributed to hoaxers seeking money or attention, believers with overly active imaginations, or ignorant people misinterpreting natural phenomena, there remain thousands of investigated, documented cased where the witness meets most or all of the following criteria:

-Professes certainty about witnessing or experiencing something that has no obvious natural or scientific explanation. (“I know what I saw. That coffee mug flew eight feet across the room and hit me in the face!”) This lowers the probability of misinterpretation. (If it flew eight feet across the room instead of just falling off the shelf, it probably wasn’t a tremor or rodents or something like that.)

-Offers testimony that is corroborated by other witnesses or fits a pattern of other reported events. (“You say weird stuff is happening in your house? That is weird. The previous occupants said the same thing. That’s why they moved.”) This lowers the probability of a hoax.

-Shows how the experience completely changed their life. (“Even though we fell in love with this house and it’s close to our jobs and good schools, we’re moving anyway and taking a huge hit financially because we’re terrified.”) This indicates sincerity.

-Has no history of criminality or hoaxing and comes across as sane and honest. This means the witness passes the “smell test.”

-Is educated and employed in a respectable profession. This rules out the dullards with nothing to lose.

-Claims to have no strong religious beliefs or interest in the supernatural. This lowers the probability of wishful thinking or an overly active imagination.

-Seeks no payment for their story. This rules out the profit motive.

-Seems reluctant to go on the record, regrets doing so after suffering public ridicule, or asks to remain anonymous. This lowers the probability that the person was just seeking attention.

Published reports by researchers and journalists have identified thousands of seemingly credible people with no obvious motive for making up a story. There only two possible explanations:
  1. The supernatural is real.
  2. All these people are either lying or mistaken.
Both explanations are unproven, extraordinary claims. Let me be clear: It’s NOT extraordinary that someone could lie or be mistaken about a claimed supernatural event; however, it IS extraordinary that thousands of people meeting the above qualifications could be lying or mistaken. Furthermore, unless skeptics can investigate and debunk every single case, it’s also an unproven extraordinary claim.

When it comes to the supernatural, it’s not a question of accepting or rejecting an extraordinary claim. It’s a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe. By rejecting the extraordinary claim of the supernatural, skeptics implicitly accept the extraordinary claim that all seemingly credible witnesses are lying or mistaken. Either way, the truth is extraordinary. Therefore, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural. You’re simply substituting one extraordinary claim for another.

I suppose you could argue, “One claim is more extraordinary than the other claim.” However, that’s a subjective judgment that depends on your worldview. If you’re a committed materialist, just about any natural explanation—no matter how unlikely or preposterous it might seem given the facts and circumstances of the case—will seem less extraordinary *to you *than a supernatural explanation. On the other hand, if you’re open-minded about the possibility of supernatural events, it’s easier to accept a supernatural explanation for some cases than to believe that all these people are lying or mistaken.
Click to expand...
It’s enough that the very term “extraordinary claim” is loaded – that is, they define the extraordinary by the experience of people who have no experience of the supernatural, or assign natural explanations to everything, no matter how extraordinary.

Early on in in The God Delusion, Dawkins mocks the testimony of the witnesses of the miracle of the sun for believing that the sun could come out of the sky, as if they didn’t know that it could not be the sun itself, ignoring the extraordinary evidence that accompanied the miracle.

Or the notorious example of Zola, who went to Lourdes, loudly proclaiming that he would convert if he found evidence of a miracle. Presented with a conclusive demonstration that a woman with a terrible case of lupus had been cured at Lourdes, he still refused to believe.
 
All claims require the same level of evidence (not “proof”). In irrelevant cases we can forego the presentation of the evidence, because it siply does not matter. If you were to declare that you have a dollar in your pocket, I would not demand evidence. But if you were to declare that you have the British crown jewels in your pocket, I would.

If you guys wish to present your evidence, go to the James Randi foundation, and on success you can pocket a cool million dollars (which you can give to some worthy charity). Don’t just talk the talk… walk the walk!
 
fintastic79 said:
When I ask skeptics why they don’t believe in the supernatural, they often say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I argue that skeptics also make an extraordinary claim without proof.

Throughout history, millions of people have claimed to have supernatural experiences (ghosts, hauntings, angels, demons, miracles, near-death experiences, profound mystical or religious experiences, etc.) Even if 95 percent of them can be easily attributed to hoaxers seeking money or attention, believers with overly active imaginations, or ignorant people misinterpreting natural phenomena, there remain thousands of investigated, documented cased where the witness meets most or all of the following criteria:

-Professes certainty about witnessing or experiencing something that has no obvious natural or scientific explanation. (“I know what I saw. That coffee mug flew eight feet across the room and hit me in the face!”) This lowers the probability of misinterpretation. (If it flew eight feet across the room instead of just falling off the shelf, it probably wasn’t a tremor or rodents or something like that.)

-Offers testimony that is corroborated by other witnesses or fits a pattern of other reported events. (“You say weird stuff is happening in your house? That is weird. The previous occupants said the same thing. That’s why they moved.”) This lowers the probability of a hoax.

-Shows how the experience completely changed their life. (“Even though we fell in love with this house and it’s close to our jobs and good schools, we’re moving anyway and taking a huge hit financially because we’re terrified.”) This indicates sincerity.

-Has no history of criminality or hoaxing and comes across as sane and honest. This means the witness passes the “smell test.”

-Is educated and employed in a respectable profession. This rules out the dullards with nothing to lose.

-Claims to have no strong religious beliefs or interest in the supernatural. This lowers the probability of wishful thinking or an overly active imagination.

-Seeks no payment for their story. This rules out the profit motive.

-Seems reluctant to go on the record, regrets doing so after suffering public ridicule, or asks to remain anonymous. This lowers the probability that the person was just seeking attention.

Published reports by researchers and journalists have identified thousands of seemingly credible people with no obvious motive for making up a story. There only two possible explanations:
  1. The supernatural is real.
  2. All these people are either lying or mistaken.
Both explanations are unproven, extraordinary claims. Let me be clear: It’s NOT extraordinary that someone could lie or be mistaken about a claimed supernatural event; however, it IS extraordinary that thousands of people meeting the above qualifications could be lying or mistaken. Furthermore, unless skeptics can investigate and debunk every single case, it’s also an unproven extraordinary claim.

When it comes to the supernatural, it’s not a question of accepting or rejecting an extraordinary claim. It’s a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe. By rejecting the extraordinary claim of the supernatural, skeptics implicitly accept the extraordinary claim that all seemingly credible witnesses are lying or mistaken. Either way, the truth is extraordinary. Therefore, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural. You’re simply substituting one extraordinary claim for another.

I suppose you could argue, “One claim is more extraordinary than the other claim.” However, that’s a subjective judgment that depends on your worldview. If you’re a committed materialist, just about any natural explanation—no matter how unlikely or preposterous it might seem given the facts and circumstances of the case—will seem less extraordinary *to you *than a supernatural explanation. On the other hand, if you’re open-minded about the possibility of supernatural events, it’s easier to accept a supernatural explanation for some cases than to believe that all these people are lying or mistaken.
Click to expand...
👍

The catch-phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is multiply ambiguous and imprecise. And on charitable readings it is false. It is not clear what ‘extraordinary claims’ means or what ‘extraordinary evidence’ means. By extraordinary claims one could mean claims which are statistically infrequent, i.e. claims describing events which very rarely happen. Or by extraordinary claims one could mean claims which are priorly very improbable, i.e. unlikely given all our background information. Or one could mean claims which say something very important or profound. By extraordinary evidence one could mean huge amounts of evidence, evidence of very high quality, evidence corroborated by very many witnesses, evidence certain to convince anyone, etc. So the phrase that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ usually is not well-defined and is thus very difficult to assess. With most of the ways it has been explained to me it has been false and open to counter-example.

But you are right, it is very improbable given all the data that naturalism is true. Even one supernatural event is enough to entirely discount naturalism, and it is unreasonable to think that of all the thousands of cases satisfying the criteria you have laid out that there just must be some naturalistic explanation. Naturalism is a mere dogma for which there is little or no justification whatsoever.
 
Hi all, good discussion.

I think the proposal that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is slightly problematic for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, what makes an “extraordinary claim” will depend on one’s background assumptions and worldview. It will also depend on whether one is sceptical by nature or philosophy:

(i) A claim such as, “My parents love me”, is usually accepted prima facie because of our general experience of parental love and we may require no other evidence to substantiate this point. Belief in God can certainly be taken in this way. Many people have a “general experience” of God or the divine in their lives, in the lives of others, throughout history, etc. and so the can could be accepted prima facie (though, this does not mean a presupposition of theism).
(ii) A claim such as, “My parents love me”, can be accepted based on trust and general experience. In this case, we believe what is said by others and/or experienced by ourselves unless we have a good reason to believe others. Similarly, belief in God may not only be based on experience but also trust in those reporting experiences of the divine or an approach that is not initially sceptical.
(iii) If we have evidence to believe in the existence of God, and then of a specific God, further claims may not seem extraordinary at all. If one’s background assumptions and worldview is rooted in theism, a claim that God became incarnated need not be extraordinary.
(iv) In fact, I think this is the crux of the problem (no pun intended). Beliefs in God’s existence, revealed religion, etc. have for most of human history not been “extraordinary claims”. They seem so today to some people not primarily because of a new understanding of reality but because of our philosophical foundations. As a counter-example, let us take a more “extraordinary claim” than the one that God exists: “On 15 August 1769, a male infant was born in Corsica to noble Italian family, whose name was Napoleon Bonaparte”. This is a very specific claim about a specific individual, the chances of whose existence are astronomically unlikely. I’d contend that the claim of such an individual being born on such a date is far more “extraordinary” than the claim that God exists. However, even if we didn’t have particular evidence to support this claim (such as a birth certificate or eyewitness testimony), nobody would deny it off-hand. Why? Because people are born all the time? Certainly, but this is not a general claim like that: it is a specific one. Then, why? Probably because we would not ordinarily be sceptical of such a claim as part of our general worldview. I think we have the same issue with God’s existence. In the past, people seemed to think and feel, “It’s obvious that God or the divine exists”, a shrug-off fact.

Secondly, I’m not sure what is meant by “extraordinary evidence”. As far as I can see, evidence is evidence. If what is meant is “a certain quantity or quality of evidence”, we need to specify what kind and why this particular kind of evidence is admissible and convincing while other kinds are not.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
Not enough information?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. Say a scientist was visiting a home and suddenly, plates and glasses began flying out of the cupboard. How much “information” is required? I have spoken to people who have seen strange things. I have seen something strange.

Conclusion? No one wants to bother with it. Why? That’s the issue.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I don’t think so. Say a scientist was visiting a home and suddenly, plates and glasses began flying out of the cupboard. How much “information” is required? I have spoken to people who have seen strange things. I have seen something strange.

Conclusion? No one wants to bother with it. Why? That’s the issue.
Click to expand...
Wrong! The James Randi Foundation is interested. They investigated many claims and… 100% turned out to be a “hoax” or mistake. They are willing to pay a million dollars to anyone, who can prove any kind of supernatural, paranormal, whatever claim in properly controlled, double-blind circumstances. There are very few takers, and no winners so far.

Contrary to popular misunderstanding we do not deal with a scientific problem here, so scientists are unqualified to be judges. We deal with deception, and hoax. And the only people who qualify to deal with those are the professional masters of misdirection and deception - the stage magicians. That is why the Uri Geller type of hoax-masters are not willing perform their “miracles” if stage magicians are in the audience.

There is NOT ONE, properly conducted event of angels, demons, devils, leprechauns, telekinesis, mind-reading, dowsing, auras, invoking spirits, poltergeists… what have you. But the challenge stands. You can win a million bucks, if you succeed. Of course the hoax-masters raise their collective noses, and proclaim that they are not in it for money. Somehow they do not reject the fees for their performances.
 
Tyrion said:
Wrong! The James Randi Foundation is interested. They investigated many claims and… 100% turned out to be a “hoax” or mistake. They are willing to pay a million dollars to anyone, who can prove any kind of supernatural, paranormal, whatever claim in properly controlled, double-blind circumstances. There are very few takers, and no winners so far.

Contrary to popular misunderstanding we do not deal with a scientific problem here, so scientists are unqualified to be judges. We deal with deception, and hoax. And the only people who qualify to deal with those are the professional masters of misdirection and deception - the stage magicians. That is why the Uri Geller type of hoax-masters are not willing perform their “miracles” if stage magicians are in the audience.

There is NOT ONE, properly conducted event of angels, demons, devils, leprechauns, telekinesis, mind-reading, dowsing, auras, invoking spirits, poltergeists… what have you. But the challenge stands. You can win a million bucks, if you succeed. Of course the hoax-masters raise their collective noses, and proclaim that they are not in it for money. Somehow they do not reject the fees for their performances.
Click to expand...
Nice try. Most people are not paid, professional hoaxers, and there are those who won’t say a word unless they trust you.

Peace,
Ed
 
Tyrion said:
All claims require the same level of evidence (not “proof”). In irrelevant cases we can forego the presentation of the evidence, because it siply does not matter. If you were to declare that you have a dollar in your pocket, I would not demand evidence. But if you were to declare that you have the British crown jewels in your pocket, I would.
Click to expand...
Actually, I do have them in my pocket…
 
edwest2 said:
Nice try. Most people are not paid, professional hoaxers, and there are those who won’t say a word unless they trust you.
Click to expand...
All the investigated ones turned out to be hoaxers or genuinely mistaken. Remember the crop-circles? But you were lamenting about the lack of willingness to investigate. You were wrong, and I even told you where to turn if you wish those claims investigated. Funny (NOT!) that you missed to reflect on that hard information. I would have been very pleasantly surprised if you had honestly acknowledged your lack of knowledge, and would have said: “oops, I was mistaken”. Not this time, however.

It is a sad truth that a huge percentage of the people “wants” something “mysterious”, something “beyond” this world. I have no idea why, that would belong to the psychiatrics to explain. But the fact is there. People “crave” something extraordinary, and will happily swallow any hoax.

One real world example. In the deep South (where else?) there was small congregation and they had a true-blue “miracle” on their hands. One of the young girls was “able” to to read blindfolded, using only her fingertips. They asked Randi to investigate their “miracle”. It took about one minute for Randi to show how the girl cheated. Nothing special about it. The special was the reaction of the people. They were upset that their “miracle” was taken away from them. They WANTED to believe.

By the way, don’t think that only the religious people are that gullible. There are ample number of non-religious who can be duped equally easily. As Barnum and Bailey (allegedly) said: “A sucker is born every minute”. They could have added: “A sucker is born again every minute”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top