Is proof really important?

[ProphetofOccam]

I'm curious what some of you guys think in regards to "paranormal investigation" and the importance of proof.

Do you feel that proving the existence of cryptozoological creatures is important? Why?

Would proof of Bigfoot, for example, (though consider any of your favourite cryptids) make the entertainment you derive from the folklore mean more to you? Less?

For those of you who conduct investigations, would proof of the existence of your favoured creature increase the emotional value of your past investigations? Would you continue your own investigations, or is proof your ultimate goal?


--explanation for my curiosity--

As a "skeptic," I find the greatest value one can derive from the paranormal is the ever evolving, ever expanding folklore each and every creature and phenomenon inspires. I couldn't care any less whether or not any particular phenomenon is "real;" however, as a folklore junkie, I am always completely entertained by the stories and information that circulate throughout the scene.

While it may be offensive to some, I see the paranormal scene as a kind of neo-folk performance art. To me, it's a type of folklore driven, alternate reality story-teller's circle. Though, the concept goes beyond that. Many people participate in the circle with true belief, while others generate content for fun and/or profit. It's an entertainment experience unlike any other, with the closest comparison being Live Action Role-Play (LARP) games and Alternate Reality games (ARG).

I ask the above questions based on my personal experiences. I have had a longstanding interest in the paranormal (specifically cryptozoology and ET encounters). From the "Read the book!" days to the "Sightings" days, I plowed through existing research, photos, and other pieces of data trying to find proof of the existence of certain creatures. By the time I was in my 20's, I'd already reached the conclusion that there was nothing to prove. I spent a year or two arguing points with people with my older mindset, then i realized it wasn't that fun. It dawned on me that, despite no longer finding it practical that any of these phenomena were possibly reality, that I continued reading the stories and reviewing "evidence." I realized that, for probably the entirety of my interest, I appreciated the paranormal on an artistic level.

So, I am curious. How important is proof to your interest in the paranormal?

Thanks guys,

George

 

[Randall]

Good post and excellent points. I'm not so much into cryptozoology as UFOs, but much of the same principle still applies in that the entertainment, science, art, mythology and such can be enjoyable and educational. They also have excellent potential to act as gateways to mainstream study, especially for young people who are naturally drawn to mystery more than homework. For example, they may have no particular interest in going on a field trip to collect rocks ( or whatever ), but if they become interested in Bigfoot, suddenly the geography, history, wildlife and what tracks and other clues animals leave behind all become important. The bear poop is no longer bear poop, but "evidence" that can be ruled out. An odd pattern on a rock isn't just a rock anymore, but a petroglyph from an ancient culture, or perhaps a fossil from when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. The boring field trip can take on a whole other life that engages the participant in new and interesting ways. At least this is how it can be viewed, and that is how I like to frame these topics.

As for the importance of proof. I think that it's important to define exactly what that means. Those familiar with my posts will now be rolling their eyes - here he goes again with his definitions . However as usual, I maintain that definitions outline the foundations of our understanding and therefore it's where we need to begin. Otherwise we risk building our worldview on shifting sand. To continue: In my view the question isn't, "What constitutes proof?" but "How much evidence is proof enough?" That in turn leads us into the issue of what constitutes evidence, which is a very important thing to understand. Why? Because if we are to use these topics as educational gateways, there is insufficient ( even contradictory evidence ) against certain theories and beliefs. Therefore IMO they should not be presented as fact any more than creationism.

To conclude: Is proof really important? That depends on the context. For those of us who already understand what has just been said here, not so much. We can enjoy these topics in many ways without it. However, if actual proof were found, it would become much more important to everyone ( probably even make headline news ). Lastly, although it isn't a critical factor in the enjoyment of these topics, it is still a very important concept to understand so that we are able to discern fact from fiction and analyze questionable claims. Indeed, it makes watching some of these shows we see on TV even more interesting because we can see what parts they got right and where they're stepping off the ledge ( figuratively ).

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Defining parameters for discussion is completely fair -- even necessary. Without agreement over such definitions, conversations like this become meaningless; we're dealing with a lot of subjective, open material.

To clarify, what I mean by "proof" is an event, or piece of empirical data, that causes the mainstream, widespread, objective acceptance of a phenomenon. The presentation of a piece of evidence that results in acceptance of a phenomenon beyond plausible deniability. Isn't that what researchers are seeking, or does it go beyond that?

When I believed I had discovered that there was no real-life bigfeet, my interest in didn't wain. I can still listen to Brad Steiger talk about his experiences, and second hand explanation of others' experiences, all day long.

 

[SRL+]

To a large extent this could be viewed as modern day tribal elders reciting campfire stories of old, whether valid or not. As if one were to believe every word presented here, one could possibly be in need of professional assistance. Proof is everything, unfortunately, (at this point in time), tangible proof is sparse, hence the campfire stories, which on occasion can be entertaining. I have wondered what sociologists and psychologists would say looking back at these thoughts a century from now.

Paranormal is a broad and all encompassing term which is defined by any occurrence which lies outside of what is defined by material/reductionist science, that cannot be proven thru use of the scientific method. I would suggest that there are occurrences outside this definition, which cannot be explained, and should not be dismissed

 

[Randall]

Defining parameters for discussion is completely fair -- even necessary. Without agreement over such definitions, conversations like this become meaningless; we're dealing with a lot of subjective, open material. To clarify, what I mean by "proof" is an event, or piece of empirical data, that causes the mainstream, widespread, objective acceptance of a phenomenon. The presentation of a piece of evidence that results in acceptance of a phenomenon beyond plausible deniability. Isn't that what researchers are seeking, or does it go beyond that? When I believed I had discovered that there was no real-life bigfeet, my interest in didn't wain. I can still listen to Brad Steiger talk about his experiences, and second hand explanation of others' experiences, all day long.

Your definition of proof is pretty good. When proving the reality of one thing or another as opposed to a purely logical problem, there will always be some element of probability that we are wrong. The question is, at what point do we accept that the probability is so low that the thing doesn't exist that we can accept the evidence as reasonable to believe? In the case of your disbelief in Bigfoot, I don't see how it's possible to "discover there was no real-life bigfeet". It's nearly impossible to prove a negative, let alone "discover" it. So I would hope that in your mind you have not cataloged Bigfoot as a "certain myth", but rather as an unproven claim.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

S.R.L., does that mean that you believe that there is no way to have "proof" in an arena of academic science?

In that case, let me turn the question around and drift into the hypothetical; if you were, by some means meeting your standards and your definition of the paranormal, to review evidence, or a collection of evidence, that proved your topic of interest in the field was, beyond all shadow of doubt, false, would your interest in that particular topic, or the broader topic, evaporate? Or, do you think you would continue to research these topics strictly for the campfire aspects?

I include in my own perception of the paranormal the aspect of suspension of disbelief as a necessary component to the complete experience of the medium. I relate it to Anton Levy's hypothesis on the nature of human beings and the psychological requirement the species has for engaging in ceremonies, superstitions, and/or experiences that require the willful application of suspension of disbelief. While I would definitely be considered a skeptic, and my main area of interest in the paranormal field is folklore, part of the consumption of that folklore is based around a willful, but temporary, suspension of disbelief. Listening to the stories and, in that moment in time, experiencing an emotional openness to "believe," on a profound level, what I'm hearing as fact. In that way, I think it may go beyond the campfire tale as an emotional experience, which is why I feel it is an art form that creates an experience that is very different from the majority of other forms of media.

It is similar to the campfire experience in that the form requires a community of lore-builders and believers to fortify the overall emotional experience.

To expand upon the original post, are there any other skeptics in the forums who feel similarly? Am I the only one who experiences the medium in this way? I feel like that's impossible.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Ufology, I generalized and caused confusion; I apologize.

What I meant by "discovered" should actually read "realized." Everything that I had seen, read, heard, and studied, over the period of 15+ years, lead to my personal realization that the evidence didn't add up to anything pragmatically plausible. Researchers are currently frustrated with the stagnant state of certain areas of the paranormal field, and I think part of the reason for the stagnation is the lack of anything to generate proof in the first place.

While a negative cannot be directly proven, it can certainly be suggested by a consistent number of positives. The positives, in this case, would be the lack of objectively compelling evidence, the failure of any field research to lead to the collection of any objectively compelling evidence, and the common trend amongst researchers to accept word-of-mouth data as relevant and to use the data collected from word-of-mouth cases to build their picture of the phenomenon, thus leading to the invention of untestable parameters to fill in missing data lacking in pieces of evidence. These things (testable, observable positives), taken together, over a period of time exceeding a decade, lead to the realization that the phenomena explored in most venues of the paranormal were not real-world phenomena.

I think by its nature (or SUPERnature), the paranormal can't exist within an academically scientific context. Proof of other forms may exist, but my personal requirement is for something more objective. In its absence, there is very little reason to assume reality of these phenomena. They are innocent of existence until proven guilty.

Edit: To expand on that idea, I don't mess around with the word "possible." For me, something either is, or it isn't. Something exists, or it doesn't. So far, evidence on the side of "exists" is nonexistent in any objective form. The default understanding, therefore, is "doesn't." In cases where something is unknown, which are extraordinarily rare, I understand that the raw, objectively presented piece of data, empirically presented, exists, but to call it "evidence" of anything in particular is nonsensical (it is unknown -- to be evidence for something, we'd have to KNOW that it is related to a particular phenomenon, and is thus not unknown).

All of that said, proof and reality are not really part of my consumption of the paranormal. I like the community, folklore, and suspension of disbelief aspects. those elements are what hold my interest.

 

[Randall]

Ufology, I generalized and caused confusion; I apologize ... What I meant by "discovered" should actually read "realized." ... Everything that I had seen, read, heard, and studied, over the period of 15+ years, lead to my personal realization that the evidence didn't add up to anything pragmatically plausible. Researchers are currently frustrated with the stagnant state of certain areas of the paranormal field, and I think part of the reason for the stagnation is the lack of anything to generate proof in the first place.

While a negative cannot be directly proven, it can certainly be suggested by a consistent number of positives. The positives, in this case, would be the lack of objectively compelling evidence, the failure of any field research to lead to the collection of any objectively compelling evidence, and the common trend amongst researchers to accept word-of-mouth data as relevant and to use the data collected from word-of-mouth cases to build their picture of the phenomenon, thus leading to the invention of untestable parameters to fill in missing data lacking in pieces of evidence ...

No apology necessary. In regard to your realization based on "word-of-mouth data", I offer the following counterpoint. Evidence in the from firsthand experience can be sufficient to constitute reasonable grounds for belief, and the absence of material evidence doesn't necessarily nullify such evidence. On the point about you believing that "something either is, or it isn't", you are mostly correct, but in reality we often don't have the luxury of knowing all things with such certainty, so we form our worldview on many assumptions that we ourselves have no direct evidence for other than what we've been told, or read, or shown on TV, etc.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I think word-of-mouth has value in two instances.

One, as a useful tool in indicating a direction to take an investigation (of anything). It, in and of itself, is not evidence; however, it does pave the path to potential evidence. As in most court cases, eyewitness testimony is only as strong as the evidence that supports it. If testimony doesn't lead to evidence, all it is is a story.

Two, as a story. Folklore is nothing if not a compilation of word-of-mouth narrative.

Outside of the implied emotions of others, I try not to accept information as truth without pragmatic reason. I'm sure I fail all over the place, but I try.

 

[Bob Watson]

The problem is without evidance where dose sciance end and faith begin?

 

[Randall]

I think word-of-mouth has value in two instances. One, as a useful tool in indicating a direction to take an investigation (of anything). It, in and of itself, is not evidence; however, it does pave the path to potential evidence. As in most court cases, eyewitness testimony is only as strong as the evidence that supports it. If testimony doesn't lead to evidence, all it is is a story.

Two, as a story. Folklore is nothing if not a compilation of word-of-mouth narrative. Outside of the implied emotions of others, I try not to accept information as truth without pragmatic reason. I'm sure I fail all over the place, but I try.

I would almost agree, the point of contention being that word-of-mouth evidence isn't evidence. Every indicator is that it is evidence. Objective support can be found for this by checking the existing definitions. Word-of-mouth information is called testimony, and testimony is evidence that a witness gives ( usually to a court of law ) that may take the form of a written or oral statement detailing what the witness has seen or knows about a particular case. Oxford Dictionary: "Personal or documentary evidence or attestation in support of a fact or statement; hence, any form of evidence or proof." No reasonable claim can be made that testimony does not constitute evidence. The real question is, how much weight does it deserve?

Testimonial evidence is weighed on a number of factors, particularly consistency with known facts, consistency with the original source, original source reliability, and supporting circumstantial evidence. When all these things come together then there is sufficient reason to grant weight to the evidence. But is that the same as proof? Maybe. Is it the same as material evidence? No. Is material evidence always proof? No. Is one any better than the other? It can go either way. We can have lousy testimonial evidence and good material evidence, or we can have lousy material evidence and good testimonial evidence. Ultimately what I can agree with is that it's always preferable to have as much verifiable material evidence as is possible.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Fair enough. I'm a material guy, myself. If only for the fact that "lying" is easy; faking empirical evidence, that passes the scrutiny of qualified peer assessment, is not.

In addition, while not carrying much weight in the absence of hard, empirical evidence, eyewitness testimony has a place in law and the legal system. However, science doesn't consider something evidence unless it is empirical in nature (or otherwise testable/measurable) and follows the method.

I think that was another thing that pushed me out of the believer's circle -- a lack of direction in the search for evidence and proof. Data is presented rhetorically as if it were intended for scientific review, but the actual procedure for gathering and preparing the evidence was more along the lines of legal or philosophical methodology. These are three very different world views -- influential to one another, but still very different in regards to the definition, classification and qualification of evidence. I think this is what causes the resentment of "mainstream" science by many researchers, conflicting understanding of the very nature of evidence.

Edit: Which leads me to the next question: Which of these three areas would you value more in regards to evidence and proof?

 

[ProphetofOccam]

As I have a difficult time recognizing legitimate evidence for the paranormal in any of these three areas, I will tend to jump from one to the other to make various points or lead into various questions. My personal feeling is that all evidence in these fields should be strictly scientific.

 

[Randall]

Fair enough. I'm a material guy, myself. If only for the fact that "lying" is easy; faking empirical evidence, that passes the scrutiny of qualified peer assessment, is not.

Agreed.

In addition, while not carrying much weight in the absence of hard, empirical evidence, eyewitness testimony has a place in law and the legal system. However, science doesn't consider something evidence unless it is empirical in nature (or otherwise testable/measurable) and follows the method.

Well ... I think we may need to clarify a little bit here:

LiveScience: Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. ​

Wikipedia: Empirical evidence ( also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori ) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim.​

The essential foundation for empirical evidence is that it is information that is collected by the senses as opposed to mere reflection on theory. So if credible observers provide information, then that information is empirical in nature. However what we find is that there is often a bias on the part of scientists to accept it as legitimate. I say bias because the only reason they find it unacceptable is because they didn't observe it themselves. This leads us to the issue of verifiability through repetition. However not all observations or experiments can be repeated precisely the same way each time, especially in the case of transient phenomena e.g. the weather and astronomical events.

I think that was another thing that pushed me out of the believer's circle -- a lack of direction in the search for evidence and proof. Data is presented rhetorically as if it were intended for scientific review, but the actual procedure for gathering and preparing the evidence was more along the lines of legal or philosophical methodology. These are three very different world views -- influential to one another, but still very different in regards to the definition, classification and qualification of evidence. I think this is what causes the resentment of "mainstream" science by many researchers, conflicting understanding of the very nature of evidence.

Excellent points. If we're looking to establish the objective reality of something, then direct observation and/or material evidence can be sufficient. However in some cases the reality of something can be established through pure logic based on circumstantial evidence e.g. the presence of planets around distance stars.

Edit: Which leads me to the next question: Which of these three areas would you value more in regards to evidence and proof?

That would depend on what I was trying to prove. In your case, when you say, "I think that was another thing that pushed me out of the believer's circle ..." you are indicating to me that you were certain in your own mind that what you believed was true. And your earlier statement indicates that now you believe it is untrue. I don't think we need to either believe or disbelieve. We have the ability to reserve judgment pending further evidence. This tends to be my most prevalent position on contentious issues.

 

[Randall]

As I have a difficult time recognizing legitimate evidence for the paranormal in any of these three areas, I will tend to jump from one to the other to make various points or lead into various questions. My personal feeling is that all evidence in these fields should be strictly scientific.

The issue of evidence is certainly worth discussing. All too often we see a polarized view that takes one side or another far afield in order to confirm their own biased position rather than weighing everything fairly. In this spirit the only time that I think that all evidence should be scientific is when we are making a scientific claim. Otherwise I prefer a more holistic approach using the principles of critical thinking. Note here that critical thinking does not preclude the use science when valid science can be applied to the issue.

 

[Astrocat]

Good post and excellent points. I'm not so much into cryptozoology as UFOs, but much of the same principle still applies in that the entertainment, science, art, mythology and such can be enjoyable and educational. They also have excellent potential to act as gateways to mainstream study, especially for young people who are naturally drawn to mystery more than homework. For example, they may have no particular interest in going on a field trip to collect rocks ( or whatever ), but if they become interested in Bigfoot, suddenly the geography, history, wildlife and what tracks and other clues animals leave behind all become important. The bear poop is no longer bear poop, but "evidence" that can be ruled out. An odd pattern on a rock isn't just a rock anymore, but a petroglyph from an ancient culture, or perhaps a fossil from when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. The boring field trip can take on a whole other life that engages the participant in new and interesting ways. At least this is how it can be viewed, and that is how I like to frame these topics.

As for the importance of proof. I think that it's important to define exactly what that means. Those familiar with my posts will now be rolling their eyes - here he goes again with his definitions . However as usual, I maintain that definitions outline the foundations of our understanding and therefore it's where we need to begin. Otherwise we risk building our worldview on shifting sand. To continue: In my view the question isn't, "What constitutes proof?" but "How much evidence is proof enough?" That in turn leads us into the issue of what constitutes evidence, which is a very important thing to understand. Why? Because if we are to use these topics as educational gateways, there is insufficient ( even contradictory evidence ) against certain theories and beliefs. Therefore IMO they should not be presented as fact any more than creationism.

To conclude: Is proof really important? That depends on the context. For those of us who already understand what has just been said here, not so much. We can enjoy these topics in many ways without it. However, if actual proof were found, it would become much more important to everyone ( probably even make headline news ). Lastly, although it isn't a critical factor in the enjoyment of these topics, it is still a very important concept to understand so that we are able to discern fact from fiction and analyze questionable claims. Indeed, it makes watching some of these shows we see on TV even more interesting because we can see what parts they got right and where they're stepping off the ledge ( figuratively ).

I thought UFO's shouldn't be "lumped with the paranormal." Why? Because UFO's aren't a paranormal study. Impossible to explain scientifically remember ? This thread is speaking of the paranormal and and it's proof. You seem like a really smart person and really good with words but what's with the contradiction? If you don't remember go back to Joseph P. Farrell in talk about the show. It's there that you made such an argument. I guess you changed your mind. Anyhow the person who started this thread much love. This is definitely a subject that makes for good conversation.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Now we're getting into something interesting.

It goes back to what i said about people mixing up the various types of evidence, but, in this case, prefering one over the other and expecting everyone to share their brain.

As I said, I'm a guy who likes things to be neatly empirical. I'm not into too much free interpretation or stretching inferences. So, naturally, I'm into the version of evidence science allows. Legal evidence allows for "circumstantial" and inferred data sets -- part of why it's possible to convict the innocent in a well established legal system, but not as common to be way off base within the established sciences. Philosophical examination of the scientific method allows for assumption based on personal experience and pre-existing conditions to make declarations. All of this makes examination of data pertaining to the paranormal very difficult in an objective arena.

In essence, we're all playing a game, but everyone is following different rules. One guy's playing basketball while the other two are playing football and baseball. The defining conditions of the game rules have gone without discussion, so the football guy is annoyed when the basketball guy calls "foul" on his tackle, and one of the baseball outfielders is completely confused by the opposing football guy's "interception." By the time a couple rounds of the game have been completed, everyone's pissed off and reluctant to play together again.

--

As far as empirical evidence goes, in the way i view things, the difference between credible observer and a qualified set of observers, all at the mercy of peer review by other qualified observers is one that wins or loses the game. I'm sure the police cheif who claims to have seen a chupacabra, or even an alien/UFO, in his backyard is a standup guy with an impeccable record, but how does that make him an expert at identifying and distinguishing known animals with a disease from mythical creatures? It doesn't. In the case of scientific, empirical observation, he's Joe Nobody. His testimony isn't worthless, as it may help to narrow the research of qualified individuals to a particular region, but the value of the empiricism behind his observation is nil. If the qualified team (in this case zoologists, environmentalists, bio-chemists, etc) can't reproduce the conditions of the chief's story by retracing his steps and expanding a search of the area within reason, then the observation serves no purpose in the pursuit of evidence. Without verification from the qualified individuals, it's just a second-hand story; there's nothing empirical about it.

If we follow only the police chief's observation, simply because he's a pillar of the community and holds a position of law enforcement authority, then we're falling into an appeal to authority. If we follow up with the observations of numerous relevantly qualified individuals, who gather physical evidence to support their observations, and all of that is submitted to the greater scientific community for successful peer review, then there is no appeal to authority. Appeal to authority takes place only when the authority of an individual is irrelevant or otherwise questionable (as in the case of the empirical data for the UFO that looks like an insect being submitted to a single qualified authority who is subjected to zero peer review).

However, in the case of legal evidence, submission of data to one or two authority figures for review or experimentation without peer review is completely acceptable. Even the eyewitness testimony of Chief Nobody carries weight as an empirical piece of evidence, when taken in conjunction with inferences and "common sense" deductions of law enforcement/legal professionals -- even his own.

I don't still debate these matters, but, if I did, I've learned from this conversation that, even before two parties agree on the definitions and circumstances of various pieces of evidence, they should first take another step back and see whether or not they can even agree on the definition and nature of evidence. If the definitions are conflicting, there's no possible argument to be had.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

And I do want to clarify, again, that I'm not really arguing for any particular idea. As I said, i don't really care what's real and what's not when it comes the the paranormal.

Further, I really sound like I'm bad mouthing word-of-mouth testimony. Let it be known that, while I think it's not much in the way of useful evidence, it is amongst my favourite types of evidence. It's 70% or so of what I like most about the subject.

 

[Randall]

I thought UFO's shouldn't be "lumped with the paranormal." Why? Because UFO's aren't a paranormal study. Impossible to explain scientifically remember ? This thread is speaking of the paranormal and and it's proof. You seem like a really smart person and really good with words but what's with the contradiction? If you don't remember go back to Joseph P. Farrell in talk about the show. It's there that you made such an argument. I guess you changed your mind. Anyhow the person who started this thread much love. This is definitely a subject that makes for good conversation.

You're absolutely right about UFOs not being a paranormal phenomena, so there must be a miscommunication someplace here. I'm not sure where I said otherwise. Perhaps you could zero in on the sentence so I can see what happened?

 

[Randall]

And I do want to clarify, again, that I'm not really arguing for any particular idea. As I said, i don't really care what's real and what's not when it comes the the paranormal. Further, I really sound like I'm bad mouthing word-of-mouth testimony. Let it be known that, while I think it's not much in the way of useful evidence, it is amongst my favourite types of evidence. It's 70% or so of what I like most about the subject.

Understood. I don't detect any sort of hostility at all. Very good conversation. It's quite refreshing actually. Thank you for the opportunity to participate.