Replication as a means of debunking...

[aNorthernSoul]

I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this. It seems like skeptics seem to imply that if something can be replicated (ie. photograph, video, strange anomaly) than it is then explained and therefor debunked. I get that in some cases, like the Meir photographs this seems pretty plausible. On the other hand, I am not quite sure how I feel about it as a sweeping solution to challenging paranormal evidence. Don't people make a career out of replicating what one might percieve for movies etc? Just because I can make something extremely similar to something odd by some other means, how does that automatically mean the original was also made that way?

Anyway, just wondering what peoples thoughts were as it sometimes leaves me troubled and unconvinced about the debunking case at times, while other times it does explain something I am already questioning. Thoughts?

 

[methshin]

when something is sketchy at best and the people behind it claim it to be impossible or very difficult to replicate, then I think that replicating the work does a lot for the field.

For the most part, when I see something that can be easily replicated I already become somewhat skeptical, when something truly boggles my mind, that is when I get interested.

 

[threed]

I look at it as a matter of logical due process. As I said in another post -- paraphrasing Carl Sagan -- "The more extreme the claim, the more extreme the burden of proof."

So, you start out by testing all the more mundane (usually more likely) possibilities. Only when you can solidly rule them out do you move on to the next, more exotic possibility. Trying to duplicate the effect is a viable testing procedure.

Too often, people will jump right onto the very most extreme possibility first. Why do they do that? Let's face it, the extreme possibilities are the more sexy ones. But more often than not -- like it or not -- the answers turn out to be mundane and unexceptional.

Being an informed skeptic doesn't mean you throw ice water on everything just for the fun of it. It means you're determined to make absolutely sure of something before you accept it.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I look at it as a matter of logical due process. As I said in another post -- paraphrasing Carl Sagan -- "The more extreme the claim, the more extreme the burden of proof."

So, you start out by testing all the more mundane (usually more likely) possibilities. Only when you can solidly rule them out do you move on to the next, more exotic possibility. Trying to duplicate the effect is a viable testing procedure.

Too often, people will jump right onto the very most extreme possibility first. Why do they do that? Let's face it, the extreme possibilities are the more sexy ones. But more often than not -- like it or not -- the answers turn out to be mundane and unexceptional.

Being an informed skeptic doesn't mean you throw ice water on everything just for the fun of it. It means you're determined to make absolutely sure of something before you accept it.

I think that makes sense to some extent, but at the same time, should a skeptic not only be skeptical of the phenomenon but also the means by which they test it? If I can replicate a picture, how does that immediately mean the original was made by the same means? There should also be additional testing criteria to debunk a case, no? I think replication can act as a tool to analyze a case, but not the sole means of debunking one in every case. That's just my opinion as while it may seem adequate for many cases, it may or may not prove accurate means to disqualify evidence as not being legit in every case simply due to our ability to replicate a lot of reality by artificial means.

 

[Schuyler]

I think I understand your uneasiness here, but I suspect it's only going to get worse. It used to be, in ancient times, that a photograph of something was its own 'standard of proof' and could be used in court. So if a skeptic can show how such a photograph can be faked, that discounts photography as a standard of absolute proof. But these days we can fake anything! In a few years I suspect we won't need actors any more because you won't be able to tell the difference between animation and real people or places. So we will need to be even more skeptical of traditional proof because we know it can be faked. Our standard of proof needs to be higher. I know it can be disappointing to give up old standards, but we'll just have to get better.

I remember when I first saw the Meier photographs in those giant coffee table books years ago I was very impressed (and very naive). But as the story began to unravel and people showed exactly how it was done, and even found the garbage can lids used to create some of the pieces I had to admit it was completely fake. From today's standpoint, it's even obvious.

I understand that just because something CAN be faked doesn't mean it IS fake, but I have to agree with the skeptics that showing such means a higher level of proof is required. If those self-same skeptics are deluded into thinking that showing that something can be faked PROVES that it is fake, well, I think that's delusional. It proves no such thing. They may think they have the answer, but they haven't really completed their task.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

All very excellent points, Schuyler. And yes, that is a really good way to look at it. In fact, it reminds me that David said similar things on the show. The fact replication is so easy these days also means it is easily faked and therefor it cannot constitute enough evidence either way, as proof of legitimacy nor absolute proof that something is fake.

 

[ddd999]

I've done this (20min) tonight in a 3d program ( Modo401 /start to finish) . (Now imagine what you can do these days if you actually take time and know what you're doing...)

P.S. Gonna grow me some beard now... feel free to call me Billy

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

I think it depends on the context. Replicating something really only shows that you can replicate something!

As a case in point, take the "professional" skeptics like James Randi. Randi was a stage magician, and a very good one. So he made his living by tricking people. So when Mr. Randi claims that something is a hoax, because he can replicate something, lets say bending a spoon, all he is really doing is showing that he can do a sleight-of-hand trick and bend a spoon.

However, he did not prove that the original spoon was bent using sleight-of-hand.

Randi's mind set is that because he tricks people, and can figure out how to do something as a trick, everything must be a trick, just because he doesn't believe it's otherwise probable. It's like a cop looking at everyone as a possible perp.

For example, if you don't believe in ghosts, and you can figure out how to simulate the phenomenon, that doesn't prove that ghosts don't exist. It only proves that you can replicate what people saw.

Taken to an extreme, it would be like saying that because I can paint the Mona Lisa, I can make a claim that da Vinci didn't paint it.

However... if you can find that a certain photograph of a UFO... let's say the insipid Wedding Cake thing, was made from X-mas tree ornaments and a storage container lid, etc., then that is a valid example of being able to replicate something to disprove the claims made about it.

 

[Jose Collado]

If the "evidence" isn't captured in a manor that qualifies it as such, then the person pushing the "proof" has an up hill battle on their hands.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I think basically we conclude that we need a mountain of diverse proof either way, whether to prove something legit OR false and that even when we supply that there will be a collection of individuals who will still require more. /facepalm

 

[bluecat]

The fact that an image can be faked says nothing about whether it is.

The converse is true as well. The fact that I cannot imagine a method of recreating an image, doesn't mean that your similar image is genuine.

This whole line of thinking is especially off-the-wall today. Given enough skill, hardware, budget and time absolutely anything can be faked.

There are good ways to show that a photo has been faked. This line of reasoning in not one of them.

Bluecat

 

[aNorthernSoul]

There are good ways to show that a photo has been faked. This line of reasoning in not one of them.

Bluecat

Indeed there is. I just so happened to listen last night to the old episode of the Paracast with Michael Horn where David discussed his investigation of the photo and outlined the reasons the photo was a fake. To me, THIS type of reaction to a photo holds much more ground than simply replicating it. That's why I found the reaction to David's analysis so comical... why should he try to replicate the photo and submit it to more scrutiny? His analysis and findings were far more significant.

 

[threed]

I think basically we conclude that we need a mountain of diverse proof either way, whether to prove something legit OR false and that even when we supply that there will be a collection of individuals who will still require more. /facepalm

The fact is, believing that we are being visited and/or abducted is a pretty extraordinary claim (that, in many ways, flies in the face of common sense and logic). But if it is true -- in objective reality -- the mountain of evidence will be developed over time.

But we do need more than "he said, she said" testimony and circular logic assumptions. And we need to make sure that we're not believing just because we desperately want to (because that smells like a religion).

 

[aNorthernSoul]

The fact is, believing that we are being visited and/or abducted is a pretty extraordinary claim (that, in many ways, flies in the face of common sense and logic). But if it is true -- in objective reality -- the mountain of evidence will be developed over time.

But we do need more than "he said, she said" testimony and circular logic assumptions. And we need to make sure that we're not believing just because we desperately want to (because that smells like a religion).

Personally, I think that could be said for both sides of the issue... either way, it's a very valid point though.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

The fact is, believing that we are being visited and/or abducted is a pretty extraordinary claim (that, in many ways, flies in the face of common sense and logic). But if it is true -- in objective reality -- the mountain of evidence will be developed over time.

The funny thing is that visitation/abductions actually clear up some things. Thnk about what "common sense" means. It's what people in common would agree on. Wikipedia says: "Common-sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience." So these many experiences people have are common sense.

There is a lot of paranormal events that people experience. We can't automatically dismiss all of them saying the people have metal illness or made a misidentification.

Now personally I have had a lot of paranormal stuff happen in my life. Most of it can't be explained using conventional knowledge, but if I insert a non human entity (I don't want to say "extra-terrestrial" because that makes assumptions) into the events, that actually ends up making more sense. Now I have a tangible cause for things, instead of an invisible force. And that's more logical.

If we had evolved on this planet alongside another intelligent species (well we might have and and killed them off), we wouldn't think anything of it. We accept that there is other intelligent life in the Universe, but we have problems thinking they have come here. That makes no sense! We base everything on what we currently know, and that isn't a whole lot.

Here's a nice way to put things in perspective. My father was born in 1900. He passed away in 1976. So in his lifetime of 76 years he witnessed the first automobiles, electric lights and electricity, radios, refrigeration, airplanes, etc., and at 69 years of age, saw them land man on the moon!

So in his lifetime he went from the horse and buggy to a moon landing!

So that's how far we are in our modern technological age... a little over one lifetime.

Yet we expect that another civilization that might be thousands of years ahead of us, can't figure out how to get here?

We flatter ourselves!

But we do need more than "he said, she said" testimony and circular logic assumptions. And we need to make sure that we're not believing just because we desperately want to (because that smells like a religion).

If you go back a bit, people accepted things like spirits and little people, because many people had direct experience with such things. It was common place. My father's mother was from Ireland. He used to tell me stories about the Banshee, and I had an Irish-American girlfriend, and her mom used to tell the same stories. These were real life experiences for these people.

As we became a more scientific culture, we rejected these things because the scientist couldn't get such things to fit into their scientific view. But look at the many ideas that were once embraced in science that are now rejected, like luminiferous aether.

The "problem" with science is we only believe what we can measure with our current understanding and instruments. Before we could detect other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, we didn't know things like radio and X-rays existed. And if we don't have instruments that can sense some force we know nothing about, how do you measure it? You can't.

It's kind of like saying that trees falling far away, as seen through a telescope, don't make any sound when they fall... because we can't detect any sound with the telescope!

I think if enough people are reporting the same experiences over and over, some of those reports have to be genuine. Scientists didn't believe people with stories about an Ape Man in Africa, until they killed the first gorilla.

Another entertaining story is told by Charles Fort about how many times the speed of light was changed to match scientific observations!

I think we live in a reality that is a bit less concrete than we think.

 

[threed]

What is "common sense"?

Well, the visitation/abduction scenario challenges our sense of reality because:

(1) Travelling to another star requires an energy investment greater than the sum GNP of your entire planet (maybe even your star), so in terms of cost-to-benefit analysis it just doesn't make any sense.

(2) Time travel is a fantasy invention of science fiction used as a device to help facilitate the telling of tales. Even Stephen Hawking now regards multiple dimensions of time-space as unmerited. But even assuming a multi-dimensional reality truly existed and time travel were not purely fantastical, you would be travelling into a different universe with a different future and past (not your own).

(3) Lifeforms that evolved on completely different worlds, under completely different chemical environments and with completely different happenstance, would not be capable of the genetic interaction of hybridization.

(4) Many of the eyewitness accounts are more easily explanable in terms of psychological processes, collective unconscious mythmaking, delusion, lying and campfire storytelling...

(5) None of the eyewitness accounts -- that I'm aware of -- provide any tantilizing bits of information that could truly be said to be indicative of an encounter with something beyond human experience. All of the information is consistent with human imaginary experience and bad science fiction.

There are more.

This does not negate the possibility that the phenomena are real. It just means that the burden of proof is absolutely enormous.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

What is "common sense"?

Well, the visitation/abduction scenario challenges our sense of reality because:

(1) Travelling to another star requires an energy investment greater than the sum GNP of your entire planet (maybe even your star), so in terms of cost-to-benefit analysis it just doesn't make any sense.

First who says they are coming from another star? That's making assumptions based on little evidence. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. We don't even know what these being are. They tell people they are from another star, but then they tell people a lot of things. Maybe they think that's funny.

But I have said the same thing. The whole project uses an awful lot of resources, based on our experience. So it would seem that something else is going on. Either they can get here quite easily, using technology we have no clue about, or they aren't traveling in a linear fashion.

And this is still all using the concepts and technology we know about. That was my point in my earlier post. We can't think that way. When we only had steam engines, would we think UFOs were steam powered?

Just from observations of their craft, they possess technology we can't comprehend. If they can go from total stillness to blindingly fast speed at the blink of an eye, then they are clearly manipulating their mass, and/or space-time. We don't see any detectable propulsion system, except for an occasional buzzing sound.

So until we can grasp how they work, we can't even make conjecture on where they are from or how they get here.

(2) Time travel is a fantasy invention of science fiction used as a device to help facilitate the telling of tales. Even Stephen Hawking now regards multiple dimensions of time-space as unmerited. But even assuming a multi-dimensional reality truly existed and time travel were not purely fantastical, you would be travelling into a different universe with a different future and past (not your own).

That's still based on our own knowledge, which as I alluded to, probably isn't very much at all. If we can't get our aircraft to perform like observed UFOs, how can we pretend to know anything about any of these esoteric subjects. We are practically in the stone age compared to what people observe UFOs to do. So we do not have enough understanding of reality to say that time travel is impossible. Only that we don't know how to do it.

I think juggling is impossible... at least I can't do it! That's the same logic.

We don't know about something until we discover how it works. We just haven't done that yet. Flying was impossible until someone figured out to make heavier than air craft.. and that was not all that long ago. We still used controlled explosions for most of our propulsion. So we discovered fire, and haven't progressed all that much since then!

These beings clearly are able to manipulate space-time, and that's just from witness testimony.

(3) Lifeforms that evolved on completely different worlds, under completely different chemical environments and with completely different happenstance, would not be capable of the genetic interaction of hybridization.

Once again, that's based on our current knowledge. It's also making assumptions. We haven't been to other inhabitable words, right? So we can't make any assumptions about what life is like in other parts of the Universe. We do know what life is like here though, and there is a LOT of it. And we know about uninhabitable planets in our own solar system. But as far as we know, conditions might have to be close to those on Earth, and that might be a fairly common thing.

These beings seem to have evolved from a different path... maybe even from something like our insects.

(4) Many of the eyewitness accounts are more easily explanable in terms of psychological processes, collective unconscious mythmaking, delusion, lying and campfire storytelling...

According to who? The fact that people don't say that these beings talked with a funny accent and gave some sci-fi names and stuff shows that this isn't your usual confabulation.

So those things do not explain any of the eye witness accounts. The easiest explanation is they are reporting actual events.

There have been a lot of studies done, and phycological tests done on these people. There is an excelent report in Budd Hopkins book Intruders from a phycologist, Dr. Elizabeth Slater, who he had do a full battery of psychological tests on the subjects. She didn't know these people were abduction experiencers. She found "no major mental disorders, none were paranoid, schizophrenic, or otherwise emotionally crippled"

In her report she stated:

The first and most critical question is whether our subjects' reported experiences could be accounted for strictly upon the basis of psychopathology, i.e. mental disorder. The answer is a firm no. In broad terms, if the reported abductions were confabulated fantasy productions, based on what we know about psychological disorders, they could only come from pathological liars, paranoid schizophrenics and severely disturbed and extraordinary rare hysteroid characters subject to fugue states and/or multiple personality shifts...

She went on to say that none of the subjects fell into that category.

Also Dr. John Mack has stated the same thing. So here are trained professionals in the mental health field stating on record that there incidents are not "collective unconscious mythmaking". Also we have no evidence that such a collective unconscious even exists. I believe that some of the things we call "myths" are based more in reality than people want to believe. But it gets back to the short comings of the current state of our science.

Many abduction experiences do produce physical trace evidence, and "collective unconscious mythmaking" can't cause that.

(5) None of the eyewitness accounts -- that I'm aware of -- provide any tantilizing bits of information that could truly be said to be indicative of an encounter with something beyond human experience. All of the information is consistent with human imaginary experience and bad science fiction.

I find that statement absurd at best. People have experienced all manner of things that have nothing to do with human experience. These encounters do not match sci-fi, and in fact a lot of what is in the culture now as sci-fi has come from the genuine UFO experience, and not the other way around. VERY strange things happen to people, and these strange things happen to multiple people. You just cant make up stuff like that and expect that everyone is going to do the same.

You also have young children who report these things, and they haven't been indoctrinated into the sci-fi culture yet. And you have people from every walk of life and from all over the world. Budd Hopkins points out that some of the people he has worked with have had PhD's, have been doctors, lawyers, and such.

Now the people who say they met space brothers from Venus.. well that's a different matter. That's the kind of stuff you get from people making things up.

There are more.

This does not negate the possibility that the phenomena are real. It just means that the burden of proof is absolutely enormous.

I'm wondering how much of this subject have you actually studied? It sounds like you sat around and was just thinking about this with no research. This is common for skeptics. They are often intelligent people, but they put no time into the subject and just use what they already know. If it seems implausible based on their own opinions, then it has to be implausible. Why take the time to study something you already made your mind up about?

The burden of proof is really on the person who claims that thousands of people are suffering from some kind of "collective unconscious mythmaking." The actual mental health experts who have worked with experiences do not agree with you.

 

[Schuyler]

I'm wondering how much of this subject have you actually studied? It sounds like you sat around and was just thinking about this with no research.

The burden of proof is really on the person who claims that thousands of people are suffering from some kind of "collective unconscious mythmaking." The actual mental health experts who have worked with experiences do not agree with you.

David, I think you have some excellent points, particularly with the 'Who says they're from space' kind of thing, which I totally agree with. I'm sorry you had to get personal toward the end, and I absolutely disagree that the burden of proof is on the skeptic here.

No, it isn't. If I say there are fairies in my back yard that only I can see, the burden of proof is not on you to disprove they are there. No way.

Psychology is not a hard science the way physics and chemistry are, particularly not with the 'talking therapies,' which can often make you believe anything. Throw hypnosis into the mix and it gets worse fast. You're putting psychologists on a pedestal as 'mental health experts.' I see the term as a virtual oxymoron. Do you think Hopkins is a 'mental health expert'? I realize some of the practioners are well educated; so are theologians. But this aspect of psychology has yet to prove itself valid, much less the stuff they drag up.

For example, in a case in Wenatchee, Washington a few years ago a vast sex-ring was discovered which involved sexual abuse of young children. About thirty people, many involved in child care, were convicted and sent to prison. It took years to establish that no such thing ever happened. It was the combination of an over-zealous detective, a willing prosecutor, and state licensed 'therapists' who 'interviewed' children and managed to convince juries of guilt. People's lives were ruined over that. Innocent people lost their liveliehoods, their reputations, and their own families.

In many fundamentalist 'communities' church goers who have been 'counseled' report a vast satanic cult which has sacrificed tens of thousands of babies per year to Satan, something the 'de-programmed' victims saw with their own eyes. It's just terrible, the depth to which Satan will go. And even here we have testimony that all you have to do is say 'Be gone in the name of Jesus' and the bad guy aliens will leave you alone (smething neither Hopkins nor Jacobs agrees with, btw.)

If we go with the figures as presented, that 2% of the population has been abducted, we're being asked to believe that 120,000,000 people have been abducted worldwide by beings who claim they are aliens. I think, before we fall down that rabbit hole, we have to establish that psychologists and 'mental health experts' even know what they are talking about. In my experience, personally speaking, psychologists involved in therapy seem very loosey-goosey to me. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. They are very empathetic (That's their job), but they are not always critical thinkers. Ted Bundy was a psychology major. I don't think that was an accident. (I went to the same high school as Ted Bundy. He was two years ahead of me.)

For the record, I have read everything Jacobs, Hopkins, and Mack have published on the subject.

 

[bluecat]

Uncle Albert said common sense is just a set of prejustices we accumulate before we are 18.

He was right.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

David, I think you have some excellent points, particularly with the 'Who says they're from space' kind of thing, which I totally agree with. I'm sorry you had to get personal toward the end, and I absolutely disagree that the burden of proof is on the skeptic here.

No, it isn't. If I say there are fairies in my back yard that only I can see, the burden of proof is not on you to disprove they are there. No way.

I wasn't trying to get personal, I just felt that maybe he hadn't actually read up on the situation based on some of his comments. If I sounded like I was attacking him, I apologize.

The burden of proof thing was about it all being some mass hallucination. I don't believe such a thing exists. Before you say people are having some kind of "collective unconscious mythmaking," I feel you have to establish that such a thing can even happen. It's real easy to say it's all in peoples' minds, but where's the proof? Proof has to go both ways. Otherwise the "explanation" is just a way to dismiss someone's experience.

It's like someone saying you are lying, and it's their word against yours. Most of the people who claim it's all in the person's mind, has already made their mind up on the subject. To them, it's not real, so therefore the person had to be delusional. They wont entertain an alternative explanation, because then they would have to be open to the fact that maybe this stuff is really happening. It becomes dogma.

If you saw fairies, what has to be proved, that you saw them, or that they exist?

You make some very valid points about the police being over-zealous to solve cases. I know because my 86 year old mom was murdered and without them even trying to do any work, they suspected me! Until the guy murdered an elderly man up the street. That's kind of the same mindset. They think they already know all the answers. The detective said to me "in all my experience it's usually a family member" So I answered that he just had a new experience! Even though I passed a polygraph test... twice, and they tried to rig it the second time. (and forget the fact that I was at work, etc.)

Keep in mind that the psychologist that Hopkins used had no idea that these people claimed to be abducted by non humans. She was just doing a series of standard psychological tests.

I think all anyone needs is to have a bizarre experience happen to them, to understand that you weren't imagining it.