Nowadays
a group of thought warriors wage a constant battle against anything
they deem to be something that strays outside the approved circle of
mainstream materialist orthodoxy. These thought warriors call
themselves skeptics, even though their attitudes are in some ways the
opposite of the original thinkers called skeptics (as I'll explain in
a moment). The modern day skeptic has a certain modus operandi
that includes the following:
Dismissal
of “anecdotal” evidence. One favorite tactic of the
contemporary skeptic is to dismiss any undesired evidence involving human
testimony, on the grounds that it is merely “anecdotal.” The
reasoning is that evidence gathered by machines or in laboratories is
good evidence, but evidence that comes from human accounts is not
good evidence. This reasoning makes no sense, as anecdotal evidence
is simply observational evidence provided by humans, and such
evidence is a large part of the facts established by science.
Scientists such as zoology are largely founded on anecdotal evidence,
an accumulation of anecdotes that particular observers saw particular
types of animals at particular places. The skeptic likes to point out
that errors might arise from human testimony because of the
fallibility of human memory. But evidence gathered by modern
machines may be just as prone to error, as modern scientific
equipment is controlled by extremely complicated software that was
programmed by ordinary fallible humans, and such software typically
contains bugs. There are actually many ways in which laboratory evidence can go wrong, including software bugs, misuse of equipment, poor experimental design, manual error while taking readings, and faulty summarizing of data points.
A
lazy dismissal of photographic evidence because of the possibility of
fraud. Another favorite tactic of the contemporary skeptic is to
dismiss any and all photographs appearing to show something that he
doesn't wish to believe in, on the grounds that photos can be faked.
But dismissing photographic evidence because of the possibility of
faking makes no more sense than dismissing all witness testimony on
the grounds that witnesses can lie. A reasonable approach is to
consider a scale, one side labeled “Pro” and the other side
“Con.” Until it is discreditied, each photograph that appears to
show some phenomenon must be considered as prima facie
evidence for such a phenomenon, and must be considered as something
that is resting on the “Pro” side of this scale.
The more such
photographs there are, the stronger the evidence for the phenomenon.
Particular photographs might be removed from the “Pro” side of
the scale, by analyzing such photographs and proving they were faked
(something that might be done by using a site such as
fotoforensics.com). Conceivably, if there are incredibly strong
valid reasons for disbelieving in something, then something on the
“Con” side of the scale might outweigh a body of photographic
evidence piled up on the “Pro” side of the scale. But it is just
as wrong to lazily dismiss a large body of photographic evidence
because of a possibility of fraud as it is to dismiss a large body of
witness testimony because of a possibility of lying. If we followed
the same principle of “don't count something as evidence if it
might have been faked,” we would have to throw out 90% of the
evidence that has been gathered by scientists.
Attempts
to dismiss or discredit witnesses based on their beliefs or
associations. Another favorite tactic of the contemporary skeptic
is to attempt to discredit or dismiss witnesses based on what the
witnesses believe or what type of associations the witnesses have.
This tactic is repeatedly used in an egregious manner by the pages of
wikipedia.com, a web site that should never be trusted on any matter
relating to the paranormal. An example of this tactic is as follows:
David said he saw a UFO, but some other time David indicated he
believes in UFO's; so David's testimony cannot be trusted because
he's a “UFO believer.” Such twisted logic is very convenient for
the skeptic, as it establishes a bizarre protocol in which we cannot
accept the testimony of anyone about a phenomenon if the person
indicated his observations led him to believe in that phenomenon –
so the only testimony allowed about a phenomenon is by witnesses who
did not see convincing evidence of the phenomenon. Such reasoning is
absurd. Courts have it right: their rule is all witnesses are of
equal value regardless of their beliefs. A judge will never allow
the testimony of a witness to be excluded on the basic of something
like the religion of the witness (and a good judge will never even
allow a lawyer to ask a question about the religion of a witness).
A
glib tendency to almost always claim that we understand the cause or
causes of something mysterious, rather than to admit that such causes are
unknown. The universe is teeming with a million mysteries, and what man
knows about nature is very tiny compared to what man does not know.
But you might get the opposite idea from listening to a contemporary
skeptic. Given some baffling observations, such a skeptic will almost
always prefer to say, “This is caused by X” or “This is caused
by Y” or “This is caused by X or Y” rather than simply say, “We
do not understand what causes these observations.” This is an
egotistical form of intellectual hubris. Ignorant little fledgling beings like
ourselves (in some ways like plankton in the great cosmic ocean) should not
claim to understand things that we do not understand.
A
tendency to uncritically accept the orthodoxy of a favored authority.
In ancient times skeptics were
those critical of all authorities. Such skeptics maintained that all
human knowledge was subject to doubt, and that no human authority
(whether scientific, philosophical, religious, or governmental) could
be regarded as a source of certainty. But the contemporary skeptic
typically has a very different attitude. The contemporary skeptic
seems to be always bowing down prostrate before the authority of
scientific academia. Such a skeptic throws away all skepticism when
considering the opinions of academics, and seemingly regards their
opinions as a kind of sacrosanct holy writ, to be treated as
reverently as a papal encyclical. This type of attitude is the exact
opposite of the attitude promoted by the original skeptics of ancient
times, causing many people to say that contemporary skeptics should
be called pseudo-skeptics. The modern skeptic often acts as a kind
of orthodoxy enforcer, an agent of punishment for those who deviate
from the entrenched dogmas of materialist thought.
Luckily
our legal system does not operate according to the principles of
contemporary skeptics. But it is interesting to consider: what might
happen if a jury were to decide a court case using such principles?
Let us imagine a jury deliberating a murder case while following such
principles.
Foreman:
Well, here we are, ladies and gentlemen. We finally get to decide
this murder case after listening to 5 days of testimony. Should we
find Sister Mary Agnes guilty of murdering her 98-year-old mother, or
should we find her innocent? We must now decide. Let's now try to
remember the key parts of the testimony we just heard.
Jane:
I remember the testimony that all those nuns gave. Ten nuns testified
that on the night the mother of Sister Mary Agnes died in Paris,
Sister Mary Agnes was working with them in their convent near Los
Angeles, almost 6000 miles away. That sounded pretty convincing, so
shouldn't we just vote “not guilty”?
Foreman:
No, not at all. You see that testimony was merely “anecdotal”
evidence, and anecdotal evidence isn't real evidence, at least not
like evidence provided in laboratories. Since the testimony of the
ten nuns was just anecdotal, we should just ignore it entirely, and
count it as nothing.
John:
Okay, so we'll ignore that testimony. But what about the photographs?
The defense produced 24 photographs showing that on the night her
mother died in Paris, Sister Mary Agnes was in Los Angeles, almost
6000 miles away.
Foreman:
But that evidence doesn't count. Those were just photographs, and
photographs can be faked.
Jim:
Okay, so we'll ignore the 24 photographs. But what about the
testimony of the nurse in Paris? She said that she saw the mother of
Sister Mary Agnes die, and that nobody killed her.
Foreman:
Well we certainly can't accept that testimony. She was a nurse in a
Catholic hospital, and you know how those Catholics are. Don't
forget, we must always be ready to disqualify a witness whenever that witness holds beliefs that clash with our own preconceptions.
Walter:
Okay, so we'll throw out the testimony of the nurse. How do you think
we should vote: guilty or not guilty?
Foreman:
In this matter we must respect the revered authority of the
prosecution. The state has put Sister Mary Agnes on trial, and can we
believe that this esteemed authority has got things wrong?
Jane:
That would be pretty unlikely. Once you get to be an esteemed
authority, you're always right, I would imagine. So it seems we have
a reason for voting “guilty.” Is there any other reason?
Foreman:
Yes, there is a very strong reason for voting “guilty.” If we
vote “guilty” in this matter, the issue is closed, and we don't
have to live with some unresolved mystery, that the mother of Sister
Mary Agnes died for some unknown reason that we don't know. There is
nothing more horrible than a question mark, nothing more abhorrent
than a lingering mystery. Rather than making an unsettling statement
such as “we don't know why this happened,” we'll be much more
comfortable if we say we know exactly why it happened, and say, “She
died because her daughter murdered her.”
Bill:
So I see how the consensus is developing. So let's see a show of
hands: do we all agree to vote guilty?
Foreman:
I see twelve hands raised, so the matter is decided. We will tell the
court we have voted that Sister Mary Agnes is guilty of the heinous
murder of her mother.
Thankfully
the case of Sister Mary Agnes is purely imaginary.
No comments:
Post a Comment