As
part of their efforts to keep us believing that we live in a bland
universe (what we might call a three-flavor universe), and not a
funky universe rich in paranormal phenomena (what we may call a
64-flavor universe), various people engage in what we
might call anomaly denial. Such figures tend to repeat the same
lame excuses and catchphrases again and again, to try to dismiss
strange observations that don't fit in with their tidy sanitized
worldviews. Let's look at some of these catchphrases, and see why
they are mainly just vacuous rhetorical devices.
“Things
like that don't happen.”
This is such a sweeping dogmatic statement that it can be
immediately dismissed as an overreaching absurdity. Not only does the
statement claim that some particular type of anomalous phenomena
doesn't occur, it basically asserts that no paranormal phenomena ever
occurs. One way to rebut the claim is to remind someone that the
universe began in the most anomalous, unusual way imaginable
(according to scientists, the universe suddenly burst into being from
an infinitely dense point). Then say: “Things this odd apparently
have been happening from the very beginning of time.” Another good
rejoinder to the claim “things like that don't happen” is merely
to ask: how do you know?
“There
must be a rational explanation.”
This is basically a rhetorical device that attempts to
characterize any paranormal explanation as irrational, and then asks
us to look for mundane explanations that are deemed rational. A good
way to counter this bit of rhetoric would be to say something like,
“Yes, everything in the universe has a rational explanation, even
the most mysterious things that are utterly beyond human
explanation.”
“If
this existed, scientists would understand it or acknowledge it.”
One reason that this claim is not very persuasive is
that the universe is full of mysteries that scientists don't
understand, such as the Big Bang, dark energy, dark matter, and
quantum entanglement. Another reason that this claim is not very
persuasive is that investigating the paranormal seems to be almost a
cultural taboo for the great majority of scientists. Since most
scientists have pretty much declared a “hands off” policy in
regard to the paranormal, there is no reason why we should expect
them to understand anything relating to the paranormal, even if it
existed. Similarly, if I refuse to look into the topic of quantum
chromodynamics, you should not expect me to understand it.
“You
don't believe in that kind of nonsense, do you?”
This
is a kind of loaded question similar to a question such as, “Have
you stopped beating your wife?” The person who asks the question
hopes that the person will answer, “No,” and thereby exclude the
paranormal possibility. But if the person answers, “Yes,” he is
then put in the position of asserting his own belief in nonsense.
A good
reply this type of question is to say something like: it's illogical to
deny the possibility of something when evidence for such a thing
appears.
“I
can't believe that – it's impossible.”
In
general, science does not warrant claims that particular anomalous
phenomena are impossible. Almost
the only claims that are impossible would be those that assert the
nonexistence of something science has proven. So claims such as
“carbon doesn't exist” or “gravity doesn't exist” are
impossible, according to science. But science in no way excludes most
of the anomalous phenomena people claim to have observed.
“I
have to reject that report – it's unscientific.”
Some
may think that it is
real scientific to immediately reject some report or claimed
observation that does not match the expectations of scientists. But
that usually isn't scientific, but instead the opposite of
scientific. A good scientific procedure is to accept any
observation or possible observation relating to a hypothesis, and to
store that observation in a set of observations that will be
considered whenever that hypothesis is to be considered. You could
describe such a policy with this slogan: bank it, don't bunk it. In
other words, rather than immediately dismissing an anomalous
observation with some lame excuse such as “things like that don't
happen,” you should “bank” an observation by putting it
somewhere where it might be “withdrawn” for further scrutiny when
the topic is under further analysis.
“There's
no evidence for that.”
This
is perhaps the favorite catchphrase of skeptics, and is ruthlessly
deployed even in many cases where there is a huge amount of evidence
for something. The best way to counter this (when appropriate) is to
assert the opposite, something like: “To the contrary, there is a
great deal of evidence for this.”
“You
must have just hallucinated.”
Variations:
“He must have just hallucinated”
or “She must have just hallucinated.”
This catchphrase is useful for trying to wipe out
evidence for various anomalous phenomena such as apparitions,
near-death experiences or UFO's. You can rebut it by pointing out
that hallucinations can reasonably be attributed only to people with
chronic mental illnesses or people under the influence of alcohol or
drugs, and cannot be reasonably attributed to people who are in a
deep state of unconsciousness. I am using here the proper definition
of hallucination: an apparent perception (such as seeing something or
hearing something) that comes without any external stimulus that
produces it.
“Your
eyes must have been playing tricks on you.”
This
is an appeal to what is basically a bogus possibility, the
possibility that your eyes suddenly malfunctioned, and caused you to
think you were seeing something that you weren't seeing. Since the
human eye is a remarkably reliable instrument, this isn't a
believable rejoinder. Unless you have chronic vision problems, your
eyes will never “play tricks on you,” although your mind may
misinterpret some information that your eyes send you.
“Your
camera must have malfunctioned.”
This
is like the “your eyes must have been playing tricks on you”
statement, but involves a camera rather than an eye. It's just as
weak a statement, because modern digital cameras are very reliable
things that virtually never have one-shot malfunctions that might be
interpreted as evidence for the paranormal.
“It
was probably just an optical illusion.”
If you
think an optical illusion is a plausible explanation for an anomalous
observation, ask yourself: when was the last time you can remember
seeing an optical illusion? It's probably some optical illusion you
saw in a book. That's because optical illusions are pretty rare in
nature.
“People
like me don't believe in that kind of stuff.”
Variation:
“People like us don't believe in
that kind of stuff.”
This is basically an appeal to a sociological or
cultural taboo. The person using the catchphrase is basically
reminding you that within some particular subculture, there are
penalties or sanctions for believing in something like the anomaly
being considered. A rejoinder is to point out that acceptance of an
anomaly should be based on evidence, not on taboos.
“That
is too weird to be real.”
Variation: “That is too crazy to be true.”
One can counter this catchphrase with this observation:
nature loves weirdness. And, of course, it does. Almost all of the
things that might be dismissed as “too weird to be true” are not
half as weird as some of the things scientists believe in, such as
the weird rules of quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement, black
holes, neutron stars, and the sudden origin of the universe in a
singularity.
“They're
all just a bunch of fakers.”
Using any statement beginning with “they're all
just...” is in general a sign of prejudice and stereotyping. It's
generally impossible to prove such statements, and it's also
generally impossible to prove weaker statements beginning with
“they're mainly just a bunch of ...”
A good way to rebut such bigotry is just to ask: what
evidence do you have to support that statement?
“It
was probably just a lens smudge.”
When used to dismiss some anomaly photograph, a comment
such as this is basically equivalent to accusing the photographer of
being a complete moron. Lens smudges keep producing the same effect
until the camera is cleaned. Only the most careless and dimwitted
photographer would fail to notice that such an anomaly was occurring
in each photo. Also, lens smudges cannot be used to explain anything
other than a blurry blob, because the camera cannot focus on anything
on the lens.
“It
was probably just dust.”
Dust isn't big enough to produce photographic anomalies
when a photographer shoots in ordinary air. The particle sizes of
outdoor dust particles are only about 1 micron, which is about one
fifteen thousandth (1/15000) of the area right in front of the lens.
That's hundreds of times too small to produce a decent photographic
anomaly. If the dust in ordinary air were sufficient to produce photo
anomalies, almost every flash photo would show such anomalies.
“It
was just a cosmic ray hitting the camera.”
This excuse is used to explain away anomalies in photos
taken in space or on Mars. It isn't a very persuasive excuse when
the anomaly occurs on the exact horizon or when the anomaly seems to
have more structure than we would expect a passing cosmic ray to
produce.
Below is an example of a anomaly explained as a "cosmic ray hit." We see what looks like a luminous figure. The original NASA photo can be seen here. The figure appears exactly in front of the landing site where one of the Mars rovers was deployed from. What are the odds against a cosmic ray hitting in that exact spot, to create what looks like a figure with legs?
No comments:
Post a Comment