Mar 09 2007

That’s Unpossible!

When I was younger I once witnessed with a friend a “V” formation of 5 lights in the sky, flying very slowly, almost hovering, and completely silent. I watched them for about 5 minutes until they disappeared over the horizon. At the time I could offer no prosaic explanation for what I had seen. I discovered later, through newspaper articles, that what I saw were 5 ultralight aircraft flying in formation – deliberately trying, it turns out, to manufacture UFO sighting reports.

We have unusual experiences all the time – things we cannot readily explain. Sometimes scientists observe a phenomenon under controlled conditions that no one can explain. How we respond to such events tends to differ greatly between skeptics and believers.

Believers tend to commit one or more logical fallacies in leading from such unexplained events to paranormal conclusions. Winston Wu, who has compiled a list of invalid criticisms of how skeptics interpret unexplained events, attempts to defend the pro-paranormal position, but ends up just torturing logic to an extent that would make even Jack Bower cringe.

Unexplained does not mean inexplicable

Wu humorously misquotes this logical fallacy as “unexplainable does not mean inexplicable.” What this means is that we should not confuse phenomenon that is currently unexplained with one that is forever unexplainable – which is the same as saying that it is impossible by our current scientific understanding. Believing that a phenomenon is unexplainable implies that we must invoke a new type of explanation, a new paradigm, a new law of nature in order to account for it. However, as with the ultralight example above, we may just not have enough fact on hand to explain a phenomenon, but it could potentially be explained without changing the science textbooks.

To further explain what I mean let me outline what I think is the mainstream scientific response to a currently unexplained phenomenon compared to the typical pro-paranormal response. When a scientist is confronted with the unknown, first they explore the published literature to see if someone else already explained it, in part or in whole. If not then they try to come up with as many hypotheses as they can to potentially explain the phenomenon. Each hypothesis is analyzed for plausibility – which means it is considered in light of what we already know. A good scientist will judiciously apply the rule of Occam’s razor, and a thoughtful consideration of established scientific evidence, to rank, if you will, the competing hypotheses from most to least likely. They will then set about testing the different hypotheses until only one remains that is consistent with all the evidence. The process is not always so clean, and often takes unexpected twists and turns. In practice a series of research is often conducted by many research labs all playing off each other’s work, and sometimes even collaborating when necessary.

In other words – when confronted with the unknown a scientist tries to find an explanation using scientific knowledge that is already well established. If that fails, then they may hypothesize a new type of phenomenon but will take a small and cautious step. They will then verify that baby step experimentally before taking another.

What the pro-paranormal crowd has done, however, is begin with an apparently unexplained phenomenon (sometimes the phenomenon is already explained, but that doesn’t stop them) they assume prematurely that it cannot be explained with existing scientific knowledge (is unexplainable) and then they leap to a paranormal conclusion. Sometimes they don’t even bother doing experiments to verify their leaps (the ghost hunting crowd is famous for this), other times they perform experiments with dubious results (typical of ESP researchers).

Here’s an example. Many people (myself included) have had an experience where they wake up in bed, they are paralyzed and cannot move, they feel a malevolent presence in the room with them but cannot turn their head to see, they may feel a pressure on their chest, they are then floated out of their bed. Some go on to experience being transported into a spaceship to be given a free colonoscopy. First, this phenomenon is not unexplained – it is a hypnagogic hallucination (a waking dream), an established neurological phenomenon. UFO proponents, rather than seeking the most prosaic explanation first, propose that such experiences cannot be explained with known phenomena, and so it must be due to aliens who are secretly visiting the earth, have the ability to float people through solid walls, and have an obsession with the human colon.

Ghost hunters are even more notorious. They begin with photographs of indistinct blobs of light. They declare the blobs of light unexplainable (again, untrue) and then bypass wasting any time trying to find a material explanation for the blobs of light and simply declare them “ghost globules.” Done and done – no need to do any tedious research.

This also represents another logical fallacy that they couple with equating unexplained with inexplicable – the argument from ignorance. This extremely common fallacy argues that because we cannot explain a phenomenon it must be paranormal (or alien, or whatever). This is an invalid form of argument. The only thing you can conclude from the fact that we don’t know is that we don’t know. You cannot use ignorance as the basis for a positive assertion – only the beginning of inquiry. Positive evidence for one hypothesis over others is required to make a positive assertion.

Wu cannot argue with the above explanation of the two logical fallacies. Instead he invents straw men to make it seem as if skeptics typically abuse these principles. He lists four:

“1) Just because something happens that they think isn’t possible doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. To do so would be to deny reality.”

This straw man is little more than circular reasoning. Wu takes as a premise that the thing in question did in fact happen. But that is the very point often in dispute – did the alleged event happen as reported, or is there another explanation. Wu apparently lives in one of those sci-fi TV series (like the X-files) that take place in a paranormal world, where skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence for the paranormal is untenable. But such fantasies have little to do with reality.

“2) Just because something happens that they think isn’t possible doesn’t mean that it must be due to misperception, fraud, or hallucination.”

Actually, if something is reported that is in fact impossible, then an alternate hypothesis must be true. The character Sherlock Holmes famously quipped, “Once you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.” But in practice we cannot really know that something is “impossible.” What we really mean is that it is highly improbable (although improbability can approach certitude), according to our current scientific understanding. Further, what skeptics actually argue is that, in the face of the highly improbable, misperception, fraud, or hallucination must be adequately ruled out before we consider a new type of phenomenon.

I feel compelled to point out again that Wu’s complete misinterpretation of the skeptical position likely indicates that he has never cracked a skeptical book and actually absorbed its content.

“3) Just because a natural explanation hasn’t been found for something unexplainable doesn’t mean that only a natural explanation could exist.”

Huh? I think Wu might have a career short circuiting naughty robots by frying their logic circuits. (Norman coordinate!) With regard to “only a natural explanation could exist” this involves the definition of “natural” and the philosophy of naturalism and materialism. I have discussed previously that science must follow methodological naturalism, by definition. And again we see that Wu is confusing what we can know with what is metaphysically true.

“4) If a natural explanation doesn’t explain all the facts, that doesn’t mean that you should insist on it anyway just to protect your belief system.”

Dang. Now what am I going to do when confronted with the unexplainable? Seriously, Wu is again beginning with the premise that the paranormal is real, therefore skeptics are simply denying reality in order to maintain their materialistic belief system (sound familiar – this is a common refrain of the creationist crowd).

As evidence for this Wu cites the example of reincarnation, specifically Dr. Ian Stevenson’s book Twenty Suggestive Cases of Reincarnation. However, Stevenson’s cases provide significantly less than compelling evidence for reincarnation and they are unverified and anecdotal. (See this article for an example critique). Reincarnation is hardly an established scientific fact denied by skeptics.

Conclusion

The pillars of skeptical philosophy remain intact, unscathed by Winston Wu’s childish attacks. It was nice of him, however, to compile in one place virtually every logical fallacy and false accusation levied by paranormal proponents against skeptics.

No responses yet