PDA

View Full Version : Resilience of paranormal belief


MRT
30th August 2007, 12:18 PM
It is well-known that people with paranormal belief are often immune to evidence or the lack of it. Nevertheless, I came across three examples recently, all concerning orbs, which really surprised me. The details don't matter but what I found interesting was that the same 'logic' was used in each case.

All three people were faced with a mass of evidence (which they never argued against, so presumably conceded) apparently fatal to a paranormal theory of orbs. In each case, they chose a single example that they had come across that appeared not to totally fit with the mundane theory of orbs. It is important to note here that, though the examples didn't quite fit the mundane theory, neither did they support a paranormal theory! So, in effect, their logic was that if there was an apparent slight gap in the mundane theory then it must be entirely invalid (whatever the rest of the evidence) and therefore the paranormal theory must be correct!

In fact, all the 'contrary' examples were explained easily by the mundane theory. I am still staggered that a huge mass of evidence can be totally ignored because of one apparently tiny contrary example. It's like saying, the Earth must be flat after all, because there is a slight inconsistency in the twelfth decimal place between two measurements of its diameter. I'm sure there is some latin name for this kind of logic but it just takes my breath away.

FarSideOfTheMoon
30th August 2007, 01:24 PM
In fact, all the 'contrary' examples were explained easily by the mundane theory. I am still staggered that a huge mass of evidence can be totally ignored because of one apparently tiny contrary example.

Try arguing with 9/11 conspiracy nuts.....it's the same sort of argument. Hence why I try and restrain myself from that activity.

It's a pretty common fallacy, i think you see it in conspiracy and alternative medicine theories as well as paranormal ones.

I think there might be a name for this fallacy, but I'm useless at remembering them.

Cuddles
30th August 2007, 01:48 PM
I think there might be a name for this fallacy, but I'm useless at remembering them.

I'd go with false dichotomy. They are effectively saying that there are only two possibilities, either the proposed mundane explanation or their paranormal one. If this were the case, proving one wrong would prove the other. However, since there are plenty more possibilities, both mundane and paranormal, the logic is invalid. As you say, it's an extremely common tactic used by everyone from conspiraloons to creationists.

John Jackson
31st August 2007, 12:43 AM
I'm sure there is some latin name for this kind of logic but it just takes my breath away.

It normally gets classed as "true believer syndrome" although it's not a syndrome that appears in any psychiatric diagnostic manual. It's more a collection of cognitive biases in action mixed with a strong dose of cognitive dissonance IMO.

It's this sort of thinking, or belief formation and tenacious adherence to the belief, that really fascinates me as a skeptic rather that the paranormal phenomenon in question. WHY do people cling to these beliefs inspite of the overwhelming evidence against?

See: http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html