Mulder
14th October 2008, 04:01 PM
I analysed a 'paranormal' photo for someone recently. Having given my opinion, they told there was no point sending me any more photos as I would never believe!
I wondered if this was an example of 'believer' mentality but I realised it was probably more a case of misunderstanding the scientific method. From other comments he made, it was obvious that the whole idea of testing evidence was alien to him. Another concept he didn't understand was that, if you can't eliminate a plausible natural explanation you can hardly claim something to be paranormal. It is a sad fact that in the vast majority of apparently paranormal cases, relevant information that would have eliminated natural explanations simply wasn't recorded at the time.
Among believers I've noticed that there is a marked reluctance to let 'evidence' go when they didn't collect the evidence to eliminate natural causes.
For instance, if it was crucial to a natural theory that the lighting at a specific place was particularly low for the time of day, they will look up the weather for that day on the web and say, triumphantly, 'it was sunny'! However, because the weather was 'sunny' for a large area, it doesn't follow it was actually sunny in that particular location at that specific time. 'Do you remember it being sunny?' 'I remember not wearing a hat, so it must have been sunny.' And so on and so on, steadily getting sillier and sillier.
Such 'evidence testing' seems obvious to me but, clearly not to believers. They tend to take things at face value. If there's anything science makes clear it is that 'face value' is almost always wrong.
I wondered if this was an example of 'believer' mentality but I realised it was probably more a case of misunderstanding the scientific method. From other comments he made, it was obvious that the whole idea of testing evidence was alien to him. Another concept he didn't understand was that, if you can't eliminate a plausible natural explanation you can hardly claim something to be paranormal. It is a sad fact that in the vast majority of apparently paranormal cases, relevant information that would have eliminated natural explanations simply wasn't recorded at the time.
Among believers I've noticed that there is a marked reluctance to let 'evidence' go when they didn't collect the evidence to eliminate natural causes.
For instance, if it was crucial to a natural theory that the lighting at a specific place was particularly low for the time of day, they will look up the weather for that day on the web and say, triumphantly, 'it was sunny'! However, because the weather was 'sunny' for a large area, it doesn't follow it was actually sunny in that particular location at that specific time. 'Do you remember it being sunny?' 'I remember not wearing a hat, so it must have been sunny.' And so on and so on, steadily getting sillier and sillier.
Such 'evidence testing' seems obvious to me but, clearly not to believers. They tend to take things at face value. If there's anything science makes clear it is that 'face value' is almost always wrong.