I have had many strange conversations with paranormal believers and usually put it down to a clash of cultures. However, there is one thing I've noticed consistently down the years. If you give a different interpretation of some evidence to a witness's, they will often think you are disputing the evidence. This is despite the fact that I had not disputed their version of evenrs (we're talking a casual conversation here, not an in depth investigation where such questions may indeed be asked).
Multiple attempts to make the same point in different ways bring the same reaction. I have reached the conclusion that some believers cannot separate evidence from interpretation.
We all remember writing up our first science experiment at school and being told to split method from results and conclusions. At the time it feels like an artificial way of doing things but ultimately it makes sense. For some paranormal believers, I think they never 'get' how evidence can be split from interpretation. Certain events ALWAYS add up to telepathy, for instance, in their minds and the idea of alternative interpretation of the events is alien. If you question their interpretation of events you must, therefore, be questionning the events themselves.
It may be that they don't actually interpret evidence at all!
I have explained these erroneous conclusions in the past as being down to the 'affirming the consequent' fallacy:If P then Q;However, there's another version of this (the proper name of which I can't remember off the top of my head):
Q therefore P. (which is invalid reasoning).
If, and only if, P then Q;I wonder just how many people are making the second mistake?
Q therefore P. (which is valid reasoning).
I often find that when someone has come to a conclusion on an issue (the psychic was genuine, etc.) and you offer alternative possible explanations, they tend to dismiss anything else that is offered up. It's a fallacy of exclusion as they, either deliberately or unwittingly, exclude anything that destroys the 'if and only if' premise of their argument.
That's another possibility anyway.
.
Could be. It certainly is weird having to EXPLAIN to people how interpretations come out of evidence. You'd think everyone would know this but apparently some don't.
Originally Posted by Harryprice
Even weirder and harder trying to explain to say members of the lunar religious right,the BNP or Pat Condell. None of that group seem to have grasped the meaning of the word 'evidence'.
Of course they think they understand evidence - it's just that they believe that the word of god as revealed in the bible is evidence which trumps any other.Even weirder and harder trying to explain to say members of the lunar religious right,the BNP or Pat Condell. None of that group seem to have grasped the meaning of the word 'evidence'.
The depth of their understanding is revealed (or possibly parodied - I'm not sure) by the woman from the American bible belt who protested that her children were being required to learn a foreign language at school. She said, "if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us!"
its not about 'evidence' to them....same was as it is about 'evidence' to others......
basically when belief systems are challenged people get arsey,no matter what bit of the fence/gate/floor/lab or cloud they sit on (in my experience anyway!)
people want this reinforced,not challenged.
To me its not about what people think though, its about how people think.
Which is why there are people who can hold conflicting beliefs/ideas yet still accept the other persons but not agreeing with it........the 'evidence' or 'lack of evidence' is almost irrelevant except for those invested in it.
Basially its got to be 'sold' to get a change in the others view of it.........basically present it to people in a way acceptable to them,which varies greatly from person to person.
What is interesting is why people go down the 'paths' they do,what motivates them to be 'believer' or 'evidence seeker',woo or sceintist etc............
Harryprice
Interpretation and evidence
I have had many strange conversations with paranormal believers and usually put it down to a clash of cultures. However, there is one thing I've noticed consistently down the years. If you give a different interpretation of some evidence to a witness's, they will often think you are disputing the evidence. This is despite the fact that I had not disputed their version of evenrs (we're talking a casual conversation here, not an in depth investigation where such questions may indeed be asked).
Multiple attempts to make the same point in different ways bring the same reaction. I have reached the conclusion that some believers cannot separate evidence from interpretation.
We all remember writing up our first science experiment at school and being told to split method from results and conclusions. At the time it feels like an artificial way of doing things but ultimately it makes sense. For some paranormal believers, I think they never 'get' how evidence can be split from interpretation. Certain events ALWAYS add up to telepathy, for instance, in their minds and the idea of alternative interpretation of the events is alien. If you question their interpretation of events you must, therefore, be questionning the events themselves.
I’ve had a few unusual experiences and I have asked many people on boards about them and I’m willing to accept that there is a simple explanation. So far I haven’t been able to understand where these ‘happenings’ come from. Mostly I have been told that it was a simple trick of the mind. But I’m sure you’ll understand when I say that doesn’t help much. It doesn’t explain how the mind can be tricked or why it happens. Even if it’s just imagination, I would still love to know what causes this to happen.
I strongly recommend that you read "How We Know What Isn't So" by Gilovich, as this may well contain answers for you. There are other books which tackle the issues of the foibles of human perception, which I'm sure other members will provide details of.
Hi! Tony Williams,
Thank you. I'll check it out. Feel like I've been reading such rubbish lately trying to get to the bottom of this. Seriously hoping for some straight answers. So thanks for that.
Try 'How The Mind Work's' By Stephen Pinker. Fascinating stuff. It may leave you with more questions than answers (sorry!?) but will leave you a little closer to comprehending what makes us all tick, why the mind makes mistakes, and how incredibly complex it is.
You can read my review of it here: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspo...by-thomas.html
An excellent review - thanks.
Tony Williams and smudge,
I have now downloaded both books and I've made a start on 'How We Know What Isn't So' by Gilovich. Thanks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks