From: Lyle Burkhead (LYBRHED@delphi.com)
Date: Fri Dec 27 1996 - 14:54:13 MST
In my previous post, I started examining Michael Shermer's method of
argument, i.e. the "jumping together" phenomenon. In this post, I want
to examine another aspect of his epistemology, and contrast it with the
epistemology and methodology of revisionism.
Introduction.
On page 54 of his article, Michael Shermer quotes one of David Cole's
questions:
> At Mauthausen, the gas chamber has no locks on the doors,
> no holes or fittings where locks may once have been.
> The doors can be opened from inside or outside. How could you
> kill people here? Wouldn't they storm the door and push it open?
On the next page, Michael comments:
> When one has overwhelming evidence from many different sources
> about mass homicides at a death camp, one may not notice
> what kind of door handle is on one gas chamber. Unless, of course,
> one goes there in search of problems in order to support a particular
> thesis...
I will return to this amazing statement later. For the moment I just
want to present it for the reader to ponder.
Michael Shermer tries to make it appear that David Cole is somehow
in the wrong just because he went there, looked at the evidence, and
tried to draw a conclusion from it. This is a repudiation of logic itself,
the very principle that makes science (or jurisprudence) possible.
The Basic Methodology of Revisionism -- part 1.
In *ESP: A Scientific Evaluation*, C. E. M. Hansel undertook the task
of refuting the evidence for ESP. One immediately wonders how he
could possibly do this. ESP is not one thing, it is 10,000 things.
How is Hansel going to disprove the whole thing, in one finite book?
He proceeds as follows: He looks at some of J. B. Rhine's
"experiments," and keeps looking at them until they are in focus,
at which point they fall apart. When you zoom in on them, it becomes
obvious that they are not really experiments, they are set-ups designed
to produce a desired result. The implication is, if you look at other
experiments with the same scrutiny, they will also fall apart. Thus he
can discredit a whole class of evidence.
By going through several classes of evidence in this manner, he can
discredit the whole field of psychic research.
Hansel tells a story about a judge in Singapore. One night, after the
judge was in bed, an acquaintance of his appeared in his room. The
next morning he heard that the man died that night, about the time the
apparition appeared. The man's wife confirmed what he said. As you
read this, you see no reason whatever to doubt what is being said --
except for the obvious implausibility of the idea itself.
But then, just as you have started to entertain the idea that this might
really be true, Hansel pulls the rug out from under you: it turns out that
the story could not have taken place as described; the judge wasn't
even married at the time, the man who died did so in the morning after
a good night's sleep... it just could not have happened as described.
This whole thing is presented very skillfully, so when you finally come
to the revelation that the story is false, it is a surprise, almost a shock.
Why did he tell this story? He wanted to suggest that all such stories,
no matter how plausible, must be regarded with suspicion. You can
have any number of ghost stories, but they do not "corroborate" each
other and prove the existence of ghosts.
Of course, he has not proved that all ghost stories are false. That
would be impossible. Strictly speaking, the fact that one story is false
does not imply anything about other stories. But he has *discredited*
the whole class of stories. He has raised a question in the reader's
mind, and aroused suspicion that will carry over to all such stories.
Likewise, he has not proved that all ESP experiments are bogus. But
when he describes an experiment that seems to prove something, and
then shows that the experiment was set up in such a way as to allow
cheating, the reader will never again take any such experiment at face
value. Hansel has aroused suspicion that will carry over to all such
experiments.
The problem of disproving the gas chambers is similar to the problem
Hansel set himself. Given a large number of eyewitness reports
testifying that something happened, how can one prove it didn't
happen? The best way to proceed is to do what Hansel did. Take an
eyewitness report, show it to be absurd, and thus raise doubts in the
reader's mind about all such reports.
Actually the revisionists have a much easier problem, because unlike
ESP the gas chambers were a finite, localized phenomenon, and there
are only a few witnesses. A few, that is, compared with the number of
witnesses who report having psychic experiences, or seeing ghosts or
UFOs. I don't know how many gas chamber witnesses there are
altogether, but I keep seeing the same ones quoted over and over:
Nyiszli, Hoess, Gerstein, Broad, and Eichmann. It always seems to be
assumed that there are thousands of others, but one never sees
references to them. I get the impression that the total number of SS
guards and sonderkommandos who described the gassing operation is
less than fifty; maybe less than ten. Therefore, unlike witnesses for
ESP, it would be possible to go through the whole list and scrutinize
each one.
Nevertheless, Hansel's procedure is the best way to start. If the
revisionist can show some plausible-sounding reports of gassing to be
absurd, then all such stories will be regarded with extreme suspicion
from then on. The whole collection of such stories will no longer seem
"overwhelming." Then, when one demonstrates that the stories are in
conflict with physical evidence, this demonstration will have much
more force.
That's why I keep saying that anyone who wants to pursue this subject
should read the Nyiszli book -- and read it with the same scrutiny and
skepticism you would bring to bear on a book by J. B. Rhine.
The Basic Methodology of Revisionism -- part 2
Now, I want to consider another aspect of Hansel's book. *How* did
he demonstrate that Rhine's experiments were not really experiments?
First of all, Hansel approached Rhine's work with the assumption that
there had to be a flaw somewhere, no matter how obscure, no matter
how subtle. Hansel started with the working hypothesis that ESP does
not exist; therefore, if you scrutinize one of Rhine's experiments
carefully enough, there had to be a way to cheat.
This is how the revisionists look at the gas chamber story. They
assume that reports of gassing, no matter how plausible, will turn out to
be false if you scrutinize them carefully enough. When Hansel does
this, it's a valid procedure. When Philip Klass does the same thing
with UFO stories, that's all right too. But it's not all right for the
revisionists to do the same thing. They are (gasp!) defending their
belief system!! They must have an agenda!!!
How, specifically, did Hansel argue his case? He used logic. He went
to the room where the experiments were conducted, and looked for
ways to cheat. He noticed, for example, that there was a transom over
the door of the room, so that someone could stand on a chair and look
into the room, and see the cards.
? When one has overwhelming evidence from many different sources
? about the existence of ESP, one may not notice what kind of door
? is on one experimental room. Unless, of course, one goes there
? in search of problems in order to support a particular thesis...
Yes, of course Hansel went there in search of problems to support his
thesis. That's how science works. One formulates a thesis, and then
one looks for evidence to support it.
Hansel's thesis was that Rhine's experiments were bogus. He looked
at the evidence and drew a logical conclusion: since this door has a
transom through which the experimenters could look at the cards, the
"experiment" didn't prove anything about ESP.
But Michael Shermer objects to this procedure!!!
Let's look at this statement once again:
> When one has overwhelming evidence from many different sources
> about mass homicides at a death camp, one may not notice
> what kind of door handle is on one gas chamber. Unless, of course,
> one goes there in search of problems in order to support a particular
> thesis...
That's exactly the kind of thing Hansel would notice -- a door handle --
some little discrepancy that reveals what's really going on. Exactly the
kind of thing Randi would notice when watching Uri Geller. The same
thing Sherlock Holmes would call a clue -- one fact that can light up a
whole landscape.
That's how science works. Without the ability to look at physical
reality and draw logical conclusions, experimental science would be
impossible.
----------------------------
If you look at Extropy magazine, issue #16, page 22, you will find a
full-page ad for Skeptic magazine. In an issue of Exponent last year,
Max More endorsed Skeptic magazine and said that Michael Shermer
had come to Extro 2, as if that were something to be proud of.
So don't ask me about the relevance of this thread to Extropianism.
The question that needs to be addressed is: What is the relevance of
Skeptic magazine to Extropianism? Max, are you willing to defend
Michael Shermer's epistemology? Or not?
Lyle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:56 MST