For example, consider this exchange with westphalia:
Originally Posted by westphalia:
"I can swear out an affidavit tomorrow that will explain how I was born on the planet Xenon, fell ill due to the effects of you Earthlings' atmosphere and bacterial life, sought treatment at a Peter Popoff crusade and got healed by a magical mammoth named Mr. Snuffalopogus. Would you take my affidavit as evidence?"
Reply by Rodney:
"Do you seriously think that your example is the same as an affidavit filed by one of the most prominent and respected member of a community? Further, a doctor verified the facts of the case and it was mentioned in a New York Times article."
Both affidavits have equal value in the eyes of the law, prior to a finding of fact. They only establish position prior to the procedure of finding fact. Once on a witness stand, simple cross-examination should prove I'm a nut, and my information would be worthless. (Some might suggest the same fate for anyone sitting on a witness stand and stating that a psychic healed their child.)
We're not talking about law, though. In science, both these affidavits are of absolutely equal weight -
zero. Absolutely nothing. Pope Benedict could swear out an affidavit in support of UFOs, or conjuring, or x-ray vision, and it wouldn't mean anything. That which cannot - or
will not - be tested objectively doesn't mean anything.
I can't believe that any true skeptic would regard his affidavit as an "anecdote" that should be completly disregarded, particularly when there is absolutely no evidence of which I'm aware that contradicts it.
By definition, it is an anecdote, since there is nothing to test, nothing to observe, nothing to verify. Eight hundred people could swear that Cayce healed this child, and it would be meaningless.
I never said that, if a lot of people believe something, it must be correct. But I would submit that the position you are taking here is way outside the legal mainstream. The credibility of affidavits and witnesses is absolutely critical in deciding court cases. So why pretend that the credibility of an affidavit means nothing when it comes to evaluating a psychic?
Science is not the law, and that's the critical point. In law, there is a finding of fact, sometimes aided (or obstructed
) by witness testimony, and usually determined by a jury (sometimes even a smaller panel, or even a single judge). Even in a court of law, though, one piece of verifiable, scientifically certain evidence will countermand the anecdotal evidence of a multitude. Science is not prone to the multitude of perils to which juries fall prey. Science isn't fooled by one slick liar. Anecdotes simply don't mean anything in science - period.
Cayce is now in his grave, and cannot be tested by the JREF, CSICOP or anyone else. Most of the people he "cured" are either in their graves or advanced in years. If you want to say that Cayce was a psychic, you have to do so on faith and the word of others, but not on any actual evidence, because there isn't sufficient evidence to establish anything of the sort.
No matter how many anecdotes Cayce, the ARE or his modern supporters trot out, it is evidentially meaningless toward determining whether Cayce had superpowers.
As a skeptic, though, Cayce is only
somewhat beyond my reach. I can look on hundreds - no, thousands upon thousands - of other paranormal claimants, each of whom claims a superpower, and know that not a single one has ever given a scrap of incontrovertible proof of these professed abilities to mainstream, established science.
Not one. Some of those people claim the ability to heal people using psychic powers, in a manner not unlike that of Cayce's. Cayce's dead, so I can't test him, but I can test his modern incarnations.
What's more
reasonable and logical, then, for me to assume about Cayce? That he was the only person in the history of mankind to have superpowers, and would have been able to prove it, had he lived long enough to be tested by mainstream science? Or is it more
reasonable for me to assume that Cayce, who has nothing but anecdotal evidence to support him, is like so many modern people who claim superpowers - deluded or a fraud?
, but I do suggest that, if you argue cases or will argue them in the future, take into account that evidence is often not black and white.
