I understand where you're coming from and your post does bring up some very good points. It would be unwise and uncritical to accept the claims of every individual at face value precisely because one's word alone is not sufficient to establish truth; they could be mistaken, lying, mad, etc. However, I would say that the behavior of the scientist's colleagues was irrational not because of their -doubting- of the claims, but because of their -certainty- of their inaccuracy. As you point out yourself, they have no available way of knowing the truth of the claims. But despite this ignorance, at no point do they entertain the possibly that the the seemingly 'supernatural' report they are relayed is true. What should be a reasonable doubt of the report's accuracy then becomes a certainty of its falsity. And upon what do they base this certainty? The account's seeming contradiction of current scientific understanding. That is not critical thinking; thats reflexively treating tentative theory as dogma. The skeptical reaction would be to doubt and investigate the claims being made, not to fill in one's ignorance concerning those claims with a convenient cover-story (i.e. assuming hypotheses).
The certainty, as you call it, lies in the two bolded statements, as well as the current scientific understanding. You say the skeptical approach is to investigate it. Yet, as you say, it cannot be investigated. Not only is there no evidence, there's no way to obtain evidence for the event. So on one hand, you have the unsupported and unsupportable word of one person. On the other hand, you have a body of scientific knowledge that has been tested and is known to be accurate to a high degree, if incomplete.
What you are saying is that we should through out the combined empirical observations of literally thousands unpon thousands of other scientists, based on the reported empirical observation of a single person. THis is where we disagree.
Therein lies the problem. The experience of that witness did
not invalidate or contradict the empirical observations of the other scientists. What it did contradict was the beliefs held by the other scientists
about those observations. Its based upon this contradiction with the concurrent body of
-opinion- that the scientists were discounting the anomalous observation. The conflict arises from conflating scientific theory with empirical knowledge. They are not one and the same.
As far as the witness scientist is concerned, I'd have to say that if he were to also immediately discount his own experience merely because of it's extraordinary nature or because of consensus opinion he'd be exhibiting an extreme lack of personal integrity and intellectual cowardice. He may interpret such a concession as upholding scientific principles but, in reality, he'd be undermining it's very foundation: empirical observation. The reality of one's observation and experience is never wrong.
And here we must disagree as well. We KNOW, we have hard, factual evidence that shows that human perception, human observation and experience, is often wrong, and many times amazingly so. Paredoilia, various optical illusions, hallucinations, delusions, false memory syndrome, the plastic nature of memories, daydreams, neuroses, psychoses..the list is huge. These are thigns that we know occur, that we know exist, and that we know happen. The scientists is not undermining empirical observation...he's doing what a good scientist must do: ruling out all the possible known causes before declaring the discovery of something new. This is the part where most of parapsychology and mysticism fails. He's accepting the empirical evidence provided my numerous others, instead of assumign the supremecy of his own subjective viewpoint and ignoring that of everyone else.
It's interpretation of experience (i.e. theory) where error may occur.
That's another possibility of error, yes, but not the only one.
As I said, experiences (e.g. perceptions, laboratory observations, dreams, visions, and hallucinations) are always actual occurrences. Illusion lies in how one interprets and understands the bare experiences -- not in the experiences themselves. ALL empirical observations -- without exception -- are subjective experiences. Personal experience is the root of all knowledge; all else beyond that is hypothetical.
With that being said, the rejection of the scientist's account is not because of it's subjective nature but because of it's
theoretical implication: He remotely received veridical information via means not accounted for by accepted conceptual
models of reality. If he had merely gone to his colleagues and reported a more mundane sounding account
[like say, meeting oddly dressed strangers claiming to be from the future] that did not violate sanctioned models of reality he'd not face vehement objection and questions of his sanity or integrity.
The reasonable doubts and professional opinions of his colleagues do not invalidate the reality of his honest observation.
And herein lies the crux. How does he determine his observation is honest? It can't be repeated, it only happened the single time, it's contraindicated by other scientific principles, laws, and theories that are known to be accurate, and it can be explained by other factors.
First of all, the position of uncertainty regarding the event lies not with the witness who experienced it directly, but with those who were not present to make the same observations. Second of all, we know that the experience of the witness was not in contradiction with reality but was merely at odds with the
beliefs of his colleagues. Any explanations his colleagues could propose regarding the experience are simply unverified hypotheses --
not statements of fact.
If all anomalous or extraordinary observations and experiences are to be automatically discounted -- especially on such flimsy bases -- then the game is up and scientists may as well just make themselves clergymen in white lab coats.
And here you are creating a strawman. NO ONE has claimed that all anomolies should be discounted.
What we are saying is that an anomoly that cannot be verified or tested, for which there is no repeatability, and for which other explanations exist should not be taken as evidence that a large portion of the current, well-tested body of knowledge is wrong.
Yet that is
-exactly- how the scientists in the story (and many individuals here) are interpreting the anomalous account, and it is upon that basis that they vehemently dismiss it. The problem arises from the individuals confusing their conceptual models of reality with reality itself.
The truth of the matter is that, relative to the scientific understanding of that time period, the claims of our hapless scientist are 'supernatural' in the sense that they are not fully accountable in the current theoretical frame. However, the reality of his claims does not invalidate the scientific process or even necessarily contradict the concurrent body of scientific knowledge; it is merely beyond it's available scope.
Exactly. As such, it can't be claimed to be true in any scientific sense. And accepting something as true before it can be verified or before evidence can be provided is inheritly unscientific.
Truth is truth regardless of whether or not an individual or a large group of individuals considers it 'scientific'. The fact of the matter is that the scientists in the story are presuming
-certainty- of falsehood for an account they cannot verify either way. That is not science; that is not skepticism; that is purely dogmatic irrationality.
As you pointed out, in 180 years time the validity of the lone scientist's claims would be borne out. The reason for this is because science is not a static body of inerrant knowledge and consensus. Science is a dynamic process in which individuals, or groups of individuals, cooperate to grow an ever evolving framework of understanding. Just as our current scientific theories greatly supersede those of 180 years past, future scientific understanding will most certainly present a very different picture of reality than we have today. No matter how far science progresses there will always be more to learn and there will always be things beyond the horizons of our tentative understanding. Being a skeptic requires humility and curiosity in the face of such ignorance, not filling in every uncomfortable gap with presumption or discounting everything that seems to threaten what we think we know.
And that was exactly my point. We must sometimes say "we don't know". Instead, we get mystics who are
sure that their individual, singular personal experience overturns the vast majority of scientific observation. We have people who assume that their personal, subjective memories or events that bear a striking resemblence to known, mundane malfunctions of thought are somehow proof enough to overturn entire bodies of knowledge. We have people who assume that their magic exists, and concoct reasons post hoc to explain why it can never be tested under any sort of controlled conditions, or never be repeated, or the proof can't be released, getting ever more convoluted in their excuses and finally leaving science all together and wading into philosophy.
The only people here filling in an uncomfortable gap with presumption are those who think they are the only ones with clear vision, and their odd experience is "special" and overturns the work of others who have investigated and found mundane reasons for similar experiences. The only people here "discounting everything that seems to threaten what we think we know" are those who expect others to accept their evidence without proof, and then criticize them for their lack of faith.
What people have been saying, for the most part, has been that you cannot prove your experience, and there are mundane explanations for it. Very few have declared this certainty you claim to see. THe only certainty I see is yours...your certainty that this experience was not caused by anything other than something mystical/supernatural. And unless you can rule out the possible mundane explanations, unless you can provide some evidence to otehrs, than you are, quite simply, asking us to believe it simply because you say so.
Since you refuse to believe anything different based on the say so of scientific consensus, I fail to see why we should disbelieve that consensus based on your view.
And at what point did I state that my experiences overturn the foundations of scientific knowledge or claim that you must uncritically accept my account on faith? As I said in an
earlier post (before it was removed), my objection is not with the doubt regarding the veracity of my account
[as expressed by posters like Sceptic Tank] but with the dogmatic certainty of it's falsehood expressed by certain others. There have literally been responders here declaring an account made from first hand experience "assertion" and "confabulation" and then, in the very same post, proceeded to
assert and
confabulate their own version of events they were not present to even observe for themselves. If you think that is an example of rational skepticism I don't know what to tell ya.
