Can there be a rational approach to evaluating "meta" claims?

Great Debates
1

Obviously, elements of this subject have been thrashed about in other threads, including some recent ones.

Obviously, I didn’t find the results wholly illuminating.

This is an “if” question, a topic that begins with a “given.” Those who find the given premiss offensive need not waste their time here. The focus is not upon disproving the premiss, but finally getting on to step two.

THE PREMISS: “Meta” events can and do occur.

DEFINITION: A Meta event is an event such that its occurrence is almost certainly not “covered” by current physical law, or by any conceivable extrapolation of current physical law. Most so-called parapsychological, paranormal, psi, or psychical events AS DESCRIBED(!) are Meta events; likewise “miraculous” or supernatural events (the Virgin of Guadalupe, Fatima, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph Smith’s golden plates); likewise various UFO-type experiences; likewise such things as the Bible Code phenomenon; and stuff like that there.

CLARIFICATION: To say that Meta events do occur is not to say that every claimed or reported such event did in fact occur, but rather to say (a) that events of that character cannot be ruled out a priori, and (b) that an unspecified number of those reported events did actually occur as described in all significant respects.

THE ISSUE: Is it possible, even in theory, to demonstrate the occurrence of Meta events in a manner rationally incontestable? Or would such a demonstration be logically incompatible with the defining nature and character of those events? In other words, even if we start with the premiss that event M did in fact occur, is it logically necessary that an event of that type will always elude “proof”? Or can “proof” be rationally expected of any and all real occurrences, notwithstanding that they are beyond, or contrary to, physical law?

What would constitute acceptable proof of the reality of inherently capricious, lawless, irreplicable phenomena?

2

A willful demonstration, or merely a convincing occurance? You are talking about proving things to the world at large and not just the solipsistic proof of “it happened to me and I believe it”?

Yes, to preserve the definition. If it doesn’t evade proof, then it isn’t a “meta” event… is it?

Perhaps what I don’t understand is: * A Meta event is an event such that its occurrence is almost certainly not “covered” by current physical law, or by any conceivable extrapolation of current physical law.* Does that mean I am defining ‘current’ to mean ‘this day on 2003 an there it stands’ or does it mean ‘now, whenever the definition is applied’?

Is that too nitpicky?

3

I see no reason to assume that any of the “Meta events” you listed actually occur.

If we consider that current physics is incomplete, then every thing that happens is a meta event.

I’d argue that supernatural events do not occur by definition. This doesn’t mean that there can’t be ghosts or psychics or time travel, merely that if they happen, they’re natural.

4

I opine in favor of the latter. I can’t visualize a construct by which you demonstrate through empirical evidence and/or deductive reasoning that something has taken place which cannot be explained by reference to any natural processes that we comprehend. I think either you would arrive at an explanation that describes it as a natural manifestation of phenomena that our physical sciences can explain, or else you end up saying “We don’t know what this is or was”, which isn’t a conclusion that intrinsically supports unicorns (pink, invisible, and/or otherwise) as a causal mechanism.

5

I like your post, but this bit isn’t quite complete. If physics says ‘Particle X does this, Y does that, and we don’t know about Z’ then events with X and Y would be non-meta.

A more realistic example is that the earth’s orbit obeyed newton’s laws as closely as it can be measured, while mercury’s didn’t. Of course, actually, the orbit obeys relativity, or really some refinement of that we haven’t worked out yet.

In this case we were able to expand physics to un-meta the event :slight_smile: We are trying to do this now.

Is the question is ‘can all events be incorporated into some version of physics, or are some totally unexplicable’?

6

Thank you! :slight_smile: Point taken. Nevertheless, physicists rarely determine precisely what particles are going to do for two reasons:

  1. The inherent limit on accuracy generated by the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle.

  2. The equations that we currently accept as defining the behaviors of subatomic particles are often so complex than only an approximate solution can be found for them.

So we can still consider all events to be meta events, since technically speaking, we can’t explain any of them in perfect detail.

7

I would nitpick hat UFO’s/ET’s do not necessarily violate any physical laws which is not to say that I actually believe in any such encounters). I would say that at least some of the rest of it could be subjected to empirical observation. A resurrection for example, would work nicely. If a body were to be verified as absolutely stone cold dead (and we’re talking all the way dead, here, no three second NDE stuff, more like a couple of days) and then that body were to be observed, under laboratory conditions, to suddenly pop up and start dancing around, then I think science would have a pretty good conundrum on its hands. I’m not holding my breath for that to happen, though.

8

Ultimately the standard of proof has to be “show me”. Not that “inherently capricious, lawless, irreplicable phenomena” can be made to perform Stupid Paranormal Tricks on command; but that they happen often enough in front of enough unimpeachable witnesses that they must be regarded as real, if rare and mysterious phenomena.

The problem is ultimately one of signal-to-noise ratios. Noise in this case meaning hoaxes, nutcases, sincere but mistaken witnesses, and generally delocalized “urban myths”. What is needed is enough “signal” (enough sightings by enough people) that it’s recognized as something real.

9

ERIS:

“…You are talking about proving things to the world at large and not just (etc)…”

Yes.

“…If it doesn’t evade proof, then it isn’t a ‘meta’ event… is it?..”

Well, that’s sorta the question. I’m not defining “Meta” by the fact that it evades proof, but by the fact that it evades science (basically physics). When I speak of evading, as it were, future physics, I’m trying to get a grip on the possibility that nothing that we would call “physics” could incorporate events that conform to no discernable “law” and (thus?) cannot be produced on demand. If you’re raising the issue of whether there might be a “physics” of, say, 4000 AD that could deal with real, but utterly capricious and unpredictable, phenomena–that’s certainly relevant. My initial response is that we can’t stretch the word “physics” (or indeed, “science”) that far. Can there be a discipline of the undisciplined?

“…Is that too nitpicky?”

Never, my good sir.

TVAA:

“…I’d argue that supernatural events do not occur by definition…”

Yes, and I’ve taken that position myself now and then. But I think you and I have to concede that the average word-user does mean something by the word “supernatural,” and thus evidently has a more restrictive definition of “natural” than “whatever manages to happen.” Here I am using “natural” as an approximate synonym for “scientifically law-abiding.”

AHUNTER:

“…I can’t visualize a construct by which you demonstrate through empirical evidence and/or deductive reasoning that something has taken place which cannot be explained by reference to any natural processes that we comprehend…”

That’s the central issue. Is there a way to provide convincing evidence of the FACT of an occurrence, even if the occurrence is of such a character that it is beyond explanation? To say no is to take the position that we cannot justifiably and rationally declare “X exists” unless we can offer a plausible and testable account of HOW it came to exist.

TVAA, Part 2:

“…we can still consider all events to be meta events, since technically speaking, we can’t explain any of them in perfect detail…”

I’m willing to accept the lawfulness of the gross behavior of groups of similar entities (or events) as a case of being covered by science. My notion is that Meta events show no lawfulness even considered in bulk.

DIOGENES:

Then, to paraphrase: There does come a point at which accumulated testimony by reliable witnesses, photographs, etc., is sufficient to justify acceptance that the event did occur, notwithstanding the fact that science makes it overwhelmingly unlikely that such an event COULD occur. Correct?

LUMPY:

Your signal-to-noise take on the problem appeals to me very much. Let’s see how others respond to it.

10

Even if the cause of some phenomenon can’t be measured or rationally explained, its effects can be observed. To go back to the hypothetical example of Mercury… if we saw that its orbit didn’t obey Newtonian physics, and didn’t have an explanation, we’d at least be able to know that something was happening to either cause the erratic orbit, or to explain the erratic orbit.

“Rationality” isn’t an ends… its a means to an ends. All measurements begin with observations. If you want to get into the realm of psychics or chairvoyants, you can observe what they say or “predict” or whatever, and then compare that to actual events. If - big “if” - it turns out that they have an unusual level of accuracy, then you can go about searching for a mechanism for this ability of theirs.

Same can be said for UFO sightings, ghosts, out-of-body experiences, etc.

11

The premise of your argument–that meta events actually occur, or that it is at least possible that they might occur–is an interesting one. It is remarkable because no possible observation can disprove either it or its negation.

If your assumption is true, it is possible that we might look at a very large number of events and not see any that appear to be meta events. In this case, we simply weren’t looking in the right places, or perhaps no meta events happened to occur while we were watching.

If your assumption is false, it is possible that we might see events that appear to be meta events in that they seem to violate known physical law in a capricious, unpredictable manner. In this case, our understanding of physical law is simply incomplete, and with a better understanding it would be possible to understand and/or predict such events.

Even if your assumption holds, then it will never be possible to prove that any given event is a meta event. There are two ways to interpret any event we cannot explain:

  1. This event cannot possibly be explained.
  2. This event has an explanation but we don’t know what it is because our understanding of physical law is insufficient.
    Approach (2) is always a logically valid claim because it is unfalsifiable. Thus, though it could be proven that a claimed “meta” event actually occured, it could never be proven that it was in fact a “meta” event.
12

Well, I don’t put much stock in testimony alone, but verifiable physical evidence could conceivably be sufficient to show a paramormal event has occorred-- or at least an event which violates physical laws as we know them.

Nothing like this has ever happened, though, and I don’t expect it ever will.

13

Now, I don’t know you, and I don’t know what you believe, but it seems to me you—as all other people—accept a great deal of testimony all the time. In fact, testimony that people have evidence (as one example).

14

If I could potentially verify the existence of evidence myself, then I can take a useful shortcut and accept testimony of its existence. This isn’t a valid step when determining what’s actually true (and there is a payoff in accuracy, as there always is with shortcuts), but I don’t need to personally demonstrate the validity of everything I’m told, all of the time.

15

Fair enough, but I’m talking about claims of paranormal phenomena. if a claim is made about an event or phenomenon which contradicts the known laws of physics, then testimony, alone, is of no real value.

16

How James Randi defines Meta-analysis from his Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds & the Supernatural

"A system of statistically analyzing very large numbers of already-published experiments each of which may-not, in itself, be significant, and extracting from them information to be looked at with a view to obtaining validation of the sought-after effect. Only if an overall application of faulty procedures has been applied, or experimental results have been generally misreported, could properly applied meta-analytic procedures falsely indicate positive results. This procedure is gaining popularity among parapsychologists, who seem to always have miserable luck with simple, directly applied scientific methods and analysis of results."

17

Here is a fascinating quote from my (old) edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica, from the article on Levitation:

**

18
  1. Gee, and I thought that this thread was going to cover theories which encompass science, as opposed to hypotheses that are merely not compatible with known scientific knowledge.

(But, hey, there’s nothing wrong with the question posed…)

Ok, so far there can be a rational approach to (eg) levitation or spontaneous human combustion: imagine a lawyer or investigator evaluating the evidence. Existing scientific understanding would be one piece of evidence. Direct observation of levitation (of whatever quality) would be another. No problem with rationality so far.

I’m becoming more puzzled. Physics is a hard science. There are also nonexperimental sciences like astronomy and nonexperimental system sciences like meteorology. When quasars (pulsars?) were discovered, there were no generalizable laws (or, more to the point hypotheses) that covered them, but that didn’t prevent observations being made. SPOOFE gives the Mercury example here.

Scientific “Law” (as opposed to hypotheses) are a smallish part of scientific methodology, I would assert.

Hurricanes are capricious and unpredictable (but admittedly not utterly so). That does not prevent them from being studied.

To summarize:

  1. There is no reason to believe that evidence for UFOs etc. should be “utterly capricious and utterly unpredictable”, any more so than meteorite strikes on Jupiter are.

  2. Even if the phenomenon is nonrepeatable, a lawyer can still evaluate the eyewitness testimony, using pre-existing knowledge of the quality of such testimony, taking from analogous circumstances.

Scott: I would recommend that we work through a hypothetical. That might clarify some of these issues. Are you thinking of a one-time event like Fatima? Or is it a jealous phenomenon, one that does occur repeatedly? We need to do some sharpening (par for the course with philosophical questions).

19

Sure.

In fact, parapsychologists have been trying to do that for a long time.

20

JASONFIN:

“…Approach (2) is always a logically valid claim because it is unfalsifiable. …”

Did you mean to write “logically INvalid”? Or perhaps “falsifiable”? Or am I missing an ironic point here?

DIOGENES:

“…verifiable physical evidence could conceivably be sufficient to show a paramormal event has occorred-- or at least an event which violates physical laws as we know them…”

Let us take as a premiss, just for fun, that “ghosts” only appear in the “mind’s eye” of the person who (at that instant) believes he is seeing them; and yet they are in fact real entities, after-death persons. (That is to say, it is their nature that they do not appear in a public, physical, optical, light-wave-ical sense.) I ask you not to fight the “given” here–that they are real, independent thingies–but rather to address the issue raised by the premiss. Which is: What could one do to convince the world of their real existence? Anything?–because all we have is testimony.

ICERIGGER:

You don’t assume that my Meta events are somehow connected to that procedure known as meta-analysis…do you?

LUMPY:

Zackly!

FLOWBARK:

“…imagine a lawyer or investigator evaluating the evidence. Existing scientific understanding would be one piece of evidence. Direct observation of levitation (of whatever quality) would be another. No problem with rationality so far…”

But I believe some other Dopers (and maybe even a moderator or two…) would take issue with this. For example, I interpret the approach of the SICOP people as something like: These extraordinary claims, if they are to be taken as validated in a scientific sense, require something more specialized than the sort of “proof” a lawyer might adduce in a court of law. That is: no amount of evidence regarding the probity, acuity, or sincerity of a witness–or of any number of witnesses–outweighs the judgment of scientists (and certain magicians) that events of that character can not ever occur. (Roughly: Hume on “Miracles.”)

“…There is no reason to believe that evidence for UFOs etc. should be ‘utterly capricious and utterly unpredictable’…”

If your “should” means “must,” I completely agree. In this post I am choosing to posit the paranormalist’s nightmare, the absolute worst-case scenario…namely that these events are both (a) real, and (b) what I said. And I’m asking if events of that character must always be regarding as doubtful. You’re suggesting ways in which one might validate them nevertheless.

(BTW, what does the term “jealous phenomenon” mean?)

Fatima as an example? Let’s say that we have a situation much like the one we actually do have. Huge numbers of people are present in a field at a certain time. A majority “feels the burn” but observes nothing extraordinary. A significant percentage–perhaps 20%, to be generous–observes something odd about the behavior of the sun (or what they take to be the sun). Small and smaller subgroups report odder and odder things, with some (a handful?) “seeing” the sun whirl around in the sky and divebomb the field. And the tiniest group of all–perhaps even just one little girl–reports an apparition of a woman, which bends down a tree branch, etc.

Now in a scientific, astronomical, cosmological sense–this AIN’T sense at all. The sun can’t go dancing around; and if, somehow, it did, it would be reported the world over (and have catastrophic effects of our planet). So what do we make of these reports, and claims, and reports of claims, and claims of reports? If a few hundred people march on the local observatory swearing that they observed the solar miracle with their own eyes–does it matter at all? Doesn’t science HAVE to assume that we’re dealing with mass hysteria, magic mushrooms, etc? And wouldn’t officialdom HAVE to make the same assumption EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE REPORTED EVENT “REALLY HAPPENED”?

If so, we have a demonstration that our “official” validation system simply can not deal with lawless–yet real–events.

And so the absence of such validation is of no significance to the question of whether Meta events ever do, in fact, happen.

Or–is there an alternative logically valid, rationally persuasive method by which to verify such occurrences?