I have no idea what you are trying.
There is already the tried-and-true scientific method. Yes, I realise you actually need to collect data from valid experiments, so it doesn’t sit well with the so called “meta” events.
If you want to convince others, you need evidence. Simple as that.
Scott:
I like your ghost example better than the Fatima one.
Two classic “jealous” phenomena are ghosts and UFOs. From the master.
You are correct regarding the viewpoints of many on this board. To wit, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Looks like flowbark needs to reconsider his position.
Fatima seems kind of simple. 1) Lots of people saw diddly squat. 2) People who stare at the sun can hallucinate. ergo 3) I don’t see good evidence for a miracle.
But I’m beginning to see your point: let’s work with the ghost example instead of a more convoluted Fatima example.
The essence of your problem (I think) is that you are pointing out the inadequacy of Occam’s Razor. To wit, “the simpler explanation that explains all given facts is the better one.”
Leave aside the problem of defining, “simpler”. (That’s a different problem.)
Say that ghosts exist. Some people see them. Some don’t.
Now we need some more structure. So let’s say that the people who see ghosts tend to be ones who believe in ghosts ahead of time. Let’s also say that the evidence for ghosts is dodgy. Might ghosts still exist? Could the universe be screwing around with our minds?
Yes and yes: this is merely a case where reality wasn’t nice to us. It turns out that ghosts are beings that influence some people on a neural level (not even on the retina) and that they do so sporadically, so that they appear deviously similar to a psychological phenomenon. It’s not even the ghosts’ fault, it’s just what they are.
You can buy into that story, but you have to reject both Occam’s Razor and a benevolent providence.
Or perhaps not. At any rate, it’s fair to ask people who believe in ghosts to spin out the convoluted story. As far as I can tell, they won’t object anyway. Then it becomes a matter of faith in Occam’s Razor. To some extent.
OTOH, one might be able to build up Occam’s razor on the grounds of “reasonability”. Unfortunately, I’ve never seen that particular exercise, though I did at one time read Bertrand Russell’s justification for the existence of external reality.
To state the obvious, I must note that my grasp of philosophy doesn’t extend beyond the introductory level.
Claim: So this is ultimately a debate about Occam’s Razor.
#2: Correction: Two classic “jealous” phenomena are fairies and UFOs. Sorry.
URBAN RANGER:
“…I have no idea what you are trying.”
I suppose I’m trying the case of The People versus The Possibility That Reality Is Much Weirder Than We Thought.
I grasp that you have an objection; I’m not clear what it is.
FLOWBARK:
Yes, I think you’re right. This is, in some basic sense, about that ol’ Razor. From your discussion of “ghosts,” I can tell that you do indeed see what I’m about here.
And the point is, what do we do IF there exist real phenomena, the simplest explanations of which amount to denying the reality of those phenomena?
I re-read The Master; thanks for the cite. I think Cece was having one of his rare off-days. He missed an opportunity to evoke a bit of metaphysical stretching on the part of his devoted audience. It may be a fact that most (nearly all) extravagant, potentially paradigm-busting reports have conventional explanations. And what we have to come to grips with is a second fact: that the first fact virtually guarantees that we will be unable to recognize and validate whatever REAL paradigm-busters come amblin’ down the big long pike.
By the way, good dopefolk–and this is vitally important–this thread is trying to explore a basic logical-metaphysical issue concerning our ability to assess and evaluate certain types of occurrence–types that have, indeed, been reported now and then. As far as I’m concerned, it is NOT about persuading anybody that ghosts, the Blessed Virgin Mary, saucers from ultra-reality, or the astral body of James Randi must be accepted as real. That’s why I don’t specify which reports are more “credible” than others. It’s not about proving the paranormal, but rather about whether a sufficiently “deep” paranormality is even amenable to the procedures we believe give rise to socially-acceptable “proof.”
No, Cece wasn’t having one of his off-days, he was merely constrained for space. (Cece never has off days; all errors are a result of either faulty transmission or careless editing by his assistant. It’s all Ed’s fault.)
----------Scott asks, “And the point is, what do we do IF there exist real phenomena, the simplest explanations of which amount to denying the reality of those phenomena?”
Let me continue my ghost story. Another oddity about ghosts is that they never provide any particularly interesting information about the afterlife. They also never describe something that only they would know, but that could be verified. Again this is a result of (un)natural law. Another (un)natural law is that they can never refer to this phenomenon when speaking with mortals. Again, I’m positing this as a reality.
Given this possibility, should we continue to use Occam’s Razor? I would answer yes. On the one hand, we have something that looks like a psychological condition, can be effectively treated as a psychological condition and is observationally equivalent to a psychological condition. On the other hand, we have a large number of possible hypotheses, all of an ad hoc nature. It just so happens that one of these ad hoc stories is correct, but we have no way of knowing which one that is. On utilitarian grounds (loosely speaking), I would opt for the simplest explanation, which happens to be wrong (though we are unaware of that).
OTOH, if one wanted to look at this more deeply, one could use a decision-analysis framework. Such a framework would involve an explicit loss-function: you pose various hypotheses, and estimate the costs of being wrong with each one. (The tricky step might be to assign probabilities to each scenario). But to do that, we would need more structure on the specific hypothesis.
----------- And what we have to come to grips with is a second fact: that the first fact virtually guarantees that we will be unable to recognize and validate whatever REAL paradigm-busters come amblin’ down the big long pike.
I disagree. You can’t see the real paradigm busters anyway, because there are a huge number of ad hoc stories that can explain observed reality, and there is no reason to believe that you will stumble on the correct one.
--------It’s not about proving the paranormal, but rather about whether a sufficiently “deep” paranormality is even amenable to the procedures we believe give rise to socially-acceptable “proof.”
I think you mean “sufficiently convoluted”. (I’m not being a wise guy here. You may want to think about whether there’s a case which is “deep” but not “convoluted”.)
Someone who disagrees with me can take 2 tacks.
Sorry to drop in and out of the thread…
If a ghosts manifestation is related to who it was (by frequency, appearance, etc) it should eventually be possible to establish their existance.
If it isn’t, then how is it a ghost?
FLOWBARK–
In truth, we may substantially agree.
Certainly, the option to “drop Occam’s razor” is barely even an option, as there seems to be nothing to use in its place.
If you’re saying that cases where “the real truth” happens to be so convoluted, and to “look” so ad hoc, that our instincts rebel–then I totally agree.
And to me that means that we’re just not equipped to deal with realities of a certain character, if they should happen to exist.
One note about “the razor”–maybe I’m misremembering, but I think some noteworthy thinkers–Quine and the “grue” guy come to mind–have pointed out some logical difficulties with the whole concept of “the most simple explanation.”
As to the question of whether all Meta events have convoluted, ad hoc explanations–here’s where the real knives come out. There are those who say, for example, something like the following:
“God is a person. He can cause anything to happen just because he wants it that way. Some things happen the way they do precisely because He wants us NOT to be able to ‘write off’ the event as anything but the unforced creation of a free and unlimited personality. And that’s why we have_____ [fill in the blank].”
If we take as a given that “being a person” is a basic Fact, not analyzable or explicable–ie, something like “what the sensing of blue is for me,” which I would venture is nothing but a “this”–then the above account is surely elegantly simple. Yet it’s unsatisfying.
But maybe we’ll have to accept that we won’t always be satisfied.
(Incidentally, for “God” you can plug in anything else you wish; provided that it is a Personality with unlimited ability. Perhaps the physical universe, the sum total of spacetime, “has” Personality.)
--------If you’re saying that cases where “the real truth” happens to be so convoluted, and to “look” so ad hoc, that our instincts rebel–then I totally agree.
Hm. I’m also saying that that if there is one ad hoc convoluted explanation, there are likely to be other convoluted explanations that are observationally equivalent. The intuitive bit is a shakier argument.
---------And to me that means that we’re just not equipped to deal with realities of a certain character, if they should happen to exist.
I think Deities fall mostly outside of my argument. My powers of concentration are currently not sufficient to see whether my argument can be extended to cover them. (Hey, we amateurs are allowed to be lazy. 
)