Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking PseudoSkeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers
Argument
# 3: The Occam’s Razor
rule
Stated as: “When
there are two competing explanations
for an event, the simpler one is more likely.”
This
argument is a principle that skeptics often misuse to try to force
alternate
explanations to
paranormal ones, even if
those explanations involve false accusations or do not fit the facts,
while those trying to prove their paranormal explanations will conduct tests that will prove they're
correct. Originally,
it began as a principle in physics having to do with parsimony, but somehow got twisted into a
mantra for
invalidating paranormal claims.
It was
popularized by scientist Carl Sagan in his novel turned movie
“Contact”, where
Jodie Foster quotes it while during a conversation with a theist to
defend her
belief that God doesn’t exist.
(Ironically, at the end of
the movie it is used against her in a
public
interrogation by a National Security Agent.)
However, an analysis on the
facts and assumptions of this
argument
reveals some obvious problems.
1) First
of all, Occam’s Razor, termed by 14th Century logician and
friar William of Occam, refers to a concept that states that "Entities
should not be multiplied unnecessarily."
It was not intended to be
used to evaluate claims of the
paranormal as
skeptics today use it for.
As Phil Gibbs
points out in “Physics FAQ”: (http://www.weburbia.com/physics/)
“To
begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would
predict
the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose
between
theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam
intended…
The
principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some
people
quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not. It can work
well
in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology
or
psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than
you
ever expected. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more
appropriate
than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and
earth,
Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
The
law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the
scientific
method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a
conclusion.
As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and
empirical
evidence are absolute.”
Even Isaac Newton
didn’t use
Occam’s Razor like the
skeptics of today do.
His version of it
was
“We
are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both
true and
sufficient to explain their appearances.” (see same Physics
FAQ)
Obviously, he was referring
to explanations
to
explain natural
phenomena, not
paranormal or supernatural phenomena!
Brian Zeiler explains:
"UFO
debunkers do not understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly.
They
think they understand it, but they don't.
What
it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can
explain a
set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested
should be
the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions.
If this
simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen,
and so
forth.
But
the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the
simpler
hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations.
What
a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it
can be
"explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse
of
the proper approach"
2) Second,
what is “simpler” is often relative. For
example, having telepathic or clairvoyant
experiences in some primitive cultures is very common (e.g. Tibetan,
African,
Amazonian) and those who have such abilities all their lives consider
it
ordinary.
As Phil Gibbs points out in
the same Physics FAQ:
“Simplicity
is subjective and the universe does not always have the same ideas
about
simplicity as we do.”
Sometimes skeptics will
invent an elaborate
and far
fetched explanation over a paranormal one, anything but a paranormal
one is
acceptable to them.
For example, when
Charles Tart
did that experiment where a girl had an OBE and read a
five digit
number on a ledge near the ceiling, the skeptics charged that she was
carrying
a secret fold out mirror and flashlight.
3) Third,
even if we take Occam’s Razor at face value the way
skeptics use it, just because one explanation is more likely
doesn’t mean that
it’s always the correct one. For
example, if I toss a die, it is more likely that I will roll numbers
1-5 than a
6.
But that doesn’t
mean that a 6
will
never come up.
Therefore, occasionally
an unlikely explanation can be expected to be true sometimes. However,
skeptics treat Occam’s Razor as
if
it were an absolute rule and use it as a label for denying any
paranormal
claim, no matter how valid.
4) Fourth,
skeptics have used Occam’s Razor so religiously that they
misuse it by inventing false accusations and denying the facts in order
to
force a simpler more natural explanation.
For example, if someone had
an amazing psychic reading at a
psychic fair
(not prearranged) where they were told something very specific that
couldn’t
have been guessed by cold reading, skeptics would start inventing false
accusations such as:
“Someone who
knew
you must have tipped off the psychic in advance”,
“A spy in
the room must have
overheard you mention the specific detail before the
reading”,
“You must have
something in your appearance that reveals the detail”,
“You
must have
remembered it wrong since memory is fallible”, etc. Even if
none
of these
accusations are true, skeptics will still insist on it simply because
it’s the
simpler explanation to them.
Likewise, if
someone during an NDE or OBE hears a conversation or witnesses
something many
miles away and later upon verification, it turns out to be true, the
skeptics
will say that the simpler explanation is that the patient knew about
the detail
or conversation beforehand but forgot it.
A skeptic did that to me once
when I brought up how a psychic
was able
to tell me that I had a tragic period in my life when I was 9 years
old,
without any other information or clue from me other than my birth date. He
kept insisting that I gave her clues which
allowed her to predict that, even though I guaranteed him that I
didn’t.
Examples like these suggest
that skeptics are
willing to support a false explanation rather than a paranormal one due
to
their bias.
For
more on Occam’s Razor, see WikiSynergy’s
entry on Occam’s Razor
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page