Title: Evidence
Tags:
Blog Entry: Legal vs scientific arguments in the paranormal. A legal argument is based on an adversarial system with only one of two out comes. In the paranormal community the evaluation of evidence in this manner is to determine whether a paranormal event has occurred or not. The evidence is weight and the verdict is given by the individuals involved. Using the legal idea of ‘without a reasonable doubt’ as the measuring stick. The only people that need to be convinced in this case are the jury members themselves. In the case of the paranormal community verdicts become self-validating and this is fine if paranormal research only seeks to prove itself to those looking at the evidence. This is different then from scientific argument whose conclusion is based on fact. Either something is because it meets a set of criteria, false because it doesn’t or undetermined because there is lack of evidence. Scientific evidence doesn’t care about the school of public opinion and the jury is irrelevant. People who pursue scientific evidence usually believe in the theory they are trying to prove. If results are tainted in any way they are suspect and throw out regardless of the error or other evidence. I will use an EVP as an example. The evp tech says “Is there anyone there?” The response on the tape is “yes.” The legal argument is no one said the word “yes” in fact the room was quiet except for the tech. The voice was crystal clear and intelligible. The conclusion is that a spirit must have said it because no one else could have. Every one in the group listens to the tape, the person doing the evp work is trust worthy ie they didn’t make it up and so the group says spirits exist. The scientific argument would be 1. Was it in anyway possible for the “yes” to come from anywhere else such as a ceiling vent. 2. Was the room sound proof. 3. Was the tape new? 4. Was it listened to once through to verify that it wasn’t recycled? 5. Who handles the tape? Was this documented? 6. Where two recorders used as a control? Etc For science, if any evidence is the least bit suspect then everything is tossed. So if there was a vent in the room it must be verified that it couldn’t possibly be anyone on the other side of the vent. Obviously this type of research must be done in a controlled environment such as a lab. Everything must be perfect and documentable. So a legal argument has two results, yes no, and appeals to the individual to make up his/her mind and a scientific argument tests a hypothesis for yes, no, or undetermined and proves this against a set of criteria.
VIEW FULL VERSION: Link