Theos-Talk Archives (June 1995 Message tl00106)

Monday, 6:55 pm, Tucson, AZ

Fred in a posting today thanks Adam for his comments on
reincarnation and mentions 3 points raised by Adam.

For some reason I did NOT receive this posting from Adam Warcup.
Fred, Adam or somebody else can you forward a copy of this
posting since I would like to see what Adam was talking about?

Adam says in his reply to Fred: "...A skeptic can easily come up
with an alternative explanation." If this line of reasoning is
used to justify that reincarnation cannot be "proved", then I
would suggest that this same line of reasoning can be used to
claim that the paranormal and the metaphysical in general CANNOT
be proved.

Skeptics belonging to the organization CSICOP constantly use the
tactic of suggesting an alternative explanation as a possibility
in order to show that there is no good proof even of ESP,
telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.

In trying to explain any "phenomenon" (including historical cases
like Who killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman!), there are many
*possible* alternative explanations.  In scientific studies,
there are many possible laternative explanations to explain a
"phenomenon" but it is the job of the scientist to rule out and
weed the number of competing possibilities and to attempt to come
up with the explanation, i.e.  the most probable explanation that
can be found in light of all the known evidence.  If you see a
man stumbling down the sidewalk as you drive by, from your
armchain vantage point in the car, you can come up with many
different explanations for his "behavior".  (1) He is drunk; (2)
he is injured; (3) he has a physical disability; (3) he is
"crazy"; (4) he is pretending and hoping someone will come over
to him so he can mug that person, etc.

All these alternative explanations are "possible" *given the
right circumstances.  But you will never know the real
explanation unless you are willing to get out of your car and
"collect" more data, information, evidence to help you answer the
question: "Why is the man `stumbling' down the sidewalk."

If anybody offers an "explanation" the burden of proof is on that
person to submit evidence of some kind that shows that his
explanation rules out the competing explanations.  To simply
offer an explanation as a possiblity solves nothing.

For example, a number of people have tried to identify who the
Master Koot Hoomi really was.  Richard Hodgson said K.H.  didn t
exist! That's one "explanation".

Steve Richards in the AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST (about 7 years ago)
said K.H.  was really a man by the name of Nisi Kanta
Chattopadhyaya.  Paul Johnson has tried to identify Thakur Singh
Sandhanwalia as the man behind the K.H.  "prototype." Mary K.
Neff suggested that K.H.  was a certain man (I can't remember the
name and don't have before me that file).  etc, etc.

But in each and every "explanation", has the person putting forth
the explanation really solved the problem concerning K.H.  or
have they only offered a "possibility" with some suggestive
evidence while at the same time ignoring evidence to the contrary
which would show their explanation is way off the base?

How do you prove anything? What is evidence? I have found that
far too many writers (including Theosophical writers) dealing
with Theosophical history don't even follow the simple rules of
basic research and some have the vaguest undertstanding about
"evidence", "proof", "possibilities" versus "probability", etc.
And dealing with the "teachings" of Theosophy, it seems that
"Theosophists" (at least many of them) are even less concerned
with attemtping to find "facts", etc.  that would help to show
the truthfulness or falsity of some of the basic ideas of
Theosophy.  Far too oftern I find them invoking "faith",
"intuition" or "personal experience" to buttress their acceptance
of Theosophical ideas.  Therefore, are the Theosophists any more
head of the "game" than, for example, orthodox Christians who
also invoke "faith", "intuition", "personal experience"etc.  to
"prove" that the Bible is true, etc.?

Now I am not denying that "faith" or "intuition" or "personal
experience" doesn't have its place in the scheme of things.  But
I dare say that their is not a belief system in the world that
cannot be "validated'" by faith, intuition and personal
experience! So if Theosophists claim Theosophy is something
unique among all the competing ideologies of this world (notice I
said IF!), what is it that Theosophists can present to seekers
other than "faith", "intuition" or "personal experience"? (NOTE:
My above comments are made from the perspective that Theosophy
(as a body of knowledge) is a science.  See the writings of HPB
and her Masters.)

The above is food for thought.

Daniel