Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00468)

At 01:55 AM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:

>[The above comments were reposted on theos-l (a theosophical discussion
>list).  I give below a few comments by Alexis Dolgorukii on Dr. Mueckler's
>above statements and Dr. Don DeGracia's replies to what Mr. Dolgorukii
>had written.  Alexis Dolgorukii wrote]:
>
>My only problem with the "scientific facts" behind the statements of Dr.
>Mueckler is based upon the fairly obvious perception that they are based
>upon the a priori rejection of ANY AND ALL extra-physical or trans-physical
>phenomena.

I'd like to add that reading Dr. Mueckler's comments gave me, at least, the
impression that the simplest answer is that Dr. Mueckler is a terribly
disgruntled man with an "axe to grind". His words are far too pejorative in
flavor to be the unbiased scientific comments they should be if he were valid.>

>[Dr. Don DeGracia  replies to Dolgorukii]:
>
>
>Another part of this attitude has to do with finding the least complicated
>explanation. Science is driven by Ocam's razor, which is to find the simplest
>explanation for a phenomena.  When  this fails, more complicated explanations
>are then invoked.  Necessity drives this process, not fancy or speculation.
The
>history of science is replete with such examples.
>
I completely disagree. The simplest answer, the most parsimonious answer, is
that the people who report such experiences are telling the truth. The
so-called "scientific" explanation is not only terribly complicated and
elaborately constructed, but is based upon the a priori decision that people
who report various OOBEs are either lying, insane, stupid, of ignorant or
some combination of the fore going. The so-called "scientific proof" is
based upon the utterly unfounded assumption that "these people cannot be
telling the truth" and "If that is so, what can the explanation be" ergo an
"explanation" gets manufactured.

alexis dolgorukii

And now I really have to register a complaint about the rudeness of the
Blavatsky Foundation and it's personator Daniel Caldwell:
In a bracketed line above [Dr.Don DeGracia replies to Dolgorukii.}
Mr.Caldwell in his impersonation of "The Blavatsky Foundation" commits a
fairly socially barbarous act. It is an act of extreme disrespect to refer
to one person by their unmodified last name (viz. "Dolgorukii") while
referring to another person by full name and title (viz: Dr. Don De Gracia)
I strongly resent the implications of total disrespect and would like to see
an apology. I am beginning to think that Paul Johnson is perfectly correct
in his opinion regarding Daniel Caldwell.

alexis Dolgorukii