DiscussMormonism.com

Stanley Rosen wrote:The positive task of the philosopher is to fecundate his analytical skills with dreams, and to discipline his dreams with analysis. I cannot provide him with a manual of rules and regulations governing this activity. There are no rules and regulations for being reasonable, and certainly no rules and regulations for dreaming reasonable dreams. In philosophy, as perhaps in everything else, one communicates best his deepest dreams by enacting them.

The Limits of Analysis by Stanley Rosen, Yale University Press, 1980, p.260

I’ve mentioned before that I’ve been on a bit of a Stanley Rosen kick and I’ve methodically been going through his studies on the Continental and Analytic traditions of philosophy. His writing is superb and because the man was exceedingly well read, Rosen can deftly make his way through difficult texts with such acumen and grace that I feel like I’m reading familiar philosophers for the first time again.

What I most admire is how he engages views that are not his own, Rosen invests so much energy into developing the clearest and most robust picture of what he wants to critique that at times I simply forget that he is just setting the stage for a rebuttal that is simultaneously good natured and merciless.

What makes Rosen an excellent philosopher, in my opinion, is that he has put in the hard work and by virtue of that, what he has to say carries more gravitas for those who decide to read him. When writing and discussing philosophical topics, there is an ever present temptation to utilize rhetorical tricks and conceptual gimmicks as shortcuts to the conclusion you desire.

This brings me to a recent blog entry by Daniel Peterson called Evanescence and Permanence where he makes the following comment:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:As will be obvious to anybody who has followed this blog with any degree of attention for any length of time, I’m deeply interested in near-death experiences. My interest is motivated by various considerations, but one of them is simply this: The great Harvard philosopher and psychologist William James (1842-1910) — who was, by the way, a brother of the great novelist Henry James (1843-1916), liked to say that the only evidence that is necessary to prove that not all crows are black is one white crow. If a single believable NDE account or out-of-body-experience can be identified, that will be enough, in and of itself, to refute materialism, or reductionism, or naturalism, or mind-body identity as those notions are conventionally understood.

Now I have not exhausted the entire catalog of the writings of William James, but the only instance (that I have seen) of William James articulating a principle of falsification using crows as an example comes from a talk he delivered in 1896 to the Society for Psychical Research. Here is the relevant text:

William James wrote:I have been willfully taking the point of view of the so-called "rigorous scientific" disbeliever, and making an ad hominem plea. My own point of view is different. For me the thunderbolt has fallen, and the orthodox belief has not merely had its presumption weakened, but the truth itself of the belief is decisively overthrown. If you will let me use the language of the professional logic-shop, a universal proposition can be made untrue by a particular instance. If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black, you mustn't seek to show that all crows are black; it is enough if you prove one single crow to be white.

I don’t know how many people are aware of this, but James was a bit of ghosthunter and paranormal researcher in his day, so I can definitely see why Daniel treats James as a kindred spirit (and to be honest, it is hard not to like James) given his own interest in topics such as dowsing rods. After invoking a principle of falsification, James makes a curious comment:

William James wrote:My own white crow is Mrs. Piper.

This is fascinating rabbit trail I’d like to explore a bit and to help provide context, I’m going to utilize a biography of William James written by the intellectual historian Jacques Barzun:

Jacques Barzun wrote:James worked with “psychics” because he had no preconceived ideas about what the mind could or could not do; and also because the purpose of the Society for Psychical Research was scientific. It meant to find out whether telepathy, poltergeist effects, hauntings, spirit return and spirit messages were facts or frauds. This effort was but another aspect of the urge to discover that animated the latter years of the nineteenth century. (p.239)

A Stroll with William James by Jacques Barzun, Harper and Row, 1983, p.239

Investigating such topics was not nearly as taboo as they are today and quite a few luminaries of the late 19th and early 20th centuries made their own studies of paranormal topics. Concerning Mrs. Piper, Barzun writes:

Jacques Barzun wrote:James devoted many hours and took many trips in the investigation and assessment of the “manifestations” selected by the Society. His chief contribution was the study of a widely touted medium, Mrs. E.L. Piper. She convinced James and his wife that she possessed information that could not have been acquired in the ordinary way, but how she managed it was never resolved.

ibid, p.239

With the above in mind, I want to return to the address James was delivering, picking up where I left off:

William James wrote:In the trances of this medium, I cannot resist the conviction that knowledge appears which she has never gained by the ordinary waking use of her eyes and ears and wits. What the source of this knowledge may be I know not, and have not the glimmer of explanatory suggestion to make; but from admitting the fact of such knowledge, I can see no escape. So when I turn to the rest of our evidence, ghosts and all, I cannot carry with me the irreversibly negative bias of the rigorously scientific mind, with its presumption as to what the true order of nature ought to be. I feel as if, though the evidence be flimsy in sports, it may nevertheless collectively carry heavy weight.

I’ve never quite been able to figure out why James in one breath claims that Mrs. Piper is a “white crow” that presumably is the “thunderbolt” that “decisively” overthrows the presumptuous doubt of paranormal detractors, but then candidly admits in the next that the matter is still mired in unknowns. He goes on to say:

William James wrote:But I am devoting too many words to scientific logic, and too few to my review of our career. In the question of physical mediumship, we have left matters as baffiing as we found them, neither more nor less. For if, on the one hand, we have brought out new documents concerning the physical miracles of Stainton Moses, on the other hand we have, by the Hodgson-Davey experiments, and the Paladino episode, very largely increased the probability that testimony based on certain sorts of observation may be quite valueless as proof.

I think perhaps James was just trying to be a trooper and attempting to be edifying to his audience, as Barzun notes that James wasn’t particularly fond of this kind of work:

Jacques Barzun wrote:It is worth noting that James did not enjoy this kind of inquiry. He pursued it in part to maintain a critical pressure on what he called Scientific Sectarianism—the people who were sure beforehand. But the work itself James found tedious, undignified, often disgusting—‘a human rathole life’. He reflected that there was no reason why spirit messages—or “counterfeits” either—should be entertaining or dramatic, anymore than backyard conversation.

ibid, p.240

Setting William James aside, I’d like return to Daniel’s comment:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:If a single believable NDE account or out-of-body-experience can be identified, that will be enough, in and of itself, to refute materialism, or reductionism, or naturalism, or mind-body identity as those notions are conventionally understood.

Recently Daniel “read” a book by Jens Amberts called Why an Afterlife Obviously Exists: A Thought Experiment and Realer Than Real Near-Death Experiences, I’ve posted excerpts of it in another thread where I express my judgment that the contents of Amberts’ work leaves a great deal to be desired. I’m going to provide an excerpt from Chapter Two that is very relevant to Daniel’s remarks:

Jens Amberts wrote:In this book it is argued that it is beyond astronomically likely and hence empirically certain that an afterlife exists in light of the following four noncontroversial facts about the NDE..

I’d like to draw attention to the grandiose language Amberts is employing here; the thesis of his book is “beyond astronomically likely” and “empirically certain”. This kind of attitude towards his own work betrays the author, competent scholars don’t usually appraise their efforts in such glowing terms and expressing such epistemic confidence is reminiscent of bearing a religious testimony. Here are the first two “noncontroversial facts”:

Jens Amberts wrote:1. The overwhelming majority of people who have an NDE become personally convinced of the reality of survival and an afterlife based on their experience, and the prevalence of this aftereffect is strongly correlated with the depth of the NDE.

2. An NDEr will more often than not say that the reality they encountered while they were going through this experience was a lot more real than this reality we participate in as humans on a daily basis, and the prevalence.

The majority of what we know about NDEs is predicated on the testimony of people who escaped death and then related their experiences after the fact. There are aspects of brain science and neurology that are relevant, but the bulk of the material is first person accounts. This creates a problem for the likes of Daniel and Amberts because the evidentiary value of testimony, obtained during a medical crisis from people who were most likely unconscious when their experience began, can easily be challenged.

Amberts’ strategy to get around the challenges to the value of testimony is to meet it head on by claiming that the NDE has a veridical quality to it that gives this particular kind of testimony a huge increase in evidentiary value. If the reasoning Amberts provides is sound, it would leave his position with a catalog of thousands of testimonies with a uniquely high evidentiary value. This no doubt explains the supreme confidence Amberts expresses about his contribution.

Whether Amberts is successful or not is a matter for another thread, what I found interesting is how this appeals to Peterson. Testimony is an important part of Mormon religious culture and so it isn’t surprising to see it play a role in Mormon apologetics; many of Daniel’s favorite apologetic topics (The Empty Tomb arguments, Book of Mormon Witnesses, Near Death Experiences) all pivot on a particular set of testimonies being given a unique sort of consideration that overrides all the usual challenges. What Amberts models for Daniel is a conceptual shortcut, instead of exalting and defending the character of the witnesses by means of hagiography (i.e. Richard Loyd Anderson), or formulating inductive/probabilistic arguments about the fact of the matter (i.e. Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig), simply argue that the experiences themselves are unimpeachable on an epistemological level.

I can tell Daniel has already recognized this and is busy incorporating Amberts’ strategy into his usual rotation. In fact, he is already putting it to use (underline mine):

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:My interest is motivated by various considerations, but one of them is simply this: The great Harvard philosopher and psychologist William James (1842-1910) — who was, by the way, a brother of the great novelist Henry James (1843-1916), liked to say that the only evidence that is necessary to prove that not all crows are black is one white crow. If a single believable NDE account or out-of-body-experience can be identified, that will be enough, in and of itself, to refute materialism, or reductionism, or naturalism, or mind-body identity as those notions are conventionally understood.

The implicit argument goes as follows:

(i) Any universal proposition can be falsified through counterexample.

(ii) Materialism/Naturalism/Reductionism [?????]/Mind-Body Identity are examples of universal propositions.

(iii) A Testimony reporting a Near Death Experience is a counterexample to Materialism/Naturalism/Reductionism/Mind-Body Identity.

(iv) Therefore, Materialism/Naturalism/Reductionism/Mind-Body Identity is falsified.

This line of argumentation faces a number of challenges that will require some significant work to overcome and it is the kind of work that requires some heavy lifting conceptually, which is exactly the kind of work Daniel likes to avoid at almost any cost.

Starting with (i) and (ii), it will be fairly hard to express materialism and naturalism as a single universal proposition. Even a cursory glance at the usual scholarly reference works will show that in reality, the terms represent clusters of propositions that are heavily qualified. To make matters even more complicated, there are different conceptions of materialism and naturalism that are mutually exclusive. This means there are different interpretations of materialism and naturalism that themselves represent clusters of various qualified propositions. How does one squeeze all of that into a single universal proposition?

There is also the lingering issue of D&C 131 unambiguously expressing that “There is no such thing as immaterial matter “ and that “All spirit is matter” which ironically are themselves universal propositions of materialism. See my thread on that subject for a deeper discussion on the matter.

Regarding (iii), this will be equally as challenging for Daniel as well. Adopting the Amberts strategy of imbuing the testimony of NDE with a unique evidentiary value is going to require some extra work to cross the gaping chasm between what is directly evident from experience and what actually constitutes reality.

You see this issue play out in transcendental arguments made famous by Immanuel Kant. Transcendental arguments are usually employed to defeat some type of global skepticism by arguing that some fundamental experience shared by both parties necessarily requires the truth of something the skeptic is denying. The first hurdle transcendental arguments must clear is showing how any kind of experience implies reality *must* be that way and so, if an NDE feels so incredibly real that they constitute a high evidentiary value, does it guarantee that the experiences are accurately communicating a truth about our metaphysical reality? If so, how?

In any case, I look forward to seeing how Daniel is going to develop NDEs into a fuller apologetic argument. What will be Daniel’s white crow to overthrow the specter of materialism?

I approve this message.



- Doc ‘a black swan caused Joseph Smith to duck into his local Masonic lodge’ NC4Me

What about examples of Dr. Peterson bending spoons with his dowsing rod? That seems worthy of a white crow consideration. Near-death experiences would make for an excellent FAIR presentation and could sell many books in the Foyer.

Thanks for the thoughts, Dr. Stak.

I liked your observation of the buildup "you mustn't seek to show that all crows are black; it is enough if you prove one single crow to be white". The thing is, skeptics.org types preach this very same thing in order to exorcise any possible trace of dogma in the white castle of science. Richard Feynman not excepted. The entire turtle stack can be toppled, crashing the highest of all turtles by a single grunt from the bottom turtle. One experiment in a garage in Texas and Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford are overturned forever.

And the apologist is ready to meet the terms and provide that one single experiment. But from here, the skeptic and apologists aren't on the same page at all. The skeptic might have something in mind like a James Randi production. The apologist has the farthest thing from that in mind. The lever's handle is out a mile, and the weight of a fly is ready to dislodge that mighty boulder. If a fly really is there to light upon the handle, it's all over. The boulder is moved. The handle is there. It's really there, ready to move that boulder. A fly isn't uncommon, and all it will take is for a fly to actually connect with that handle. It could really happen.

“beyond astronomically likely”

that sounds familiar....

Daniel C. Peterson pictured here watching a man slowly drown.



Daniel C. Peterson pictured here watching a poor family get evicted on Christmas Eve.

I wonder if DCP would be so apt to acceed the white crow analogy works for religious claims, no?

- Doc

Great insight as always Dr. Stak

In any case, I look forward to seeing how Daniel is going to develop NDEs into a fuller apologetic argument. What will be Daniel’s white crow to overthrow the specter of materialism?

DCP is too busy, supposedly, to develop anything.

DCP wrote:If a single believable NDE account or out-of-body-experience can be identified, that will be enough, in and of itself, to refute materialism, or reductionism, or naturalism, or mind-body identity as those notions are conventionally understood.

I can't wait to see this account. Surely there must be thousands, hundreds of thousands! And not just one, right guys?

Please produce the white crow, Daniel. And not white as in tapir, white as in the color white.

Please explain DCP, how the Laffertys aren't the "white crow" to your delusional witnesses, showing how unreliable witnesses to the fantastical can be.