The Possibility of the Impossible

1
The Possibility of the Impossible

• Chapter 2

2
The Possibility of the Impossible

• The trouble with paranormal phenomena is that
  theyre just not normal.
• Its not simply that theyre rare or unusual
  (which they are) its that they seem to violate
  the natural order of things. (Thats why we
  sometimes call them supernatural.)
• Their very existence seems to contradict certain
  fundamental laws that govern the universe.
• Since these laws define reality for us, anything
  that violates them appears impossible.
• According to Rothman, anything that violates
  physical principles is impossible. Because ESP
  violates these principles, it is impossible.

3
Paradigms and the Paranormal

• According to the true believers (those who accept
  the reality of the paranormal), nothing is
  impossible.
• Erich von Daniken, author of Chariots of the
  Gods, puts it, nothing is incredible any longer.
  The word impossible should have become
  literally impossible for the modern scientist.
• Von Daniken is referring to the fact that many
  things that scientists once considered impossible
  are now considered real.
• The most notorious example is meteorites. For
  many years, the scientific community dismissed
  meteorites as impossible.

4
Paradigms and the Paranormal

• Many of todays scientists, say the true
  believer, suffer from a similar myopia. Theyre
  unable to see beyond the narrow confines of their
  pet theories.
• This defect is a potentially serious one, for it
  can block scientific development. The historian
  Thomas Kuhn, in his seminal work The Structure of
  Scientific Revolutions, has shown that science
  advances only by recognizing and dealing with
  anomalies (phenomena that dont seem to obey
  known laws).
• According to Kuhn, all scientific investigation
  takes place within a paradigm, or theoretical
  framework, that determines what questions are
  worth asking and what methods should be used to
  answer them.

5
Paradigms and the Paranormal

• From time to time, however, certain phenomena are
  discovered that dont fit into the established
  paradigm that is, they cant be explained by the
  current theory.
• At first, as in the case of meteorites, the
  scientific community is forced to abandon the old
  paradigm and adopt a new one.
• In such a case, the science is said to have
  undergone a paradigm shift.

6
Paradigms and the Paranormal

• There have been many paradigm shifts in the past.
  Galileos discovery of the moons of Jupiter and
  the phases of Venus let to a shift from a
  geocentric (Earth-centered) view of the solar
  system to a heliocentric (sun-centered) one.
• Darwins discovery of the strange creatures of
  the Galapagos Islands let to the shift from
  creationism to evolution.
• The failure to detect the luminiferous ether
  (the medium in which light waves were supposed to
  travel) led to a shift from Newtonian physics to
  Einsteinian physics.
• Similarly, say the true believers, paranormal
  phenomena may lead to another paradigm shift.

7
Paradigms and the Paranormal

• We may have to give up many of our most cherished
  beliefs about the nature of reality. But its
  happened before, and, they claim, theres no
  reason to think it wont happen again.
• As Shakespeare so eloquently put it, There are
  more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than
  are dreamt of in your philosophy.

8
Logical Possibility versus Physical Impossibility

• Although, its fashionable to claim that anything
  is possible, such a claim is mistaken, for there
  are some things that cant possibly be false, and
  others that cant possibly be true.
• The Greek philosopher Aristotle (Platos pupil)
  was the first to systemize our knowledge of
  necessary truths. The most fundamental of
  them-the ones upon which all other truths
  rest-are often called the laws of thought.

9
Laws of Thought

• Necessary truths and necessary falsehoods
• The Law of Noncontradiction Nothing can both
  have a property and lack it at the same time.
• The Law of Identity Everything is identical to
  itself.
• The Law of Excluded Middle For any particular
  property, everything either has it or lacks it.

10
Laws of Thought

• These principles are called the laws of thought
  because without them thought-- as well as
  communication-- would be impossible. In order to
  think or communicate, our thoughts and sentences
  must have a specific content, they must be about
  one thing rather than another.
• One of the most effective techniques of refuting
  a position is known as reductio ad absurdum
  reduction to absurdity.
• If you can show that a position has absurd
  consequences, youve provided a powerful reason
  for rejecting it.

11
Reductio ad absurdum

• Adopt one of the tenets of an argument, say for
  instance that reality is constructed by the
  individual.
• If so, then why not ask an individual to step out
  in front of a moving dump truck. Lets see what
  kind of reality they construct.
• If you can adopt an argument and show it to be
  absurd, you have a powerful tool for refuting the
  argument.

12
Logic and Subatomic Particles

• Can you be in two places at once? The obvious
  answer would be No! Otherwise, this would be a
  violation of the Law of Noncontradiction, not to
  mention a physical impossibility
• But some reports of what is termed
  SuperPosition show that subatomic particles CAN
  be in two places at once.
• At the quantum, subatomic level, things do get
  weird an conventional logic may not always apply.
  But this does NOT mean that the same
  contradictions of logic apply to the rest of the
  world.

13
Laws of Thought

• We know, for example, that there are no round
  squares, no married bachelors, and no largest
  number because such things violate the law of
  noncontradiction--they attribute both property
  and its negation to a thing and are thus
  self-contradictory.
• Thus, von Daniken is mistaken in thinking that
  anything is possible. Things that are logically
  impossible cannot be real.
• There are limits to what can exist, and those
  limits are most broadly defined by the laws of
  logic.

14
Laws of Thought

• Rothman claims that ESP is impossible. Now if he
  means that ESP is logically impossible, then,
  provided hes right, we can dismiss it out of
  had, for in that case, it cant exist.
• But if ESP isnt logically impossible. The
  notions of reading anothers mind, viewing
  distant objects, and even knowing the future are
  not self-contradictory in the way that married
  bachelors or round squares are, neither are such.
  
• Many things that are logically possible are
  physically impossible.

15
Too many questions about ESP

• What form of energy is used to convey information
  in ESP? Why cant it be detected or blocked? Why
  is there no signal decay over distance or time?
• How does the brain or mind generate this
  energy?
• What sensory system receives the information? If
  its a gut feeling as in our organic senses,
  how precise is this sense?

16
Laws of Thought

• Even if we take von Daniken to be claiming that
  nothing is physically impossible, hes still
  mistaken. Our universe is governed by physical
  laws, and whatever violates them cannot occur.
• What is von Daniken claiming then? His point
  seems to be not that paranormal phenomena dont
  violate physical laws, but that our understanding
  of physical laws may change.
• In other words, he seems to be saying that it is
  logically possible that our notion of physical
  possibility will change, that we may someday
  adopt a paradigm that permits such phenomena.

17
Laws of Thought

• But this possibility doesnt give us any reason
  for believing that paranormal phenomena are
  real--for reasonable belief must be based on
  actual evidence. The fact that we may someday
  come to believe that something is real gives us
  no reason for believing that it is. The
  principle that should guide our thinking in these
  matters is this
• Just because something is logically possible
  doesnt mean that it is real.
• If logical possibility were evidence for physical
  reality, all sorts of fantastic things would have
  to be considered real, like moon-jumping cows.

18
Laws of Thought

• Logic is the study of correct thinking. As a
  result, the laws of thought are often referred to
  as the laws of logic. Anything that violates
  these laws is said to logically impossible, and
  whatever is logically impossible cant exist.
• Logic The study of the laws of the laws of
  science.
• Paranormal phenomena as psychokinesis,
  spontaneous dematerialization, spontaneous
  combustion, UFOs, reincarnation, plant
  communication, dowsing, or out-of-body
  experiences. What, if anything, these phenomena
  violate are not the laws of logic, but the laws
  of physics or, more generally, the laws of
  science. If they violate those laws, theyre
  physically impossible.
• Just because something is logically possible
  doesnt mean that its real.

19
Laws of Thought

• Time travel seems to be logically impossible
  because it implies that an event both did and did
  not happen. Suppose you travel back in time to a
  place youve never been before. History records
  that you were not present at that place and time,
  but now you are.
• You cannot both be and not be at a place and
  time, however. So time travel seems to violate
  the law of noncontradiction.

20
Laws of Thought

• Psychokinesis, the ability to move external
  objects with the power of ones mind, seems to be
  impossible because it seems to imply the
  existence of an unknown force.
• Science has identified only two forces whose
  effects can be felt over long distances
  electromagnetism and gravity.
• The brain however, is not capable of producing
  enough of either of these forces to directly
  affect objects outside of the body. So
  psychokinesis seems to violate the laws of
  science.

21
Laws of thought

• The notion that we have been visited by ancient
  astronauts or aliens from outer space seems
  technologically impossible because the amount of
  energy needed to travel to the stars is
  astronomical.
• In Beyond Star Trek, physicist Laurence Kraus
  considers some of the practical problems
  associated with interstellar travel. A spaceship
  traveling to Alpha Centauri (the nearest star) at
  25 the speed of light and using conventional
  rocket fuel, he claims, would have to carry more
  fuel than is available from all the matter in the
  universe.

22
The Appeal to Ignorance

• If a lack of evidence against a claim actually
  constituted evidence for it, all sorts of weird
  claims would be credible.
• A claims truth is established by the amount of
  evidence in its favor, not by the lack of
  evidence against it.
• In addition, the strategy of placing the burden
  of proof on the nonbeliever is unfair because
  doing so asks him or her to do the impossible,
  namely, to prove a universal negative.

23
The Appeal to Ignorance

• There are those, however, who measure the
  credibility of a claim, not in terms of the
  evidence in its favor, but in terms of the lack
  of evidence against it. They argue that since
  there is no evidence refuting their position, it
  must be true.
• Arguments of this type are said to commit the
  fallacy of appealing to ignorance.
• Just because a claim hasnt been conclusively
  refuted doesnt mean that its true.
• Just because a claim hasnt been conclusively
  proven doesnt mean that its false.

24
Appealing to mysteries

• A common attempt to avoid having to answer
  difficult questions raised by your belief is to
  appeal to other mysteries as if these explain or
  justify your belief too.
• Remember the coelacanth they said it had to be
  extinct therefore
• Honeybees should not be able to fly according to
  aerodynamics therefore

25
The evidence for ESP?

• Following Humes maxim and the outcome of Project
  Stargate as well as over 70 years of other ESP
  research, to what extent should we invest belief
  in ESP based on evidence for ESP?
• An emerging new paradigm A new paradigm is only
  dictated by anomalies occurring frequently
  Evidence in favor of ESP is actually a rare
  occurrence.
• Is the experimenter effect a valid experimental
  variable for a robust phenomenon OR evidence
  that even if ESP is real, it is a weak phenomenon
  at best????

26
The Possibility of ESP

• What about Rothmans claim that ESP is physically
  impossible? Is it?
• If so, is investigating it really worth our
  while?
• Even if our best scientific theories seem to
  indicate that ESP is physically impossible,
  investigating is still has some value, for our
  scientific theories may be wrong.
• The only way we can tell whether or not theyre
  wrong is to test them, and investigating ESP
  constitutes one such test.

27
The Possibility of ESP

• Failure to come up with any credible examples of
  ESP (or other paranormal phenomena) serves to
  confirm our current theories.
• If Psi is not an anomaly, then how else to
  account for apparent unexplainable findings
• What are artifacts?
• For Psi to be extrasensory, doesnt sensory
  leakage have to be ruled out?

28
The Possibility of ESP

• Your inability to explain something may simply be
  due to your ignorance of the operative forces or
  principles.
• When faced with something you dont understand,
  then, the most rational course of action is to
  seek a natural explanation.

29
ESP

• Rothmans claim that ESP is impossible is based
  on the theory that ESP is a transmission of
  information from one object to another and that
  the information transfer has features (like the
  failure to degrade over distance) that violate
  physical law. If his theory is correct, his
  claim is justified. If not, its unfounded.

30
A photo of psychic John Edward being tested by
Gary Schwartz. Ph.D. in Schwartzs research
facility at the University of AZ. Note that while
Edward is being tested for being able to
communicate psychically with another person,
Edward is able to peek through the room divider
used to control for any non-psychic means of
communication.
31
Theories and Things

• Skeptics who wish to maintain that paranormal
  phenomena are physically impossible often write
  as if the phenomena themselves contradict
  physical law, but a phenomenon cant contradict a
  law any more than a tree can get married.
• It isnt the phenomena themselves that contradict
  physical law, but rather our theories about them.

32
Theories and Things

• We say that an object must fall if its dropped to
  obey the law of gravity. Objects do not have to
  obey any such law dropped objects do fall and
  this regular observation of nature is the basis
  for saying there is a law of gravity.
• But dropped objects do not necessarily fall if
  some other force acts on them some form of
  propulsion makes an object able to fly or hover
  and gravity to be overcome.

33
Theories and Things

• Since these theories may be mistaken, we must
  approach claims of physical impossibility with
  extreme caution.

34
Miracles

• A miracle is not contrary to nature but contrary
  to our knowledge of nature.
• The scientific ignorance of the ancient Jews and
  early Christians may explain why they reported so
  many miraculous occurrences.
• The parting of the Red Sea (or REED Sea?), then,
  need not be considered a miracle because it does
  not violate any physical laws. The research by
  the Oceanographers It could have been a purely
  natural event.
• Just because you cant explain something doesnt
  mean thats supernatural.
• The people who wrote the Bible would regard a
  wheel barrel as high technology, a laser pointer
  as a miracle.

35
Knowing the Future

• Precognition, (knowledge before hand) is even
  more puzzling than telepathy, (knowing anothers
  feelings thoughts at a distance), because it
  not only seems to be physically impossible, it
  also seems to be logically impossible.
• So precognition seems to commit us to an existing
  nonexistent, which is a logical impossibility.

36
Precognition

• Precognition, then, is a form of fortune-telling
  its seeing into the future. Such an ability
  certainly appears physically impossible, for it
  seems to be at odds with the principle of
  causality, which states that an effect cannot
  precede its cause. But more important, it also
  appears logically impossible, for it seems to
  suggest that the future exists now, and thats a
  contradiction in terms.
• It will exist, when the time comes, but does not
  exist now.
• The problem with this view is that there are
  models of physical reality, consistent with all
  known physical laws, in which the future does
  exist now.

37
Precognition

• Even if precognition doesnt violate any physical
  laws, it probably doesnt occur. From the fact
  that something can happen, it doesnt follow that
  something does. Whats more, we have reason to
  hope that it doesnt happen because if it did, we
  would have no free will. If the future exists
  now, then its determined. And if the future is
  determined, then we are powerless to change it.
• The problem with reconciling precognition and
  free will is particularly acute for those who
  believe that God is all-knowing. If God knows
  everything, He knows the future, and thus the
  future is determined.
• Just because something is physically possible
  doesnt mean that its real.