The problem of 'proof' is and will be, I feel, a persistent one, for several reasons.
IMO it is impossible to
irrefutably prove anything, excepting mathematical proofs. The plethora of observed happenings labeled "Forteana" are in a domain for which scientific understanding and methodoliges are largely non-existent. 'Proof' often taken as a factual given, (an absolute), is in 'fact' a "good enough hypothesis" in a "reasonably controlled environment" within a sub-set of everything that is (see later). Who decides what is "good enough for everyone"? Who decides who decides what is "good enough for everyone?", and so on. What should the individual decide, who do they trust to, effectively, validate their experience(s)?
Whilst some are under the illusion that
irrefutable proof is achievable, one "side" of a given argument, who oppose the base axiom(s) of the other can cry "not enough proof" no matter how much evidence is gathered whilst the other side tries in vain to satisfy the impossible within unsuitable testing schemas.<And repeat>.
It's fair enough to call for "good enough proof" as long as both sides formally agree what this constitutes, with no loopholes or sneaky extensions allowed on either side. The nature of "Forteana" being mostly non-repeatable and/or immeasurable doesn't lend such to present testing methods. Hopefully methods will
have to be extended to encompass problems of quantum physics - in this way new testing schemas may more or less "accidentally" become useful for testing "Forteana" as well? Otherwise, the amount of evidence that
could be measured and examined with present schemas would have to increase, and, as others have noted, the good stuff seems to get "disappeared" or the "not enough" rule is invoked.
A most important aspect when "discussions" re: "Forteana" arise is the massive body of personally unexamined assumptions we all hold, these can be both emotively and psychologically extremely powerful for the participants (even, on the 'unconscious' level, apparently life-threatening, if not seeming so 'consciously'). The failure to examine such may lead parties to genuinely not understand how others cannot see what they see, and often leave one unable to see what one personally cannot see - if you see what I mean. See?
Imagine Fred says to Mary:
"Do you believe in ghosts?".
Mary says:
"Oh yes!"
and both are happy that the transaction has completed agreeably and the information exchange was qualitatively perfect. However - this actually happened:
Fred said:
"Do you believe [that ghosts are the individually existent continuing consciousness of deceased people?]"
Mary replied:
"Oh yes, [I believe that ghosts are replayed recordings of events imbued into the matter of a specific location during a traumatic event]".
This leaves aside what the hell "Do you believe in..." means? The question was utterly meaningless and no-one noticed, because of unexamined assumptions, or labels. This is an almost facile example too - assumptions can cut much deeper than this. e.g. what
IS, what
REALLY IS 'a particle'? What
IS, what
REALLY IS 'gravity'? No one knows! These are merely labels for observable 'happenings' or names for "stuff that appears to happen". In essence everything is exactly that, a lot of "everything that appears to happen" and no one 'knows' 'why' or 'how', at the lowest levels. Labels/assumptions make it appear we do 'know', yet each and every label, even accepted terms such as 'time' or 'particle' or 'force' are arbitrary and interchangeable as demonstrated by the Feynman diagrams in John Gribbin's "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" that show exactly equivalent "happenings" being relabeled with different scientific terms as above (e.g. direction of 'time' and 'particle' names changing). Just the labels change, or if you prefer the POV of the observer can shrink-to-fit arbitrarily onto the underlying "mystery stuff", yet the "happening" is perfectly equivalent to the same seen by way of a differing model, or if you like from a different POV, what "everything stuff" does depends on 'how' you look at it.
Whilst such assumptions as in the "ghost question" example would hopefully not mar the scientific testing process itself, they certainly
do mar discussion of "Forteana" scientifically. As I have said elsewhere, relative rarity of some phenomena (i.e. not regularly reproducible phenomena) certainly does not stop scientific examination of .. well .. other rare phenomena, hence the source of such dissent must lie elsewhere (hence me mentioning personal assumptions etc.) when it comes to Serious(tm) discussion of "Forteana".
As said in "A Guide For the Perplexed" by E.F. Schumacher, if we divide everything into 4 domains, being mineral/material, plant, animal, human (immediate assumptions abound, but anyway...), a plant could be said to include a mystery element "x" above minerals/material ("m") that we could label "life", an animal an element "y" above plant labeled "consciousness" and a human extra "z" over animal being the ability to Homunculorise
[1] himself thus know of his own knowing and/or think about his own thinking - "self awareness". Of the total
m + x + y + z
science has only ever 'explained' m, and (presently) only
has methodologies for testing m, i.e. even when testing, say, "consciousness" it only has means to examine the "m" aspect(s) of the it. The bulk of "Forteana" lies by its very nature within the presently untestable "x + y + z" of everything. Asking for lots of "m" to 'prove' "x + y + z" is what seems to currently happen.
Labels do not 'explain' anything, they just assign a theoretical 'things' framework to the underlying mysterious nature of everything. Underneath such a framework of 'things' (the 'real world') the true nature of all is as mysterious and ambiguous as ever. As with the "ghosts" example, as long as people think some of their labels match, and do not examine all of their assumptions noone notices, and can play "let's argue labels/assumptions". This may be called variably "scientific discussion" or "chatting in a forum" amongst, no doubt, other favourite names. I should say here, in case this sounds scathing, that the above applies to virtually everyone - having
completely and utterly understood
all of your own framework or labels, could otherwise IMO be called "enlightenment".
The above is exactly why we have meaningless official labels such as 'night terrors'. So how much proof is ever enough proof? As much as the person(s) demanding say so. How long should we keep arguing about proof? As long as no one notices someone said something meaningless to someone else and got a meaningless answer in response. The former (enough proof) is not likely to happen unless the "m" elements of "Forteana" increase (thereby not being labeled "Forteana", these might then be labeled "normal life") or if good examples of "m" are not quickly removed (for whatever, possibly valid reasons), or "disappeared". The latter is not likely to happen unless the scientific and the paranormal community are more open/aware regarding their personal assumptions/labels - and as a sidenote, this aspect is not limited to "Forteana", look how many new scientific theories cause debacles and may take years to be accepted, even when residing well within 'rational' bounds. Egos. Personally I hope that the forefront of quantum study will provide ripe new testing grounds, agreeable to both paranormal researcher
and mainstream scientist.
Models and theories are useful
TOOLS, as long as they are seen as theories only, as good as any other fitting model would be, not Truth(tm). On the whole science thing, I am totally with Feynman who described the dual-slit experiment of quantum phsyics as "the
only mystery" (on this note if anyone has links to any recent developments regarding this - pro and con, I'd appreciate it). Everything else IMO, absolutely
everything else, is just a bunch of ^H^H^H^Hlabels.
[1] My new OfficialLabel(tm). If anyone shows signs of this, I will merely say "Aaah, you're clearly Homunculorising, you see?" - and you have to go away (
and thank me for it).
"Something unknown is doing we don't know what." -- Sir Arthur Eddington
