Prayer, Wishful Thinking, and Human Events II: How Far Will People Go To Delude Themselves?
posted September 17, 2009 - 6:50pmIn a recent article I discussed one aspect of how far people will go to find ways of making themselves feel better, even to the extent of practicing self delusion. One family or group of things that people subscribe to are many facets of New Age philosophies which have no basis in fact whatsoever. Rather than rehashing what I said then, I will describe a simple methodology which can be used to simply examine and evaluate any claims which many follow with so much fervor. The methodology is simple and yet it can quickly identify something which may very well be utter claptrap.
I call it a dialectic since it requires basic logic in its application, which I believe, can be universally applied to any claims of a paranormal nature. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- As of the claim, what physical and natural law would allow such a thing to exist?
- Then ask, what purpose would it serve in nature.
- Finally ask, is there any body of empirical evidence – outside of human subjectivity – as to if being demonstrated to actually exist.
- After exhausting all of the scientific avenues of inquiry, it must then be asked, what, if anything, do humans get out of it. By this I mean, what needs does it fulfill to the human psyche.
If you go through this list and you find that the only positive answers are arrived at during level four, then you know automatically that you are not discussing anything scientific but something that is created by man’s imagination purely for the fulfillment of one human need or another.
So what does this prove? Actually it proves plenty and is very helpful. For one it establishes that something lies outside the realm of science and objectivity. An anecdote which comes to maid which is appropriate to describe this is, “Flying saucers exist, but only in the minds of those who believe in them.” It says that no matter how strongly someone or group wants something to be true, no amount of hoping for it will ever make it true. Another anecdote I can summon is how in the old hippie days acid trips were very popular. Many people while under the influence took it to mind that they could fly, so they went up to the roof and jumped off. Again, they were convinced they could fly, but their reality lost out to the reality of the laws of physics which never can be fooled.
Another example which I very lately came into contact with was from a lady professor whom also is a chaplain. She has been collaborating on a book with several other authors from around the world. Over the last year the project has been stalled because no matter what the authors do it doesn’t satisfy the publisher. So the professor has taken to saying that she is convince that God is telling them all that he doesn’t want this book to be published. Not one to be caught without an answer, I had to impart that doesn’t she think that God is too busy keeping the planets from crashing into each other to be concerned with something as picayune as some book being published? And why would God be such a micromanager and if he is on that level how then could the old principle of man’s freedom of choice existing and being infringed upon?
My point is that how people are willing participants in believing in anything which affords them something which they are in emotional or psychological need of. In this case she may just be looking for a reason to beg off the project. I have another anecdote which once again demonstrates how far someone will go to protect their psychological rewards no matter how delusional or extreme they might be.
I know a man who is one of the types who loves conspiracies. One of his favorites is that 9/11 was an inside job fabricated and manipulated by the U.S. government. He was pontificating once about how the World Trade Center should not have collapsed except that there was something wrong in the story about the steel framework losing its strength from heat and collapsing. He went on to say that the girders must have been made of an alloy of iron and aluminum which made it to weak to stand up to the punishment. I had to chime in and say that in the first place they use steel for strength which means that if they use an alloy it would be of other elements which would make it stronger not lighter. Weight is not a factor in high rise buildings as it is in the aircraft industry, plus such structures are over-engineered.
I then tried to explain that scientifically speaking; an alloy of steel and aluminum isn’t even possible because any attempt to merge the tow runs smack into the “Octet Rule” of physics and chemistry which states that the absolute limit of electrons in the valence level is a total of eight. Aluminum already has six (which is why it doesn’t bond with very many other elements in the first place) and if you try to add iron it puts the number way over the limit.
Then he says that there is no way the fire could ever have gotten hot enough to cause the steel to buckle like that. Again I had to weight in with several scientific points. First I pointed out that steel loses 50% of its strength at one thousand degrees Fahrenheit and 90% of its strength at two thousand degrees Fahrenheit (iron melts are around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). He then said that there was no way the fire would have ever reached two thousand degrees to have created that effect. I then had to say that an ordinary campfire will melt an aluminum beer can and that is only 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit so if you factor in the fanning winds at the 1,300 feet level plus the jet fuel accelerating the flames, it’s a wonder that the temperature didn’t outright melt the steel, let alone weaken it sufficiently.
Undaunted, he still refused to accept the scientific explanations and continues faithfully believing that it was all a set up.
The point of all this is to illustrate how when someone latches onto something which quenches a psychological or emotional need, they will adhere to it to the end. Remember the story of the dog who was beaten by his master, then when the master wasn’t there anymore he actually missed the beatings because it was the only attention he ever got. Well, this macabre tale sums up how powerful it can be to go to any length with complete disregard to how bizarre or self defeating it may be, in order to make themselves feel better. Never underestimate this attraction.

Comments
saucers
Your points on the box and saucers misses a big point. The box was physically there and had an effect even thought it wasn't noticable just like bacteria aren't vbisible without a microscope and can kill or be beneficial. These ae in the same dimension and reality as us and are visible with the right means. On saucers, it is two distinctly different issues whether there is intelligence elsewhere and has it visited us. I have written extensively on this so please go back and read them off my list. Just last month I wrote one on how the Greenbank formula which suggests we may have lots of company, is flawed as it lacks factors which we know to be important and may reduce the possibilities by several magnitudes.
Dr. Andy
Empirical Evidence
I agree that empirical evidence should not be arguable, however, Dr, you have to also admit that there are things that might exist just because you have not seen them.
As an example, I spoke with people a few years ago about this box I saw that had dividers that were designed to help reduce moisture in the caverns. Well, none of these men believed me and ridiculed me. One was my best friend, and so I was terribly hurt by the group. I knew what I was talking about, I owned one of these boxes and used it for my small connectors to keep them from being rusted from moisture.
When I later discussed this with my friend, he said "Even Kenny didn't believe it." as though Kenny was the difinitive source of all things knowledge had to offer. I think Kenny was not very bright. So, I asked my friend if he'd ever heard of a horsehead nebulae. He said yes, and I knew he would because he was a science fiction enthusiast. So, I then asked him if he thought Kenny had ever heard of one. He said that he doubted it. I proved my point. Just because Kenny said it did not exist, it does not make it so.
My contention, Dr, is that although you may have never seen a flying saucer you must be able to admit that there is the possibility of them existing. We cannot be arrogant enough to believe that this is the only inhabited planet in the solar system, let alone the entire Universe, and if that is a reasonable supposition then maybe some of those planets that are inhabited are of advanced enough culture to have vehicles that can travel through space. How can you truly prove that someone else has not seen a space ship.
I'm with you on the 9/11 conspirator, but not everything can be known by everyone, and so empirical data is effective, yet never completely complete. If it were, then the 1800's psychologists who believed their facts would no be disavowed with new advances in research and technology.
Warmest regards and best intentions,
Kate
Post new comment