“Berlin in 1701 was visited by a man called Lascaris who performed many transmutations in public, in front of witnesses whose testimony would not be questioned. He gave a small sample of the heavy, dark reddish, crystalline grains to a student named Johan Friedrich Böttger who proceeded to perform openly, claiming that he was the adept who had produced the Stone. For this lack of caution he was imprisoned in Dresden by the Elector Augustus II, and ordered to produce more of it. Böttger labored for years, an unsuccessful Rumplestiltskin, but no Stone was made. His experiments did bear some fruit though. He was the first to devise ways to color porcelain, for which the city of Dresden remains famous.” – Jim Melodini, “The Age of Gold”
Occasionally I find some enjoyment in reflecting on our ingrained tendency to be dismissive of witnesses to fantastical events. Years ago I read Robert Anton Wilson’s The New Inquisition, and found it quite provocative. Within, he rolls out a list of weird events witnessed by seemingly reputable people, and challenges the reader to decide how and when to reject their claims. How many people, for instance, need to witness a UFO before it becomes something worthy of reasoned consideration? Or, what if there’s only one witness, but they’re firmly established as otherwise reliable? If tens of thousands of people witness Mary Magdalene dispensing grace, can I dismiss them all as confused? Admittedly, as usual, Ole Bob’s “scholarship” was somewhat … weak, but I don’t think that necessarily renders it irrelevant. Maybe that’s my affinity for his work clouding my perception, but perhaps not.
Within scientific circles many have adopted Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” mantra as dogma, and I’m not sure we’re better off for it. Granted, we need rigorous vectors of discriminating among claims, but I’m just not sure “extraordinary evidence” necessarily need be part of it. I’m not even sure what “extraordinary evidence” might be, since it often excludes the sworn testimony of thousands of seemingly honest, well-educated people.
Moreover, I think this tendency has spread beyond academics and has moved into popular ideology. If you make the suggestion that the American government was in some way complicit in 9-11, many will dismiss your claims based on the ‘fact’ that a conspiracy that big would have sprung a leak. But this is a red herring. There have been numerous leaks – we’re seeing that unfold in the UK’s hearings on the Iraq war.
In order for democracy to function, society has to be sufficiently informed to discriminate among witnesses. Isn’t it the case that this deficiency lies at the crux of America’s fall into despotism?
How do you discriminate among witnesses? Do you have a prejudice towards a specific gender, age, or ethnicity? What type of or how many witnesses would be necessary for you to accept the non-terrestrial origin of some-but-not-all UFOs? Alchemy?
Additional Rabbit Holes -
Tags: alchemy, conspiracy, controversy, history, Provocations, psychology, quotations, robert anton wilson, science
-
http://twitter.com/khephir/status/8803651913 Khephra Maley
