One of the problems with arguing about psychic phenomena, and particularly evidence for life after death, is that critics often come at the subject from the standpoint of hard-and-fast preconceived notions that create a sort of mental box. They are so accustomed to viewing the world from inside this box that they cannot think their way outside it. They end up employing circular reasoning without even realizing it. What seems obvious and inarguable to them is actually the crux of the disagreement.
I’ll give a few examples.
In arguing against the idea that people who report near-death experiences have actually left their bodies, G.M. Woerlee points out that when these people describe the out-of-body component of the experience, they talk about seeing their physical body on the operating table, hearing the doctors talk, etc. But, he says, “an invisible and immaterial disembodied consciousness does not interact with physical forces like electromagnetic radiation (such as visible light), or with matter (including sound waves in air). This absence of interaction with physical matter and forces implies that a disembodied consciousness cannot see or hear during an OBE. So how could the disembodied consciousness of a person see and hear during an OBE?” It cannot, he concludes; therefore, the experiencer must have still been “in the body” and using his or her physical senses.
It should be obvious – but to Woerlee it isn’t – that this argument merely begs the question. The whole point at issue is whether or not some form of extraphysical experience and perception is possible. To Woerlee, the assumption that the physical senses are the only possible way of perceiving reality is so deeply engrained that he doesn’t question it, even in the context of a discussion of psychic perception, which by definition would be extraphysical.
2. In arguing against the idea that consciousness can operate outside the brain, many skeptics go into detail about the close correlations between brain states and mental states. They point out that brain damage can affect thought, memory, and personality; that patients with surgically split cerebral hemispheres exhibit different kinds of awareness depending on which half of the brain is being used; and that brain scans show different parts of the brain “lighting up” in conjunction with different mental operations.
But at most, this line of argument establishes only that there is an intimate connection between the brain and mental operations, just as there is an intimate connection between the electrical circuitry of a TV set and the pictures and sound it displays. It does not establish that consciousness originates in the brain, any more than a TV repairman could prove that TV programs originate inside the TV set. The brain as a receiver, with consciousness as the signal, would explain the known facts equally well.
Faced with this objection, skeptics say that the theory of the brain as the originator of consciousness (the “production theory”) is just simpler than the alternative “transmission theory.” But the simpler explanation is only preferable if it covers all the facts. The transmission theory covers both the neurological facts and the paranormal evidence, while the production theory covers neurology but not parapsychology.
To this, the skeptics reply that neurology is science and parapsychology is bunk. But how do they know that the large body of parapsychological evidence is entirely wrong? Well, it just has to be – because brain states are closely correlated with mental states, proving that the mind can’t operate outside the brain …
3. Finally, in arguing against a particular case, skeptics will often claim that it has been “debunked.” Sometimes, however, the alleged debunking consists merely of a hypothesis offered by a given debunker as to how the case might have been faked, with no evidence that it actually was faked. In some cases, there’s not even that much – merely an unsupported assertion that fakery of some unspecified sort was employed. (Of course, some cases really have been debunked, but I’m talking about the weaker debunking efforts, of which there are many.)
If you reply by pointing to more sympathetic examinations of the case by parapsychologists, the skeptic will dismiss those citations, saying that parapsychologists are biased and cannot be trusted. What it comes down to is that any debunker assumes automatic, unquestionable authority as soon as he expresses doubt about a case, even if he provides no evidence to back up his doubts, and even if his doubts are vague and generalized. Meanwhile, parapsychologists are denied any authority and dismissed as “fringe” figures even if they investigated the case at first hand and published detailed peer-reviewed reports on it.
The assumption is that there simply cannot be anything paranormal, so anyone who endorses a paranormal claim is automatically ruled out of court, while anyone who scoffs at a claim is automatically granted the status of an impartial and serious authority.
The above skeptical arguments all fit the description of circular reasoning or the closely related fallacy of question-begging. Yet the people advancing these arguments are usually of above-average intelligence and education, and I believe most of them are sincere. They are simply wedded to a certain set of assumptions about the world, assumptions they cannot challenge – in fact, cannot even imagine challenging.
You can’t argue them out of a worldview that seems, to them, as indisputable as the truth that 2 + 2 = 4. You’ll only find yourself running in circles.