Nature and supernature

A while ago I picked up a copy of Lyall Watson's 1987 book Beyond Supernature: A New Natural History of the Supernatural. It sat on my shelf for a long time before I got around to it. Now I'm finding it fascinating.

Watson, who died in 2008, has been described as  "a South African botanist, zoologist, biologist, anthropologist, ethologist, and author." He combined his interest in exotic cultures and native traditions with an open-minded, hands-on approach to investigating the paranormal. His book is a serious overview of parapsychology, enlivened by accounts of his personal encounters with anomalous events, including a destructive poltergeist in Indonesia.

He took the view that while laboratory research is all well and good, it may be too sterile to capture the more exciting incidences of psi that occur spontaneously in everyday life. Card-guessing games and their equivalents generate little emotional response, yet intense emotions often go hand in hand with the most dramatic psi manifestations (crisis apparitions, for instance). Indeed, many indigenous cultures practice frenetic rituals precisely to bring about a state of emotional excitement more conducive to psi. Meanwhile, Westerners who study the subject in the anodyne, antiseptic confines of a laboratory wonder why their results are not more "robust."

Though unconvinced of life after death (he attributed poltergeist activity to unconscious psychokinesis), Watson was personally persuaded of the reality of many psi phenomena, having witnessed a large number of them.

In the concluding chapter he sums up his point of view with the casual eloquence that made his earlier book Supernature a major bestseller:

-----

Something strange is going on.

We live in a world whose realities are defined by science, which tells us how things work. And yet there are some things which don't seem to work that way at all. Our science tells us that these things are impossible and don't exist, yet they stubbornly refuse to go away. There are relatively few of them and they are often elusive and hard to control, but they are there for anyone to see. They exist. And by their very existence, no matter how tenuous this might be, they present a problem.

Some students of the unusual feel that the fact of this existence turns science on its head. Some scientists seem to agree. They find the whole possibility so alarming that, rather than have science submit to such indignity, they choose to turn themselves upside down instead. The gesture is heroic, but the posture is ridiculous.

Consider just one example. A dowser, who claims to be able to find underground water and buried minerals with the aid of a pendulum, is tested in Wales. He walks across a valley floor and hammers in a line of stakes to show where he believes a stream to be, giving an estimate of its depth and flow. He is being filmed by a television team for a programme on the paranormal. The interviewer objects that such claims are hard to check and asks for a diagnosis that can be verified. The dowser holds his pendulum over the man to assess his state of health and makes the surprising claim that the interviewer seems to be healthy enough, except for a piece of metal in his thigh. Everyone is very impressed. The diagnosis is unusual, but it just happens to be true. The interviewer once had an operation that required the reinforcement of his femur with a metal brace. It's not something that he talks about, and the scientist assessing this demonstration concedes that it would have been difficult for the dowser to have discovered the fact about the embedded metal beforehand, without having a very efficient spy network. He notes that there was no defect in the interviewer's limb movement caused by the metal insertion.

So what happens? Is there a serious discussion about the possibility of dowsing having any scientific validity? Does he begin to wonder about organic metal-detection? No. Faced with the paradox, this distinguished physicist stands on his head. "I regard this," he says, "as a coincidence." And closes the subject.

It is, of course, a scientist's duty to consider all the angles. Given the extraordinary nature of the dowser's claim, he has every right -- as long as all other things are equal -- to favour explanations consonant with the orthodox scientific view of how things work. All things, however, are not equal here. Coincidence remains one possible explanation of what happened, but its probability is very low. And there is a point where "normal" explanations become more implausible and more far-fetched than a frank acceptance of the facts.

The fact is that unusual things do sometimes happen. I have seen them happening often enough now to be certain of that. And, as a scientist myself, I admit that they present us with a problem. But it is not insoluble and it does not require any desperate mental gymnastics. I see it, in truth, as more of a paradox than a problem. An apparent contradiction produced by poor definition rather than faulty procedure.

Science decides what is possible by reference to its definition of reality. Anything which fits the definition is acceptable. Anything which doesn't fit is impossible and must be rejected. And the problem is that the facts of dowsing or poltergeist phenomena stand in direct contradiction to the current definition. So the issue is reduced to a choice between rival facts. The normal versus the paranormal. And, of course, the normal wins -- even if it does have to stand on its head to do so.

Such contortions ought to make us suspicious of the premises that made them necessary. There has to be a flaw somewhere in the argument. And there is. What is being ignored is the point that our definition of reality is a theory, not fact. We don't know exactly how things work. All we have is a reasonably good hypothesis. And it never was a matter of choosing between rival sets of facts. The debate concerns a set of discordant facts and their relationship to a theory of how things happen. All that is at stake is the validity of a working hypothesis. And all that is necessary to reconcile the new facts with the old theory, is an admission that the theory might be incomplete. There is no need for anyone to stand on their heads. There is no assault on the laws of nature or the principles of science, and no need for protectors of the faith or charges of heresy.

What we need is a slightly broader definition of reality. One which includes the possibility of certain things happening when humans are involved. A definition that is not so exclusive; one less inclined to dismiss certain things as impossible, and better able to deal with what actually happens in terms of probability rather than outright and unreasonable denial.

I don't have such a definition to offer. I think it is probably still too soon to frame one that will work. What we need are more facts on which to base our discussion. And that is what I have been trying to provide. [Beyond Supernature, pp. 264-266]

Comments

[william]

“A definition that is not so exclusive; one less inclined to dismiss certain things as impossible, and better able to deal with what actually happens in terms of probability rather than outright and unreasonable denial.”

Probabilities mean nothing to a scientist if the phenomenon is outside their existing paradigm. A materialistic paradigm can be as rigid as a religious paradigm or system of beliefs.

Once we have a materialistic or religious paradigm we are no longer a skeptic of our beliefs or our thoughts. They are two sides of the same coin that can be given many names. I have worked with scientists taught scientists and with that experience you come away with a whole new perspective of the term scientist. It appears that often the more advanced the education the greater the tunnel vision.

Of course there are always exceptions.

The skeptical organizations that exist to debunk paranormal phenomena no longer exist as skeptics but believers. I think it brings the mind much comfort to belong to an organization of like minds as like attracts like in this world and others.

“Science decides what is possible by reference to its definition of reality. Anything, which fits the definition, is acceptable. Anything which doesn't fit is impossible and must be rejected.”

Very well stated.

[Paul]

“Science decides what is possible by reference to its definition of reality. Anything, which fits the definition, is acceptable. Anything which doesn't fit is impossible and must be rejected.” I guess that's ok provided we have a fixed and final definition of reality. Miracles we do today, the impossible takes a little longer.

I read the book too - very interesting.

[Zerdini]

I also enjoyed his other books - The Romeo Error" and "Gifts of Unknown Things".

[Vitor]

Hi, Prescott

it seems that Watson himself studied a strong case of reincarnation, the case of Igarot, which is an example of xenoglossy. Could you transcribe this case for us? Do you think it's well documented?

Best wishes.

[Vitor]

Hi, Prescott

it seems that Watson himself found a strong case of reincarnation, the case of the little boy Igarot. It seems the boy spoke in a language that he never have contact, Zulu. Could you transcribe the case for us?

By the way, do you already have seem this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HayY1yyXnn0

It's about reincarnation too. There are 4 case studies by Peter Ramster.

[Zerdini]

Some of the many fascinating topics in "The Romeo Error":

The inability of scientists to distinguish life from death.

The suggestion that death is a continuum rather than an event.

The unreliability of death tests that involve the heart, breath, temperature, pupils, brain waves, rigor mortis, and even putrefaction.

The possibility of the personality surviving physical death.

Clairvoyance, astral projection etc. and many more fascinating subjects

[Vitor]

Sorry for the double post. (If you, Prescott, wants to delete my first post and this now,it's ok to me)

[Paul]

Why do you keep calling him Prescott? It looks a bit rude.

[Vitor]

Well, there are many "Michaels", so I call him Prescott. It was not my intention to be rude.

[pmprescott]

Were you to hand a radio to someone before the discovery of radio waves what would they make of it? In the case of dowsing, something that has been successfully used for thousands of years. The fact that science hasn't discovered whatever makes a forked stick reveal water and minerals doesn't make it a coincidence just something that hasn't been discovered yet. To discount the effectiveness of witching (what we call dowsing out here) would leave most of the ranchers and farmers in dry climates without water.

[Michael Prescott]

"it seems that Watson himself found a strong case of reincarnation, the case of the little boy Igarot. It seems the boy spoke in a language that he never have contact, Zulu. Could you transcribe the case for us?"

Yes, I'll do that ASAP. The xenoglossy itself wasn't too impressive; the boy, who lived in the Philippines, spoke a few words that Watson identified as Zulu. I have to wonder if it wasn't just gibberish that happened to sound like Zulu. (The boy did not converse in the language, and the words did not relate to the situation.)

However, the "healing" aspect of the case, which involves an exorcism by a shaman, is very interesting. The case appears to be one of possession, not reincarnation.

As Watson notes, the case is uncorroborated in the sense that he is the only witness who has written about it. Because he strikes me as an honest and intelligent observer, I'm prepared to take his word, but not everyone would feel the same way.

[Paul]

Interesting. I wonder whether there is some way of determining whether a case is one of possession, obsession or some form of overshadowing by a spirit, or genuine reincarnation (assuming all of these are possible for argument's sake).

@Vitor - thanks for replying. I can't speak for Michael it just looked a bit unusual. I wouldn't like to be addressed by my surname but everyone's different :)

[Tony M]

Though unconvinced of life after death (he attributed poltergeist activity to unconscious psychokinesis)

A minor quibble: I don’t think those two thoughts necessarily follow each other. I think there are many people persuaded about the possibility of life after death, but who also accept the idea that poltergeists are an unconscious manifestation of some sort.

Personally, I do not accept that theory. The line between haunting, apparitions and poltergeist phenomena is not at all clear, which you would expect it to be if poltergeists have a distinctly different source. (See, for example, Guy Playfair’s This House is Haunted.)

Like I said, it’s just a quibble. Thanks, however, for drawing my attention to that book.

[Michael Prescott]

"I don’t think those two thoughts necessarily follow each other."

That's true. But if I can judge from some of his other remarks, Watson was unpersuaded of life after death. He was more interested in what has been called super-psi (he called it "sama").

[wood : )]

Paul,
I was wondering about that, too. I thought it must be some kind of inside joke or something. I'm glad you asked.

[Paul]

Hi Wood:) - I am always happy to ask the dumb questions :)

[dmduncan]

"Though unconvinced of life after death (he attributed poltergeist activity to unconscious psychokinesis)"

Well, psychokinesis is about as "unacceptably" fringe as anything else that's been studied, so resorting to THAT as an explanation is hardly a more reasonable alternative.

[Paul]

I am not sure Poltergeist activity offers much evidence of life after death does it?

[Kris]

I think Poltergeist activity does offer some evidence cause some of it does display intelligence and purpose.

[poltergeist]

"I am not sure Poltergeist activity offers much evidence of life after death does it?"

In some cases of poltergeist, the phenomena seem to occur only in the presence of a living individual. In those cases the poltergeist activity might be due to unconscious psi by that person and not from a spirit.

However there are some poltergeist cases where the phenomena occurs in a particular location no matter who is or isn't there. In these cases it seems more reasonable that there is a nonphysical entity (spirit) attached to the location causing the disturbances than that the location itself is doing it. The Cardiff poltergeist is an example of this. That case is described in "21 Days into the Afterlife" which available free on line at:

http://www.openmindsite.com/book.htm

Sometimes a poltergeist uses the powers of a living physical medium to act in the physical world. Here is one such case:

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2009/06/icelandic-physical-medium-indridi_14.html

[dmduncan]

"I am not sure Poltergeist activity offers much evidence of life after death does it?"

If life is purely biological, there wouldn't be any life after death. Consciousness after death may be more what we're looking at, if that's the case.

Some Poltergeist activity does seem designed to make a point in startlingly mischievous ways that are unmistakably intentional, as if it wants you to know a) that it knows you are doubting it, and b) that it is making fun of your doubt.

Is it evidence of survival? Maybe. Is it proof? No. Only survival is proof of survival. And whether death answers the question or ends the question, either way death settles it.

[Paul]

I agree Kris that Poltergeist activity can display intelligence and purpose (assuming it happens, as for me it falls into the category of 'Must See to Fully Believe').

It may indicate the existence of a discarnate intelligence in some instances or it may simply be an example of unconscious or conscious telekinesis. I can't see how it shows that the intelligence was once a living human being unless it identifies itself in some verifiable way (which of course some appear to). However for me, poltergeist activity simply consisting of moving objects and appearing to react to comments by observers is not proof or even evidence that we survive physical death.

@dmduncan - I agree that in the final analysis we will have the answer (or be blissfully unaware of it) after death. Having said that I think there is a lot of evidence to encourage the view that we do survive, and in some instances, for those fortunate few, there seem to be some instances where the evidence is so powerful (see Zerdini's comments in various places) that it would take a deliberate effort to deny one's own direct experience to fail to be convinced of survival.