< Back to Volume 3, Number 1
Volume 3: Number 1: Article 1
Arguments Over Anomalies: II. Polemics
Henry H. Bauer, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University,
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Arguments over different anomalies have common elements. An awareness
of those commonalities can be useful in considering the possible reality
of a particular anomaly. As in all arguments, beliefs and not facts
are at issue; but the participants do not recognize that, and so red
herrings abound and opponents are not persuaded. Again as in all disputes,
the longer the disagreement persists, the more polarized the issue becomes,
which further encourages the antagonists to become preoccupied with
irrelevancies. Within science, disputes are to some degree constrained
by the existence of a widely shared paradigm and by widely accepted
conventions, supported by entrenched institutions and by consensus over
how and when disputes become settled; but arguments over anomalies are
not so constrained: they are messy and may continue long after they
— on purely epistemic grounds — "should." Insofar as arguments over
anomalies take place in the public domain, they involve not only proponents
and opponents but also pundits and an audience; however, a purported
pundit may behave more like a disbeliever (or, more rarely, like a proponent).
Some features of these arguments result from the fact that the believers
are usually amateurs (though they commonly include a few maverick experts
in the presumptively relevant fields of mainstream science). Although
most of the experts tend to be disbelievers or at least non-believers
in a given anomaly, the converse is by no means true — most of the nonbelievers
have little or no expertise in related areas, and they may not even
be particularly knowledgeable about the given anomaly. Typically, both
sides claim that the evidence is already conclusive when — virtually
by definition — it is evidently not. Believers tend to close ranks,
even with quite unwelcome bedfellows, for fear that their subject will
seem even less respectable if the existence of frauds or hoaxes or incompetence
becomes widely known; and that enhances the tendency for outsiders to
view the believers as unanimous on all major points, which is anything
but true. Both sides (and also the pundits) typically appeal to the
authority of science; and typically they misunderstand the nature of
science. Also characteristic of these arguments is ignorance of matters
that (but only by hindsight) are highly relevant.
To purchase back issues contact Allen Marketing & Management: 1-800-627-0629
