More on Reason Evidence is Proof
I think I have a way of thinking about this that will work (for me). A person’s comment made me realize that the mechanism is the missing ingredient. Consider the diagram:
If a person claims something is evidence, it is necessary for the person to place the “evidence” in a context that is understood by readers. While we understand the context of, say a falling apple for proof of gravity, the context for Psi is not well established, and therefore, part of the evidence must include a proposed mechanism. For instance, can the reader be expected to already understand the characteristics of Psi?
There is pretty good science supporting the Psi Field Hypothesis, but the implications of that alone do not support psychic acquisition of information. For instance, the implications of mediumship being evidence of survival are that the acquisition has a different circuit than remote viewing (for instance). The fact that the information is verifiable is not enough.
The system of thought associated with Psi functioning and survival is complex. It is not enough to know that people might be psychic. It is necessary to have a sense of how it occurs. Else, it is too easy to conflate psychic access of information with mediumistic communication with a discarnate personality. Both appear to depend on the same principles. It depends on the intended point of view. Parapsychologists often have an agenda. For instance one of the BICS winners has a history of being a mean-spirited anti-survivalist. His proof was wordy and impressively expressed but it was a none proof — sounds good but meaningless for the subject.
If people do not know the subject well enough to test the assumptions of the essay with personal experience, it is necessary that the essay included the rationale for the “proof.” At the same time, I have been looking for an academic-to-layperson exchange of information about what Parapsychologists think about survival by way of this essay. So far, not so good but I still have many essays to read. How did they decide that evidence is proof of survival? Does the author have a rational if we disallow verifiability?