Onus Probandi - The Burden of Proof

*

Argument & Critical Thinking: Assignment II

Onus Probandi: The Burden of Proof

 Date: ................................................................................................................ 7^th June 2011

Word Count:........................................................................................................ 1347 words

Contents

Introduction. 2

‘Formed from a star’ 2

‘Electric discs’ 5

Conclusion. 8

Bibliography. 9

Appendix 1. 10

Introduction

Interest in life from outer space came to prominence in literature in the 1920s and peaked in the 1950s and has since started to decline (Ngram, 2011).  Some elements of mainstream society continue to believe in the evidence provided. This report looks at Peter Kolosimo’s 1970’s book ‘Not of this world’ (Kolosimo, 1970), in which he implies that there is proof of alien existence. This analysis will demonstrate using the SEARCH principle, marks of pseudoscience and the marks of a good explanation that in at least two examples there should be serious doubt cast on his views (Refer Appendix 1).

‘Formed from a star’

        

         Whilst the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (Ziegler, 2006) by using the SEARCH principle (Schick & Vaughan 2011), there is a frame work available to analyse and identify strengths and weakness in Kolosimo’s arguments and conclusions (Refer appendix 1).

Kolosimo makes the claim that American Indian myths could support the hypothesis that aliens landed on earth.

The evidence for the claim presented by Kolosimo (1970) includes the line from the Chon-oopa-sa epic, “through the darkness” (Kolosimo, 1970, p. 213). The author suggests that this could be an analogy for space, reoccurs regularly in Indian law and could lend support to aliens coming to earth.

Kolosimo quotes Churchward (we are given no indication who he is) who has made a connection between Indian myth and the myths of the Chinese Mu people. Kolosimo goes further and suggests that the myth of the Indians indicate space travel which is reinforced by the drawings of the Mu which demonstrate helmets and spaceships. Because a myth has been retold by word of mouth and it is not based on empirical evidence we are unable to determine the distortions the Chinese whispers effect may have created (Kolosimo, 1970). Kolosimo then tries to make a hypothesis from a secondary source (Churchward), using uncertain information, gathered from unknown sources, making connections that the author of the article on the myth did not intend (Schick & Vaughan 2011).

Kolosimo is able to avoid in depth scrutiny because he never states emphatically that his claim is a hypothesis. By avoiding a hypothesis he is able to avoid rigorous (peer) scrutiny about what is plausible or possible. This is because without any evidence based research, he is unlikely to meet a reputable publisher’s standard (Roeger, 2007). This is highlighted and demonstrated by the non-specific and tentative nature of the language he uses. This language includes: “which could be a synonym”, “it could lend support” and “the idea occurs with curious frequency” all of which fail to make a definitive statement that can be judged.

An alternative hypothesis may be the artist and story teller were hallucinating from drugs or other induced states. They may have used their hallucinations to create an explanation for people’s questions on their origin.

Another alternative is that the people who have looked at these drawing have misinterpreted what they mean. For example the Australian Aboriginals do not listen to the stories of the “Rainbow Serpent” creating the rivers and think of it as a literal interpretation (Taylor, 1990).

The alternative hypothesis can then be compared to the original hypothesis and rated against the criteria of adequacy. The ‘misinterpretation hypothesis’ would allow a number of scholars to look at the available evidence, and determine if their interpretations were similar to each other (Alpern, 2005). Kolosimo’s “hypothesis” is based on obfuscation of language and an interpretation of a myth that is not based on verifiable evidence so it lacks testability.

Once identified ‘hallucinations or induced states‘can be reproduced today and predictions can be made based on the results. They can be compared against other civilisations that used similar hallucinations or induced states to identify cultural transmission similarities. The alien hypothesis can produced no predictions and therefore lacks fruitfulness.

The ‘misinterpretation hypothesis’ is credible because creating myths to pass culture on would require, using analogies that the listener was familiar with (which we may not be), would need to be entertaining and engaging for children and include memory triggers for easy retention. This explains why myths taken out of context myths and symbols are difficult to decipher but one understood can explain other factors of ancient life. Kolosimo introduces aliens for explanations but this is not able demonstrate meaning in different aspects of ancient life, so his views lacks scope.

The creation of myths through ‘altered states’ and ‘misinterpretation’ of these myths through lack of cultural understanding need no outside forces to justify them. This is because they enable cultural transmission. The introduction of new evidence such as aliens means the Kolosimo assertion requires outside forces to enable their creation and justification. Therefore Kolosimo’s opinion lacks simplicity and conflicts with conservatism. The alternate hypothesis provides a mechanism (drugs & cultural transmission) where Kolosimo’s views provide none. The lack of simplicity in combination the other failure to meet the other aspects of the criteria of adequacy mean the alternative hypothesis are much more likely than Kolosimo’s beliefs(Schick & Vaughan 2011).

‘Electric discs’

The “Marks of Pseudoscience” (Radner and Radner, 1982) demonstrate areas of weakness that non-scientific reason will not be able to satisfy and a strategic way of finding potential flaws (Harrold, 1986). Whilst there only needs to be one mark of pseudoscience identified to discredit the entire work, all of them will be considered as there are a number of these marks included in Kolosimo’s work.

Whilst it is not clear, in the book it seems Kolosimo claims as evidence that Saitsev (there is no indication who he is?) reported on a Chinese archaeologist who proposed that alien space craft had visited the earth (Kolosimo, 1970).

It seems as if Saitsev is basing his claims on a report from Das Vegetarische Universum which reports on “716 stone discs with drawings and indecipherable hieroglyphics” (Kolosimo, 1970). It also describes Ham (Chinese tribe) writings of how they descended from the clouds, their spaceship broke down and they were unable to fix it.

These discs and spaceship myths allow a Chinese archaeologist from Peking academy of prehistory to makes the claim about spaceships visiting the earth. 

Kolosimo then puts forward a Chinese fable from the Oopa tribe of “little yellow creatures descended from the clouds” (Kolosimo, 1970, p.225), which “appears to be confirmed by science” (Kolosimo, 1970, p.225) as confirming evidence for the claim by the Chinese archeoligists.

Kolosimo admits openly at the start of the article that the hypothesis is based on appeal to myths. In the article Kolosimo uses two myths, one from the Ham people which describes the Dopa people descending from the clouds.  He also cites “other Chinese fables” (Kolosimo, 1970, p.225) which describe yellow creatures descending from the clouds.

Kolosimo precedes these claims with “if we follow Saitsev” and “the facts are true enough” (Kolosimo, 1970, p. 224). The facts are true or they are not and by offering no alternative he implies we have no choice but to follow Saitsev. By arguing in this way, Kolosimo never allows himself to be pinned down to a definitive hypothesis that can never be proven incorrect which thus makes an irrefutable hypothesis.

The structure that Kolosimo uses to write his work indicates he is looking for mysteries. For example at the beginning of the article he does not start with fact rather he postulates a mystery, “Fantasy has definitely played its part in what ever has been handed down to us in mythology” (Kolosimo, 1970, p. 224).

Kolosimo does not disclose sources or how these sources relate to each other. While it is difficult to check sources from the 1970s, the obtuse style of writing and lack of referencing make this untenable.  This grab bag approach to evidence is demonstrated when Kolosimo sites the review “Das Vegetarische Universum” as the source of the article. This translates to English as “The Vegetarian Universe” (Google translate, 2011) and does not seem to be an appropriate forum for the dissemination of information on archeological endeavour. Kolosimo uses other Chinese fables (Kolosimo, 1970, p.225) to support the claims of the Das Vegetarische Universum. There is no indication where these fables originate from and if they relate to the original alien claims.

The analysis demonstrates that Kolosimo uses a combination of the marks of pseudoscience to justify the hypothesis. These include; looking for mysteries, appeal to myth, grab bag approach to evidence and an irrefutable hypothesis. Kolosimo has not demonstrated the necessary conditions for his work to be considered scientific (Radner & Radner, 1982). It can therefore be concluded that no credibility can be given to Kolosimo’s work.

Conclusion

Having the appropriate tools allows the arguments of Kolosimo to be deconstructed for analysis. The SEARCH principle identified that there are other simpler hypotheses available that don’t require aliens to explain Indian myths. The deconstruction demonstrated a number of the marks of pseudoscience that discredit Kolosimo’s hypothesis of aliens landing in China. If aliens have come to earth we are unable to accept it based on Kolosimo’s evidence and analysis. He fails to demonstrate his hypothesis as being better than the alternatives and possessing the necessary conditions to be scientific.

In spite of pseudoscience’s mainstream popularity, academic analysis must be completed to prevent it being confused with scientific facts and thereby reducing the integrity of scientific endeavour (Matzke, 2007).

Result: 25/25

Bibliography

Alpern, S 2005, Did They or Didn't They Invent It? Iron in Sub-Saharan Africa, History in Africa, vol. 32, pp. 41-94, viewed 6 June 2011, (Electronic, Summon).

Australian research council 2011, Ranked Outlets, Australian research council, viewed 4 June 2011, <http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_journal_list.htm#1>.

Cirimele, V 2000, Drugs in prehistory: chemical analysis of ancient human hair,  Forensic science international, vol. 108 no. 3, p. 173-179, viewed 6 June 2011, (Electronic Summon).

Google translate 2011, Das Vegetarische Universum, Google translate, viewed 4 June 2011, <http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|Das%20Vegetarische%20Universum>.

Kolosimo, P 1970, Not of this world, Sphere books, London, England.

Matzke, N 2007, Biological design in science classrooms, PNAS : Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 104, p. 8669, viewed 4 June 2011, (Electronic Summon).

Ngram viewer 2011, Google Labs: Books Ngram Viewer, Ngram viewer, viewed 29 May 2011, <http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=aliens%2C+extraterrestrial&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3>.

Radner, D & Radner, M 1982, Science and unreason, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.

Roeger, L  2007, ‘Publishing in peer review journals - Criteria for success’,  Australian family physician,  vol. 36  no.7, p.  561, viewed 2 June 2011, (Electronic Summon).

Schick, T & Vaughan, L 2010, How to think about weird things: critical thinking for a new age, Mcgraw Hill, New York, NY.

Taylor, L 1990, ‘The Rainbow Serpent as Visual Metaphor in Western Arnhem Land’, Oceania, vol. 60 no. 4, pp.329-344, viewed 6 June 2011, (Electronic Summon).

Ziegler, A 2006,  ‘Regulation’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1093, no. 1, pp. 339-349, viewed 29 May 2011, (Electronic Summon).

Appendix 1

Schick & Vaughan’s (2011) SEARCH principle includes:

• Stating the Claim,
• Examining the evidence for the claim considering
• Alternative hypothesis                                               
• Rating, according to the
• Criteria of  adequacy each (similar to the marks of a good explanation)
• Hypothesis.

Radner and Radner’s (1982) marks of pseudo science are:

        

• Anachronistic thinking
• Looking for mysteries
• Appeal to myths
• Grab-bag approach to evidence
• Irrefutable hypotheses
• Argument from spurious similarity
• Explanation by scenario
• Research by exegesis
• Refusal to revise in the light of criticism.

*

Result:  25/25