[extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Occam's Razor and Forteanism

[Terry W. Colvin]

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:12:54 -0500
From: "T. Peter Park" <tpeterpark at erols.com>
  To: forteana at yahoogroups.com
Subj: FWD [forteana] Occam's Razor and Forteanism


Dear Forteans,

        Writers on anomalous, paranormal, or "Fortean" phenomena often
distinguish between the solid skeptical scientifically based study of
anomalous phenomena versus illogical fringe thinking with no basis in
science or even in true Forteanism. Scientific Forteans criticize fringe
thinkers for using one mystery to solve another mystery--as in
other-dimensional, occult, or demonological theories of UFO aliens or
cryptids (mystery animals). The difference, I suggest, may lie in use
versus neglect of "Occam's Razor" in explaining anomalous phenomena.
Scientific Forteans observe Occam's principle of conceptual economy,
while fringe thinkers ignore or defy it.        

        The mediaeval Scholastic philosopher William of Occam (1285-1349)
emphasized and popularized (though he did not invent) the maxim "non
sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatrem"-- "entities are not to
be multiplied beyond necessity." This principle, named "Occam's Razor"
in his honor, urges us to seek the simplest, most economical explanation
for any phenomenon or problem. We should only use those entities,
concepts, or principles that are strictly, unavoidably necessary to
explain a given fact or phenomenon. We should avoid introducing new,
speculative concepts if old, familiar, well- established concepts can
explain the fact or phenomenon in question. This is an established maxim
in philosophy and science, and should also be kept in mind by
Forteans--though it may well be more difficult to establish the truly
most economical explanation when dealing with phenomena as bizarre or
puzzling as those studied by parapsychologists, UFO'logists, and
cryptozoologists.

        Occam's Razor, also called the Law of Parsimony or Law of Economy, has
become an important basic regulative principle of philosophy and
science. Occam himself used it to simplify, streamline, and "clean up"
mediaeval philosophy, theology, and logic. He used it to dispense with
relations (which he saw as nothing distinct from their foundation in
things), with efficient causality (which like David Hume 400 years later
he viewed merely as regular succession), with motion (which he
considered merely the reappearance of a thing in different places), with
psychological powers distinct for each mode of sense, and with the
presence of Platonic "Ideas" in the mind of God (which he considered
merely the creatures and objects themselves). In science, the 14th
century French physicist Nicole d'Oresme invoked this Law of Economy, as
did Galileo in the 17th century, in defending the simplest hypothesis
(Copernican rather than Ptolemaic) of the heavens.

        In modern times, the French mathematician and astronomer Pierre de
Maupertuis (1689-1759) made the Law of Parsimony a basic law of nature
in his "Principle of Least Action." Maupertuis defined action, defined
by *S*mv ds--i.e., the integral (*S*) of inertia (mv, or mass velocity)
over space-time (ds, the path of length) as minimal. More recently, the
Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach (1838- 1916) declared it
the aim of science to present the facts of nature in the simplest and
most economical conceptual formulations. In psychology, it appears as
Morgan's Canon, formulated by the English biologist and philosopher C.
Lloyd Morgan (1852-1936), who held that no action should be interpreted
in terms of a higher psychic faculty when a lower faculty suffices.

        In some cases, it is initially unclear or ambiguous just what is
actually the simplest, most economical explanation, involving the fewest
entities or concepts. Scientists may be culturally and psychologically
misled by the sheer familiarity of a cumbersome traditional theory. The
initial resistance to heliocentric Copernican-Galilean astronomy, the
peculiarities of the planet Mercury's orbit, first attributed to a
hypothetical planet "Vulcan" but eventually explained by Einstein's
General Theory of Relativity, and recent astrophysical controversies
over "dark matter" are three good examples of this. In all these cases,
it is a toss-up whether a proliferation of hypothetical objects of a
somewhat familiar type or an unfamiliar but  mathematically elegant new
schema are "really" the "simpler" explanations--and whether there is
more "cumbersomeness" or "complexity" in a multitude of unseen old-style
objects, or in a mathematically simple but culturally unfamiliar new
master-theory. These three cases also illustrate some of the basic
conceptual problems Forteans face in explaining scientifically anomalous
phenomena, such as ESP, PK, ghosts, UFO's, abductions, Bigfoot, Lake
Monsters, or crop circles. Scientific Forteans do try to observe Occam's
Razor. Sometimes, though, it's as hard in Forteanism as in these 
mainstream scientific examples to determine just what the truly simplest
explanation is. With phenomena as puzzling as those studied by Forteans,
it may be difficult to determine which of various suggested explanations
is in fact the most economical one. For this reason, a brief description
of these three cases may be useful, to give a sense of true versus
false, real versus apparent explanatory economies. 

        Galileo demonstrated that the heliocentric Copernican model of the
Solar System was mathematically much simpler, more elegant, and more
economical than the geocentric Ptolemaic model, dispensing with the
complex epicycles needed in the Ptolemaic system to explain seeming
irregularities in planetary motions. However, it may be argued that for
Galileo's academic and ecclesiastical opponents, the Ptolemaic model
subjectively "felt" simpler because of its sheer familiarity, and the
seeming "oddity" or "novelty" of the "shift in mental gears" needed to
visualize the new Copernican model that also offended prevailing
cultural attitudes of reverence towards the beliefs of ancient Greek
thinkers and early Christian Church Fathers.  

        Again, when persistent peculiarities were noted in the orbit of Mercury
in the 19th century that could not be accounted for by the gravitational
influences of Venus and the Earth, the self-evidently obvious
explanation in terms of the known physics and astronomy of the time was
that they MUST be caused by a hitherto undiscovered intra-Mercurian
planet, "Vulcan." A planet's orbit is not fixed in space, but responds
to the net gravitational influence of other bodies in its environment.
Through combinations of many small effects, the long axis of Mercury's
orbit is in slow movement around the Sun. The perihelion point moves
eastward almost 10 minutes of arc (1/6 of a degree) per century. Most of
this procession is due to the gravitational influence of the planets,
especially Earth and Venus, but a residual of 40" per century, not
readily explained, was found in 1845 by Urbain LeVerrier, the
co-discoverer of Neptune. LeVerrier attributed this discrepancy to the
gravitational influence of hypothetical planets between Mercury and the
Sun--a very reasonable suggestion, in view of the way Uranus and Neptune
had been discovered through their perturbing gravitational influence on
Saturn's orbit. Some anomalous astronomical observations in the 19th
century suggested that such an intra-Mercurian planet did exist, and it
was even named "Vulcan," for the Roman fire-god. A number of such
objects were reportedly observed by 19th century astronomers in transit
across the face of the Sun. However, very careful and complete 19thand
20th century observations of the Sun and its neighborhood during total
solar eclipses never confirmed their existence. The supposed "Vulcan"
sightings are now believed to have been caused by sunspots, or in a few
cases perhaps by an asteroid between the orbits of Earth and Venus. 

        In 1915, however, Albert Einstein showed that the General Theory of
Relativity predicted a perihelion advance of Mercury of 43" per century
that the classical Newtonian theory did not. Thus, the motion of
Mercury's orbit has been considered an important observational
verification of the General Theory of Relativity. The post-1915
relativistic explanation of Mercury's orbit is simpler than the old
"Vulcan" hypothesis, in that it invokes a basic law of physics rather
than one or more frustratingly elusive physical objects--which can now
be dispensed with. However, in the 19th century, in view of the known
physics of the time, and also of the spectacular success of discovering
two previously unknown planets, Uranus and Neptune, by their
gravitational effects on Saturn's orbit, the "Vulcan" explanation of
Mercury's orbit seemed to be the self-evidently obvious one. Postulating
a new, hitherto unknown, law of physics drastically modifying the
familiar, well-established Newtonian laws of motion and gravitation,
just to explain Mercury's orbital peculiarities, would have seemed an
outrageously radical _ad hoc_proceeding. Better a few still-unseen
planets than a new law of physics! It was only after Einstein had
formulated the General Theory of Relativity for considerations quite
unrelated to Mercury's orbit, and then got it confirmed by Mercury's
orbit, that physicists and astronomer's accepted General Relativity as a
simpler, more elegant, more economical explanation of Mercury's orbit.
As for "Vulcan," the general public now mostly recognizes it as the name
of Spock's home planet in _Star Trek_!

        In the late 20th century, astronomers noticed that galaxies and galaxy
clusters hold together, with no stars or gas escaping from galaxies and
no gas or galaxies from clusters, despite those galaxies and clusters
containing far too little matter--far too little gas, far too few stars
or individual galaxies--to possibly generate a strong enough
gravitational field. Galaxies and clusters should have been
dissipating-- but they weren't. The magnitude of the discrepancy ranged
from a factor of a few to a factor of hundreds. To account for such
discrepancies, astrophysicists have postulated an exotic unobservable
"dark matter." distinct both from visibly shining stars and galaxies and
from the ordinary "dim matter" of planets, dwarf stars, warm gas, and
cold cosmic dust, that might make up 95% of the Universe. So far,
however, this postulated "dark matter" has proven frustratingly elusive
and unobservable. An Israeli physicist has suggested that this "dark
matter" may not even exist, and that the observed curious discrepancies
can be explained just as well or better by a modification of Newton's
Second Law of Motion.

        Mordehai Milgrom, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Weizmann
Institute in Rehovot, Israel, has published an article addressing this
problem, "Does Dark Matter Really Exist?," in _Scientific American_,
August 2002 (Vol. 287, No. 2), pp. 42-52. Noting the failure of
astronomers and physicists to actually observe this postulated "dark
matter," Milgrom suggests that the fault may lie not in the "dark
matter" itself, which may not even exist, but in the laws of physics.
Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's laws of motion and gravity,
called MOND for "Modified Newtonian Dynamics," to explain away the
discrepancy. Specifically, MOND modifies Newton's second law of motion
at low accelerations. MOND, he feels, does a very good job of
reproducing observations. MOND introduces a new constant of nature with
the dimensions of acceleration, called a_0 (a sub zero). When the
acceleration is much larger than a_0, Newton's old familiar second law
applies: force is proportioonal to acceleration. But when the
acceleration is smaller than a_0, as near the peripheries of galaxies or
galactic clusters,. Newton's second law is altered: force becomes
proportional to the square of the acceleration. Thus, the force needed
to impart a given acceleration is always smaller than Newtonian dynamics
requires. To account for the observed accelerations in galaxies, MOND
predicts a smaller force- -hence, less gravity-producing mass--than
Newtonian dymamics does. In this way, Milgrom believes, it can eliminate
the need for "dark matter." At sufficiently great distances from the
center of a galaxy or galactic cluster, the orbital velocity of stars or
galaxies should stop decreasing and reach a constant value. Milgrom's
MOND has not yet been generally accepted by astrophysicists--but many do
consider it a serious contender. 

        Milgrom's MOND as an explanation for discrepancies in the motions of
galaxies and galactic clusters closely parallels Einstein's General
Relativity as n explanation for Mercury's orbital peculiarities. In both
cases, peculiarities in the motion of observed visible astronomical
objects--Mercury, galaxies, galaxy clusters--have led conventional
astrophysicists to suggest the gravitational influence of hitherto
unobserved, curiously elusive material bodies--the planet "Vulcan,"
"dark matter." In both cases, the postulated gravitationally perturbing
bodies--"Vulcan," "dark matter"--have persistently remained curiously
elusive, frustratingly difficult or impossible to observe directly. In
both cases, the need for such elusive, hard-to-find material bodies has
been eliminated by a proposed revision of the laws of physics.
Einstein's General Relativity has been generally accepted by the
scientific community, while Milgrom's MOND has not yet been generally
accepted. 

        To return now to Forteanism: scientific Forteans use Occam's Razor
conscientiously. They admit new objects, new creatures, or new entities
when it seems absolutely necessary and unavoidable to do so, but they
try to keep their new entities more or less similar to old familiar
entities if at all possible, and they avoid introducing completely new
realms of being or totally new sorts of basic natural laws. Scientific
Forteans may propose the survival in our own time of relict populations
of supposedly extinct prehistoric hominids or reptiles. However, they
firmly keep them anchored in the good old familiar well- known Earthly
flesh-and-blood DNA-and-protein evolution-spawned animal kingdom, and
NOT coming here from UFO's, other dimensions, an "Inner Earth," or a
demonic or angelic "Goblin Universe." They may likewise find themselves
forced to seriously admit the possibility of extraterrestrials visiting
us in spaceships from Alpha Centauri, Tau Ceti, Zeta Reticuli, or
wherever. However, they will interpret them conservatively as products
of parallel biological evolution on other habitable planets in our
Galaxy as per the SETI speculations of mainstream scientists like Frank
Drake and Carl Sagan extrapolating from what we already have known for
decades about astrophysics and Earthly biochemistry. They will be VERY
chary of rushing to interpret them right away as coming from another
dimension or from a spiritual, demonic, or angelic realm.  In all such
and other cases, scientific Forteans will stick fairly close to old
familiar generally-accepted scientific concepts and principles whenever
at all possible--which I see as a good use of Occam's Razor. 

        Scientific Fortean study of reported "hairy hominids" like Bigfoot and
Yeti is a good example of the adherence to accepted scientific concepts
whenever possible. Let me give a specific example suggested by your own
comments. In 1999, Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghe published _The Field
Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide_, noting
nine classifications for unknown hominoids. At that time, Coleman and
Huyghe were viewed as a bit radical, "far-out," or speculative by many
"mainstream" Bigfooters, who preferred to see populations of a single
large erect bipedal hairy ape-man or man-ape species lurking in the
Pacific Northwest, the Himalayas, and perhaps a couple of other areas of
our planet. The same happened to Coleman's and Mark A.Hall's researches,
from the 1960's onward, about a population of bad-smelling semi-aquatic
chimpanzee-like apes ("Napes" or "Skunk Apes") in the southern United
States. However, today, Coleman and Hall are seen clearly as mainstream
Bigfooters. Coleman and Huyghe might have been regarded as radical or
far-out by old-time Bigfooters only willing to recognize the "classic"
or "standard" California Bigfoot, British Columbia Sasquatch, and
Himalayan Yeti. Those old-line Bigfooters themselves might seem
"radical," "far-out," "gullible," or "unscientific" to all-out Bigfoot
and Yeti skeptics. However, Coleman, Huyghe, Mark Hall, and old-line
Bigfooters alike are in fact orthodox scientific conservatives--though
orthodox scientific conservatives of a very flexible, very broad-minded
kind--in trying to fit Bigfoot, Yeti, Almas, Kaptar, Mecheny, Chuchunaa,
Orang Pendek, Agogwe, etc., into the generally accepted zoological and
palaeontological scientific picture of primate and hominid evolution, as
perhaps possible modern "living fossil" relict populations of
scientifically accepted prehistoric hominoids and hominids like
_Gigantopithecus_, _Paranthropus_, _Australopithecus_, _Homo habilis_,
_Homo erectus_, _Homo heidelbergensis_, Neandertals, etc. 

        In all this, scientific Bigfooters all accept the broad mainstream
scientific outline of the standard picture of hominid evolution and
early human prehistory. In all this, Bigfooters stand in clear
opposition to "ancient astronaut" theorists and fundamentalist
"Scientific Creationists" who simply reject the standard scientific
picture of primate and human evolution. Coleman, Huyghe, Mark Hall, and
Bigfooters likewise far closer to the scientific mainstream than writers
espousing an other-dimensional, extraterrestrial, "Inner Earth," or
demonological interpretation of hairy hominids and other cryptids, who
see Bigfoot appearing to hikers and campers from another dimension,
UFO's, the Earth's interior, or the fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim)
Hell. Indeed, if the Coleman/Huyghe/Hall type scientific "hominologists"
are correct, and if we do eventually succeed in capturing some
Sasquatches, Kaptars, Almas, and/or Orang Pendeks, this will be widely
seen as new scientific confirmation of the essential correctness of the
standard scientific human evolutionary picture, and of mainstream
palaentologists' reconstructions of _Homo erectus_, _Homo
heidelbergensis_, or Neandertals. A real live captured Bigfoot, Almas,
Kaptar, or Orang Pendek would probably not give very much aid and
comfort to "amcient astronaut" enthusiasts or "Scientific Creationists."

        Fringe thinkers, by contrast, ignore or flout Occam's Razor by
promiscuously using one mystery to solve another mystery. They "solve"
legitimate puzzles like Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, UFO's, or abductions by
invoking concepts and principles that are themselves bizarre,
speculative, mysterious, controversial, or unverifiable, in any case
totally unrelated to any realistically foreseeable extensions of the
generally accepted mainstream scientific world-picture--e.g.,
other-dimensional or demonological theories of UFO's, aliens, or
cryptids.

        Nevertheless, we should perhaps not totally dismiss seeming fringe
thinkers out of hand. As I've noted, when dealing with truly puzzling
and bizarre phenomena, it may not always be easy to determine just what
the most truly simple and parsimonious explanation might be. Slightly
extraordinary but unquestionably scientific explanations, like the
extraterrestrial hypothesis of UFO's and aliens or the zoological or
primatological explanation of cryptids, have an obvious appeal for
scientific Forteans anxious to avoid fringe, occult, mystical, or
"metaphysical" theories if at all possible. They do seem like simple,
obvious, straightforward explanations of the great majority of Fortean
reports. They include the UFO's that seem like believably possible
nuts-and-bolts spacecraft a couple of centuries ahead of ourselves
technologically, and the aliens who seem like biologically plausible
flesh-and-blood products of Darwinian evolution on another planet in our
Galaxy with native environmental conditions just slightly different from
the Earth's. They include the  "hairy hominids" like Bigfoot, Almas,
Kaptar, or Orang Pendek that seem like realistically plausible
Neandertal, Homo erectus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, or
Gigantopithecus survivors into our own era, the "lake monsters" and "sea
serpents" that might indeed be Plesiosaurus or Zeuglodon survivors into
our own time, and the swamp-dwelling West African mokele-mbembes that
might indeed be surviving Brontosaurus-like sauropod dinosaurs.

        All such "normal," "nuts-and-bolts" or "flesh-and-blood" UFO's and
creatures seem to need no occult, mystical, paraphysical, or
"metaphysical"explanations. They require a stretching of "mainstream"
science only to the point of arguing that Frank Drake's and Carl Sagan's
hypothetical extraterrestrials are already here on Earth visiting us, or
that dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, pre-Sapiens hominids, or other prehistoric
creatures are not quite completely extinct after all.  However, there
are also the occasionally genuinely bizarre yet seemingly authentic
reports, that at least seem to defy a straightforward scientific
extraterrestrial or zoological explanation, that rather do seem to
demand an occult, "metaphysical," or paraphysical explanation. It's
these apparently authentic bizarre reports that have inspired interest
in fringe, occult, and demonological theories. Such fringe theories gain
a certain seeming plausibility because of such bizarre cases. Such cases
give a semblance of "empirical proof" and "I always told you so"
justification to writers and "buffs" already inclined to occult,
mystical, "metaphysical," and demonological speculations.

        Such bizarre reports include UFO's, aliens, and cryptids ("Bigfoots,"
"Black Dogs," etc.) that seemingly appear or disappear instantly, change
shape, or pass effortlessly through solid obstacles like walls, fences,
closed doors, trees, boulders, or dense shrubbery. They include
"Bigfoots," "Black Dogs," and other "mystery beasts" with glowing red
eyes, overpowering foul odors, missing feet or legs, or semi-
transparent bodies. They include "Bigfoot"-like creatures reportedly
seen in connection with UFO's. They include cryptids that seem
unaffected by gunfire or other weapons. They include aliens or other
creatures that disappear or retreat when confronted with crucifixes,
rosaries, or prayers to religious figures like Jesus, Mary, Buddha, or
the Archangel Michael--or that conversely became especially aggressive
when encountering religious symbols.  Such bizarre entities seem to
almost beg to be considered ghosts, spirits, fairies, elementals,
angels, demons, djinn, or other-dimensional "ultraterrestrials"--and
writers like John A. Keel, Jacques Vallee, Patrick Harpur, and Janet &
Colin Bord seem to be glad enough to comply, as are religious
fundamentalist advocates of a demonological theory of aliens and
cryptids. To many writers, an occult, "metaphysical,"
"ultraterrestrial," or demonological theory can easily seem the
simplest, most obvious, most economical explanation of such entities,
the one most conforming to Occam's Razor. But is it, really? I'm not
actually too sure!

        The bizarre, phantom-like, seemingly absurd qualities and behavior of
some reported UFO's and aliens remind me of Arthur C. Clarke's
observation that any sufficiently advanced technology would be
indistinguishable from magic. Teleportation, instant appearance and
disappearance, size or shape change, levitation, invisibility, and
passing through solid objects could be routine accomplishments for a
science and technology thousands or millions of years and not just a
couple of centuries in advance of ours. Some bizarre manifestations,
too, might reflect deliberate technologically engineered
"disinformation" by extraterrestrials bent on confusing us and
cultivating a mental climate of incredulous belief in their existence.
They could deliberately use technological "magic" to make some of us
believe that they are merely the supernatural beings of our own
traditional religious, mythological, or folkloric belief systems, and
the rest of us believe that supposed abductees and alleged "close
encounter" witnesses are simply neurotic, gullible victims of their own
delusions and fantasies unable to distinguish their grotesque nightmares
or bizarre dream-like hallucinations from reality: therefore, the wilder
and more chaotically diversified our supposed "dreams," "fantasies," and
"delusions," the better for the aliens concerned to have us not take
their possible existence too seriously. If some of us think the aliens
are really ghosts, angels, fairies, or demons, and the rest of us simply
laugh at the bizarre tales of abductees and close-encounter witnesses
seeing a hundred different varieties of grotesque creatures with
sometimes ghost-like characteristics telling two dozen absurd,
conflicting tales about their origin or home planet, that suits the
aliens just fine. They may use hypnosis, holographic projections,
robots, and other deceptive techniques we can't even imagine to make us
think we're seeing "Bigfoots," giants, 3-inch diminutive little men,
human-sized giant grasshoppers, ghosts, angels, demons, walking 6-inch
tin cans, "birdmen," "batmen," "mothmen,"or floating disembodied brains.
They might, for instance, deliberately "plant" occasional apparent
sightings of "Bigfoots" with glowing red eyes and missing or
semi-transparent feet to sow confusion, disbelief, and ridicule. Of
course, such alien-created red-eyed spectral "Bigfoot" holographic (?)
projections can easily co-exist with more conventional zoological hairy
hominoid primates and relict flesh-and-blood pre-sapiens Erectus or
Neandertal hominid populations!  

        Alternatively, many of the more "bizarre" and "absurd" UFO, alien, and
cryptid reports may have their explanation not in extraterrestrial
visitors or unknown animals, but rather in the more curious powers and
activities of the human psyche itself, as studied by parapsychologists.
A few seemingly "far-out" parapsychological and Fortean theories
admittedly lie on the border between scientific Forteanism and fringe
"metaphysical" speculation. It may largely be a matter of personal taste
which side of that border one wishes to place them on. They include, for
instance, speculations about "group minds," and about quasi-material
"thought-forms" or "tulpas." I myself see such theories as stretching
the "mainstream" scientific world-picture very nearly to its breaking
point--but not yet QUITE breaking it. I would argue that they are not
quite "fringe" or "metaphysical," but rather a slight extrapolation from
traditional mainstream parapsychology--and thus scientific..

        Solid, respected parapsychologists like Whately Carington, G.N.M.
Tyrrell, Nandor Fodor, and D. Scott Rogo have speculated about
telepathically-generated "group minds," "collective idea- patterns," or
"gestalts" of families, clans, tribes, cultures, political movements,
etc. These "group minds" or "gestalts" would be telepathically created
from the beliefs, myths, symbols, archetypal images, etc., of those
groups, and would have a certain independent active telepathic influence
on group members' minds. Such "group minds," "gestalts," or "collective
idea-patterns" might explain family warning-spirits like the Irish
banshee, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apparitions of the Virgin and
saints, mediaeval appearances of the Devil, ancient Greek and Roman
visions of Pan, satyrs, nymphs, dryads, Theseus, and Castor & Pollux,
Celtic and Germanic close encounters with fairies, gnomes, leprechauns,
dwarfs, trolls, etc.--and perhaps also UFO close encounters and
abductions in our own time. Sometimes, some of these parapsychologists
have suggested, these visions and apparitions take a temporarily
semi-solid, quasi- material form as "thought-forms," "tulpas," or
"telesmic images." UFO's, "aliens," Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, "Black
Dogs," "Mothmen," and assorted "cryptids" might be such "tulpas." Such
"tulpas" might actually have a temporary physical existence--as
collective psychic projections of our own human "group minds," or
perhaps of Carl Gustav Jung's "Collective Unconscious." Again, such
"tulpas" of UFO's, aliens, or cryptids could coexist with real
extraterrestrial nuts-and-bolts starships, real flesh-and-blood aliens,
real flesh-and-blood zoological cryptids, and real relict pre-sapiens
hominids.. 

        Jerome Clark and Loren Coleman at one time proposed something along
such lines in _The Unidentified_ (1975), where they drew on Carl Jung's
theories to describe the UFO phenomenon as a planetary poltergeist
generating apparitions from Humankind's repressed collective unconscious
to create UFO manifestations, Men in Black, etc.--some of which ideas
former FATE editor Clark reportedly now disavows. Anyway, I myself
suspect that a theory of "group minds" and "tulpas" might perhaps
explain many of the more bizarre, "ghostly," "phantom-like" UFO, alien,
and cryptid reports, without resorting to more speculative occult,
"metaphysical," or demonological theories about fairies, elementals,
djinn, devas, angels, demons, or "ultraterrestrials." A
parapsychological theory of "group minds" and "thought- forms," indeed,
could help scientific Forteans defend their approach against the
advocates of fringe and occultist theories. We sometimes may need to
consider the SOMEWHAT extraordinary and MODERATELY "far-out" to avoid
being pressured or seduced into believing the EXTREMELY extraordinary.
William of Occam, I think, would have approved.
                        Regards,
                        T. Peter <tpeterpark at erols.com>
                        Garden City South, L.I., N.Y.


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]