Often in paranormal issues, the question arises as to whether it is possible that the phenomenon has a supernatural or paranormal explanation. The question, "Is it possible?" ... is both a superficial argument and a logical fallacy.
The "is it possible" argument ... is a common rhetorical trick used by criminal defense attorneys to try to create doubt in a jury's mind that their client is guilty:
("Yes, my client's fingerprints were found at the scene. But is it possible that the real criminal drugged him, transported his unconscious body to the crime scene, carefully put his fingerprints on the knife and doorknob, then drove him back to his house and bed, where he woke up the next morning, unaware that he'd been framed?")
Such a scenario might be theoretically possible, but that doesn't mean it should be seriously considered as a better explanation than that the defendant is guilty.
The correct, scientific answer is that anything is possible. It's possible that (despite a lack of good evidence) ghosts, psychics, lake monsters, and dragons exist. Since no one is omniscient, no one has all the answers and therefore absolute certainty is not criterion, especially in matters of fact of science.
Is it possible that ******* doesn't cause lung cancer, but instead some factor no one has yet discovered? ... Is it possible that Princess Diana is actually alive and living in seclusion, that a hired impostor was instead killed in the Paris tunnel? Is it possible that man didn't land on the moon, and the whole event was faked? ...
Yes, all these things are possible, and no one can prove conclusively they are not. The question is not what is possible, but instead WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS, and what is REASONABLE. The "possible" argument is just a superficial red herring. It is, in short, a very weak foundation for either personal philosophy or legal argument.
excerpt from Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries by Benjamin Radford
The "is it possible" argument ... is a common rhetorical trick used by criminal defense attorneys to try to create doubt in a jury's mind that their client is guilty:
("Yes, my client's fingerprints were found at the scene. But is it possible that the real criminal drugged him, transported his unconscious body to the crime scene, carefully put his fingerprints on the knife and doorknob, then drove him back to his house and bed, where he woke up the next morning, unaware that he'd been framed?")
Such a scenario might be theoretically possible, but that doesn't mean it should be seriously considered as a better explanation than that the defendant is guilty.
The correct, scientific answer is that anything is possible. It's possible that (despite a lack of good evidence) ghosts, psychics, lake monsters, and dragons exist. Since no one is omniscient, no one has all the answers and therefore absolute certainty is not criterion, especially in matters of fact of science.
Is it possible that ******* doesn't cause lung cancer, but instead some factor no one has yet discovered? ... Is it possible that Princess Diana is actually alive and living in seclusion, that a hired impostor was instead killed in the Paris tunnel? Is it possible that man didn't land on the moon, and the whole event was faked? ...
Yes, all these things are possible, and no one can prove conclusively they are not. The question is not what is possible, but instead WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS, and what is REASONABLE. The "possible" argument is just a superficial red herring. It is, in short, a very weak foundation for either personal philosophy or legal argument.
excerpt from Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries by Benjamin Radford