The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles
Scientific Research & Urban Legends

Eltjo H. Haselhoff, Ph.D.

North Altantic Books, 2001

(pp. 41-43)

Emotional Proof

Another statement that can often be heard in crop circle-related 
discussions (and also other discussions, of course) is: "I can only 
believe something after is has been proven."  Scientists and people with 
scientific backgrounds frequently make this statement.  And it seems 
obvious, certainly for a scientist, not to accept everything without 
thinking, but to request proof for whatever is stated.  But if you think 
about it carefully, things are not always so simple as they seem.  The 
issue has been phrased in a saying from John and Lynn St. Clair Thomas:  
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who do not 
believe, no proof is possible."

At this point, perhaps is makes sense to think about the question:  What 
is proof?  The 'Oxford Dictionary of Current English' defines 'proof' as 
"evidence, that is sufficient to show that something is a fact."  The 
requirements this evidence has to fulfill, however, will differ from case 
to case and from person to person.  Some will be perfectly happy with a 
simple statement, just because they trust the person who makes the 
statement.  Someone else might not be satisfied before an extensive 
analysis is presented, taking into account all relevant aspects and 
completely following all written and unwritten rules of Western science.  
In practice it turns out that the latter is not always simple.  When we 
deal with an apparently controversial subject like crop circles, even 
unambiguous findings, published in scientific and peer-reviewed journals, 
have been dismissed by skeptics as being the result of inaccurate 
procedures, not enough data, and a wild imagination.  It has even been 
suggested that such experiments are deliberately manipulated to support 
the underlying theories.  Besides the fact that such an unsupported 
allegation is of no value, it is clear that an attack on any scientific 
experiment can be camouflaged by suggesting alternative explanations.  
The criterion of accepting evidence, however, should not be that one 
cannot think of any possible alternative.  Apparently it is also crucial 
that the explanation given be plausible.

From this point of view, 'proof' is a far more emotional concept than one 
would expect.  A scientific article, for example, is considered plausible 
as long as it follows the rules of science and the common, known 
theories.  Nevertheless, nearly all of these theories are only accepted 
because professors at universities teach them, or because we can read 
about them in scientific books.  Strickly speaking, it is largely a 
matter of 'trust' that all of us, scientists included, have so much 
confidence in these theories and physical laws.  One could object to this 
statement by saying that whenever someone doubts their validity, all 
theories of physics may be verified (or falsified) by checking their 
consistency with observations, measurements, and other known theories.  
Which is true, of course.  But do we always do that?  No, of course not.  
No scientist lives long enough to verifiy the reliability of all the 
theories he or she uses.  And even if someone did, the rules of reasoning 
that would be used in order to preform such verifications also come from 
a book.  The conclusion is clear:  The confidence we have in our 
scientific methods is largely based on trust.  It is directly related to 
the 'faith' we have in them and the 'feeling' that they must be correct.  
And there is nothing wrong with that.  In fact, this "feeling" is usually 
referred to as 'physical insight', which often distinguishes a good 
scientist from a more moderate one.  Still, as a consequence, scientists 
can only 'believe' that the theories they are familiar with, and which 
are used by them, their colleagues, and their many predecessors, are 
indeed correct.  In light of this, however, saying "I only believe things 
if they have been proven" loses all meaning, and would be equivalent to 
saying: "I only believe things when I believe them."  Or, in other words:  
Not believing is simply a matter of not 'wanting' to believe, which leads 
us right into the definition of an "open mind" - or actually the lack 
thereof.

However, those of you who do not agree with this viewpoint and still feel 
the need for unambiguous scientific evidence before you are willing to 
accept the curious character of crop circles, should not put this book 
aside at this point.  In the next chapter, solid scientific evidence will 
be presented, which proves that crop circles are indeed made by the 
mysterious balls of light introduced in Chapter One.


Reprinted and distributed without permission