Reason and Coincidence
This is from another blog I've been writing to lately. So the reference to the end of the world post makes no sense.
The very next day after I posted my journal post about the end of the world I got a subscription offer from a magazine called Skeptical Inquirer. From reading the promotional materials it sounds exactly like something I'd like. It deals with investigating paranormal phenomena in a scientific, or structured, manner. Instead of approaching it with an ax to grind, an attempt to disprove, it seeks to study and let the facts fall where they may. There was even an insert about a free book offer upon signing up called "Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?"
What I noted as interesting was the timing of me getting the mailing. After I wrote my post about such a stigma-laden topic as the end of the world, I knew I'd probably get responses from people that had at their core the thought I was a kook and worthy of derision. And to a degree I was right. Knowing this I was a bit hesitant or nervous to write it, but nevertheless I did. So getting that magazine offer actually made me feel better. Somehow this magazine that focuses on applying scientific principles to the unknown found me out and thought I'd be interested enough to subscribe. "See, I'm really not crazy", I told myself. :)
But to be fair I have to ask myself, was there really any meaning in the timing of the offer? I've gotten other magazine offers in the past which seemed to hold no special value when I got them. And more than likely even this magazine found me because of my subscriptions to Scientific American and Discover magazines; I was most likely on some list they bought and/or compiled. So that it arrived when it did is just when it arrived.
That's certainly the scientific way of considering the timing: consider not only the possibilities that you want to consider but also the ones that you don't. I find it extremely valuable actually to judge things in this manner. Considering things from as many vantage points as you can, especially the ones you don't like, increases objectivity and clear thinking.
Of course the coincidence viewpoint is as valid as any of the others, to exclude it merely because it is not possible to find evidence to support it would actually go against objectivity. And that's the key thing about paranormal activities: they can rarely be proven objectively. I personally may strongly believe, or may personally witness something, but other people can not. The phenomena frequently can not be repeated. It just seems to go against the scientific method in so many ways. How can you prove something so subjective in nature?
Perhaps one way would be to expand the set of criteria used to judge the veracity of a claim. Must it be necessary for something to be physical, must something be observable with the classical five senses? Can all observable things be explained? Does the lack of observation prove something doesn't exist? Interesting questions. Yet, there is a danger, a stepping into the unknown, to allow things as true for which you can not verify in some physically objective manner. Yet, is there a danger in not believing that which you have subjectively seen but which others have not?
Certainly if you witness something you have indeed witnessed it. But this is all that has occurred, a perception, to state why you have perceived it is something else entirely. Ptolemy witnessed the moon moving in odd patterns and explained it with retrograde motion to fit the prevailing geo-centric view of the cosmos. His observations were correct, he correctly saw the moon move as it did. His flaw was to explain what he saw without proof to back it up, to ignore the observations that didn't fit the model he wanted to believe.
So yes, I did get an offer to Skeptical Inquirer, and yes it did come one day after my end of the world post, but that's it. Is there meaning to its timing, is there not? I can't say either way. Do I leave it at this, or pursue the matter further?
Of course I won't leave it. :)
To attempt to prove meaning in the timing of events you could track how often such fortuitous timings have occurred. But should you also track when such timings have no value? How often would you be tracking things? Becomes a dilemma, eh. Events only seem to have valuable timings when you are predisposed to thinking they do. To say it another way, you're normally oblivious to the timing of events and you only become aware of them when there seems to be some value in them. That fact alone could be interesting. And I did leave out one critical observation from the timing of my magazine offer: it made me feel good. I noticed the timing.
Emotion. What is it about these special timings that makes them noticeable at all when we are so frequently oblivious? In my case I had an emotional response. Might other fortuitous timings provoke an emotional response that elevates them from the mundane into the extraordinary? 'Tis possible.
So, should you believe in coincidences? If emotion is key to them, should you discount them, and with them your emotions? Perhaps the question can be reframed as, what value does one place on their emotions?
It is an interesting subject.