Who Are We Trying to Convince?

Many researchers state as their main goal the task of proving their favorite paranormal phenomenon is real. What that proof entails depends upon which group we try to convince.

Proof represents “the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.” Cogent means convincing. Evidence that convinces you may not convince me. Someone inclined to accept the existence of paranormal phenomena will consider circumstantial evidence—like footprints attributed to Bigfoot or eyewitness accounts of flying saucers—quite convincing. Scientists, however, will hold out for a dead Bigfoot or alien.

Two different people can look at a footprint and reach two different conclusions. Even two scientists can reach disparate conclusions. One may see dermal ridges and decide that proves the footprint was not faked. Another may see the ridges as artifacts of the casting process. Each can present evidence to support his conclusion. For one, the footprint has become proof of a bipedal primate; for the other, the footprint remains inconclusive at best.

Let’s apply this to the Bigfoot-UFO connection. I can look at the evidence for a connection and find it convincing; therefore, the evidence becomes proof for me. Someone else can look at it and say, “Nope, I don’t believe it.” For that person, the evidence remains exactly that—evidence.

Do we have proof Bigfoot exists? Or UFOs? Or fairies? The answer depends on which person or group you’re trying to convince.

Definition taken from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition.