Numerology: Does Death Come in Threes?

A common claim that gets a lot of airtime is that celebrity deaths come in threes: on January 15, 2008, Brad Renfro was found dead in his apartment; on January 22 that same year, Heath Ledger had been found dead in his apartment; on the 26th of that month, Christian Brando died of pneumonia in a hospital. But is it really the case that these deaths were somehow mystically linked?

This is a widespread superstition, and mostly fanciful and harmless, and involves the use of validation by open-ended criteria, so open that it can’t possibly fail to be validated. Let’s take a closer look: Say another celebrity dies; what next? Well, we wait till two more celebs die, just arbitrarily lump them together, and voila! We now have three deaths of famous people, even if they’re only famous for being famous!

By casting so wide a net for what we will accept as evidence for verification of a given belief or hypothesis, we can’t possibly not verify it. Predictions like this are so vague that they are trivially easy to fulfill. And there are many ways to satisfy the requirements for validation.

First of all, how long is the ‘window of opportunity’ for three celebrity deaths open? Find a celebrity; how much of a celebrity are they? What about Suzanne Pleshette, or the guy who played Sam the Butcher on the Brady Bunch? Ah, so desu! Death comes in fives now, does it? What about celebrity deaths happening on the 17th of January, in the middle of the first three actors mentioned; does this mean that death comes in fours? Two groups of three? Did this sequence end with Ledger and Brando, and begin again with another grouping of three?

The use of such broad criteria, not sufficiently limited and quantifiable, is a common intellectual fallacy, and is even done in some scientific research: as is the case of much recording of positive outcomes or ‘hits’ in paranormal research, even by perfectly honest and competent scientists who, being human, are often saddled with the same poor grasp on statistics that plagues most people not trained in it.

By opening the criteria even just a wee bit, we allow for a limitless multiplication of possible ‘hits,’ so failure to confirm the hypothesis in question isn’t possible. As in the opening example, all we have to do is wait for the third celebrity to die, and the criteria are satisfied. This superstition, as benign and amusing as it is, is based principally upon numerology, the use of numbers for the sake of numbers, for seeking patterns, which is something we humans are good at: sometimes too good, even when it comes to seeking patterns that don’t really exist.

It’s a good idea to consider the implications of beliefs like this: We have this rule; what does this mean? Is there some kind of god, or ‘force’ that just waits around to enforce this pattern, a sort of ‘angel of death?’ (thanks, Steve). This ‘force’ would make a decision: ‘Well, we have one dead celebrity, I need to find two more, and make them die too. Are the other two as much in the public eye as the first? Sure. I’ll take them.’

Such an ‘angel of death,’ so to speak would be a necessary part of the whole situation to make it true. Numerology is as close to unadulterated magical thinking, infusing magic into our natural tendency to seek patterns, real or not, as you can get. And this can be numbers or anything else.

While it is said that ‘death comes in threes,’ it is also believed that good things as well come in threes–fate is thought to work both ways. Many would hold that all you have to do is believe in the power of numbers, and you’ve got it made…