Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JayUtah]

Outstanding. First you send people out to find the evidence you owe them. Then you demand they make a counter argument they do not owe you.

Standard procedure for Jabba. He's stuck. His attempt to change venue failed. So now he's left with "Just Google for the evidence" and "I'll be back."

I'm somewhat familiar with the book Jabba is reading, and I know what the true answers would be to the questions Loss Leader has asked Jabba about it. We'll just see how honest Jabba is. Not that it matters, of course, because he hasn't shown a connection between NDEs and immortality or the soul. He just guesses that a true NDE is evidence that "something supernatural is going on," which transforms via the procedure of wild gesticulation into proof of Jabba's specific claims.

 

[JayUtah]

...this is where I'll respond.

Why are you wasting time out of your so-very-busy schedule to respond to someone who has flounced? You don't seem to care what he actually said or what others said in response to him -- at least not to the point of addressing the content. You seem only to care that you believed he supported you. Can you explain why you should be given any further attention since you seem to be only currying acceptance and not actually debating effectively?

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- It could. Wormholes?

No one is asking you to speculate on methods by which interstellar travel could be attained. You're being asked whether you consider the collected anecdotes of purported abductees to be evidence that alien abductions are actually occurring? You seem to have a hard time answering the question that's actually asked. Please try harder.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Woo Slingers will always run into discussions of scientific understandings of the human mind and throw out vague concepts like "Love" and "Beauty" and drop the Mic like they've just shattered out worldview.

It's silly nonsense. Love and beauty are perfectly understandable within a scientific mindset. You don't have to invoke Woo in order to love someone or find something beautiful.

But that's really not what this is about. It's not about scientific evidence. It's about maintain the illusions that science is cold and sterile so people think they have to choose between a life of not making up random unsupported nonsense and experiencing any joy or wonder in your life.

Which is completely false. If seeing "Love" as a biochemical reaction in your brain involved because man is a social creature and emotional attachments to certain other individuals just makes sense from a natural perspective cheapens it for you, sucks to be you, get over it.

The last battle where Woo is always fought is here, by making silly backhanded assertions that suggesting we shouldn't just make up unsupported nonsense we're demanding everyone live their lives as emotionless Vulcan robots.

I have a First Edition copy of Stephen Pinker's "How the Mind Works" and collection of poetry that includes Lord Byron's "She Walks In Beauty." If you think having one of those on my shelf requires me to take the other down, I weep for you.

 

[Jabba]

- I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to quote, nor the proper thread for this quote, but the following seems like it ought to go somewhere (don't be a smartalec), and this is my best guess...

Intermezzo: Can Specific Descriptions of Resuscitation Procedures Be Explained by Factors Like Prior Knowledge? Perceptions during NDEs of specific correct details about doctors or nurses involved in a resuscitation procedure usually provide enough evidence to justify the conclusion that those perceptions cannot be attributed to chance hits or prior knowledge. Both cardiologist Michael Sabom and medical investigator and PhD-level nurse Penny Sartori have examined more generally whether NDErs’ descriptions of resuscitation procedures are, on average, more correct than the descriptions of cardiac patients who have not had NDEs. If NDErs’ accounts were not more correct, it would follow that their perceptions were the result of chance or prior knowledge. As material for comparison, Sabom used a group of cardiac patients not reporting NDEs who had never been resuscitated. For her investigation, Sartori used a group of patients who had likewise never reported an NDE but had been resuscitated. Despite the difference in comparison groups, both investigators determined that the NDErs’ descriptions were markedly more correct and believable than those of the comparison groups. For example, the NDErs reported many more accurate details, and the comparison groups of patients without near-death experiences made greater errors in their descriptions. These latter patients did not know, for instance, on which parts of the body the electrical “pads” (small, self-adhering cushions) or “paddles” (metal disks) of a defibrillator were placed, or they thought that an electric shock was a standard component of the procedure. Some patients from the comparison groups had no idea about resuscitation procedures
at all, and others had a distorted notion that was based on popular TV shows. Both investigators concluded from their studies that normal factors like prior knowledge, guesswork, or pure coincidence do not offer an acceptable explanation for correct extrasensory perceptions of resuscitation procedures. In her blog of October 5, 2011, Sartori wrote: “Anomalous well documented cases like this cannot be explained by current scientific explanations.” SOURCES Sabom, M. B. (1982). Recollections of death: A medical investigation. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Sartori, P. (2008). The near-death experiences of hospitalized intensive care patients: A five year clinical study. Lewiston, UK: Edwin Mellen Press.

Rivas, Titus; Dirven,Anny; Smit,Rudolf. The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences (pp. 8-9). International Association for Near-Death Studies. Kindle Edition.

 

[Jabba]

So would you agree that if someone writes a book saying that other people said certain things happened, that constitutes evidence that those things happened?

dave,
- Unfortunately, yeah -- just extremely weak evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

dave,
- Unfortunately, yeah -- just extremely weak evidence.

How would you be able to know how strong the evidence is?

 

[godless dave]

dave,
- Unfortunately, yeah -- just extremely weak evidence.

Why do you say "unfortunately"? Because you know most of us will disagree with you? Or because you realize the problems with accepting them as evidence?

 

[JayUtah]

"In her blog of October 5, 2011, Sartori wrote: 'Anomalous well documented cases like this cannot be explained by current scientific explanations.'"

Yeah, that's how those books work, Jabba. They present you some poorly or nebulously documented set of anecdotes selected for their sensationalist value, give some lip service to the scientific method, then quote some person purporting to speak for the entire field who attests "...cannot be explained -- therefore supernatural!"

What you quoted has zero scientific value, Jabba. Zero. These sorts of books are meant to appeal to the scientifically illiterate who really, really want to believe and are satisfied with a few sciency-sounding passages. The same pattern is used in UFO books, ghost sighting books, and the ones that try to put a pseudo-intellectual veneer on religion. It appeals to a lay audience, but does not provide even the semblance of useful rigor.

Your "evidence" is crap, Jabba, just as it has been every time you wave your hands wildly toward NDEs. Further, you show no evidence that NDEs are relevant to immortality. You declare that they are, but you show no causation. You merely wave your hands at "something supernatural."

 

[JayUtah]

"I have concluded that these [near-death] experiences are not by themselves prima facie evidence of life after death." Michael B. Sabom, MD. JAMA 244(1) (July 1980), p. 29.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

*: One could also raise the point of any single post not actually being evidence that the poster is trying to communicate the ideas explicitly contained in it; sarcasm and Poe's Law both exist, among other factors. But it's rather unnecessary, since, as already stated, the intricacies of communication are not really the matter in hand.

And, again, straight-up lying. To go back to annnoid's example, I can very easily type "I love my wife". It's such a commonly accepted thing to love one's wife that I expect that most would accept it unquestioningly. Yet I'm not and never have been married. The fact that I claim to love my wife is not evidence that I do, let alone that I actually have a wife.

 

[sackett]

Not wormholes, Jabba! It's

Rabbit holes!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba we aren't going to fall for you quote mining the entire internet for some out of context cut and paste that supports the conclusions you've already convinced yourself is true.

Here. I'm going to completely make something up. Ah.... Hitler was really a woman. I just made that up. Out of thin air. It isn't true. It is false.

Now I'm going to type "Hitler was a woman" into Google.

The very first result is an actual article from a Swiss Historian claiming that Hitler was a woman.

Here I'll quote it as evidence that the thing I just made up is true.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/adolf-hitler-was-a-woman-claims-new-harvard-study/

Swiss historian, Abraham Zerlig, has claimed for over 38 years that Hitler was in fact, a woman.

See? I literally made something up and with zero effort quote mined something that supported it.

I have literally just supported to the same standards, using the same methodologies and the same levels of argumentative and intellectual rigor that Adolf Hitler was actually a woman to the same or better degree then you have presented arguments for immortality.

You don't understand how evidence works.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It seems that Jabba has now switched from Loss Leader to godless dave. Good luck, dave.

 

[abaddon]

- I'm not sure where I should respond to this, but since annnnoid placed it in the immortality thread, this is where I'll respond...

<snip>

As predicted, and as per prior evidence, you simply cannot handle more than one thread at a time. Why not? No idea, but it is clear that you cannot nevertheless.

 

[Jabba]

Why do you say "unfortunately"? Because you know most of us will disagree with you? Or because you realize the problems with accepting them as evidence?

- The latter...

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba we aren't going to fall for you quote mining the entire internet for some out of context cut and paste that supports the conclusions you've already convinced yourself is true.

In this case he's quote-mining his book, which is basically a popular wash of the subject: find a few sensational claims, slap on a coat of sciency-sounding paint, and bask in the "science cannot explain this!" tabloid nonsense. Of the two authors he quotes, one is a cardiologist (not a neurologist) who has written popularly on the subject of NDEs and has specifically repudiated the use of his material to allegedly support life after death. The other is a U.K. nurse who has written a now-out-of-print popular book. Neither of these authors seems to have submitted their work for peer review. Just as was the case in the Shroud thread, it is almost certain that Jabba has no actual familiarity with the secondary sources. He's trusting his present authors to accurately quote them and represent the strength and meaning of their work.

You don't understand how evidence works.

Indeed, most fringe theorists at some point or another complain that the standards of proof are too high and beg for them to be lowered to accommodate what paultry material they have. It never seems to occur to them that the customary outcome for failing to meet a standard of proof is failure of the claim. As Jabba notes, failure of his claim is unconscionable to him.

 

[JayUtah]

- The latter...

So given the problems with accepting them as evidence, you decide to accept them as "weak evidence?" How does that work?

 

[The Sparrow]

.......
I have literally just supported to the same standards, using the same methodologies and the same levels of argumentative and intellectual rigor that Adolf Hitler was actually a woman to the same or better degree then you have presented arguments for immortality.

You don't understand how evidence works.

so........Hitler was a woman?

What I mean to say is, using Bayesian statistics, can we prove Hitler was a woman?

 

[Belz...]

so........Hitler was a woman?

What I mean to say is, using Bayesian statistics, can we prove Hitler was a woman?

Well, it's 50/50.