Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Belz...]

Have you PRICED colleges, these days?

Demigods don't go to college, fool. They're homeschooled by Athena.

 

[Belz...]

...and secondly...I have now come to the conclusion that you are not married, you were playing games, and that I no longer wish to discuss anything with you because you insist on producing garbage.

It's amazing the conclusions you arrive at with zero evidence.

'Course, that has the advantage that you don't have to look for evidence and can just pick whatever conclusion you happen to like at the time.

 

[JayUtah]

It is first necessary to establish that NDE anecdotal evidence CAN have evidentiary legitimacy. Jabba's argument hinges on this claim.

No, Jabba's claim hinges on his anecdotes being legitimate scientific evidence. And actually it doesn't, since he can choose his prior probability any way he wants.

A claim which you and just about everyone else here has categorically dismissed.

No, it has not been categorically dismissed; it has been specifically dismissed. Both you and he are trying to turn that specific dismissal into a categorical dismissal by various straw-man techniques.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Demigods don't go to college, fool. They're homeschooled by Athena.

...not if they want jobs...

 

[Belz...]

...not if they want jobs...

Their job is beating the **** out of mythical creatures, sailing the oceans for decades, and generally kicking ass and looking awesome. Revenue, you say? Plunder, I respond!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Their job is beating the **** out of mythical creatures, sailing the oceans for decades, and generally kicking ass and looking awesome. Revenue, you say? Plunder, I respond!

But it is IMPORTANT to get "Plunder, Pillage, Rape, & Burn" in the right ORDER, no?

 

[Belz...]

But it is IMPORTANT to get "Plunder, Pillage, Rape, & Burn" in the right ORDER, no?

Yes, and I'll leave that to Athena. Plus it's not as if I can complain if she gets it wrong.

 

[abaddon]

Could somebody ask Annnnoid if claiming to be in direct communication with Zeus should be believed in the same way as "I love my wife"?

And why is it that he maintains his belief in souls.

 

[Belz...]

Where has he EVER said that?????

 

[abaddon]

...I guess you didn't notice the spot where I suggested that there are no whales to catch.

Perhaps that was the bit where you conflated "wives" and "whales". That is horrible however you slice it.

First of all, normatively speaking people do not proceed under the assumption of fraudulence. If that is how you live your life then you can not trust a single word anyone says to you ever....including a single word you read on any of these threads.

You are telling us that this is how you live your life. And your are promoting such behaviour. And criticising it. And WTF were you attempting to say?

...and secondly...I have now come to the conclusion that you are not married, you were playing games, and that I no longer wish to discuss anything with you because you insist on producing garbage.

Now, out of nowhere, you declare that you can determine out of nothing who might or might not be married according to the rituals of a church you claim to not be a member of. That claim is bonkers.

Bye.

Sure.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

First of all, normatively speaking people do not proceed under the assumption of fraudulence.

The topic under discussion, however, is science. The question under consideration is whether anecdotes have any value in making a scientific hypothesis more or less likely. It was you who brought up the anecdote of "I love my wife". Now, though having your hand held through the logic, you've just admitted that it's actually not an apt comparison. Well done.

...and secondly...I have now come to the conclusion that you are not married[...]

What if I told you that actually I was? That I just claimed that I wasn't to make a point? How are you going to determine the truth value of such a statement? And what utility do any of these statements have in determining the truth value of the hypothesis that I love my wife?

If the answer is that they have none, then there you go. If the answer is that they have some, then you will be able to tell me, with confidence, whether or not I am married and whether or not I love my wife if I am.

 

[Hokulele]

It is first necessary to establish that NDE anecdotal evidence CAN have evidentiary legitimacy. Jabba's argument hinges on this claim. A claim which you and just about everyone else here has categorically dismissed.

No, we have dismissed Jabba's specific claim, and his specific evidence. Until you establish what you mean by "anecdotal evidence" as it pertains to a scientific hypothesis, there is no "there" there.

...look at the links. It is right there in black and white. You and the others have argued that NDE anecdotal evidence CANNOT be used to support / dismiss a scientific hypothesis. Jabba cannot proceed with his scientific hypothesis unless this matter is resolved.

Which link? The guided tour of Washington, DC? Your claim, your burden of proof. Jabba's claims have already been shown to be baseless. Even his source clearly states that the study did not support the contention that NDEs had a non-neurobiological source.

 

[ferd burfle]

Later today I will be producing links and quotes from numerous legitimate scientific studies that explicitly reference NDE anecdotal evidence to generate their hypothesis.

Several posters have explicitly stated that anecdotes may generate hypotheses. Did you miss that or are you intentionally moving the goalposts? "Generate" =/= "provide evidence to support".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jabba]

...
Let's assume for the sake of argument that these studies were properly conducted or controlled. What do they not say? They don't say that the NDE patients had any knowledge that could not be gained through physical perception. None knew details that could not have been known by a conscious person in their position. None could see what words a doctor placed on some high shelf, for example.

LL,
- These particular studies were designed to deal with a different objection to the 'truth value' of NDEs -- i.e., Can Specific Descriptions of Resuscitation Procedures Be Explained by Factors Like Prior Knowledge?

O...kay? I can't see how that has anything to do with immateriality or non-physical perception, but okay. So, the "studies" you quoted a summary of were irrelevant to your claim? You claimed that NDE's were evidence of immaterial perception, but the "studies"didn't rule out low brain-activity perception. So ... um ... yeah. They're either incomplete or irrelevant - choose the one that offends you least.

LL,
-The authors are referring to the potential for explanation other than non-physical perception.

If the anecdotes are consistent with both material and immaterial explanations, then they have no evidentiary value whatsoever.

LL,
- In this study, NDE anecdotes were not consistent with being of strictly materialistic explanation -- here, the descriptions given by subjects who claimed NDE's were significantly more detailed, and accurate, than were the descriptions given by the subjects who did not claim NDEs.
- The anecdotes were consistently more consistent with the facts than were the acknowledged guesses based upon prior knowledge. This supports the claim that the anecdotes were not simply guesses -- that something more was going on here.
- This study reduces the likelihood that these anecdotes have a strictly materialistic explanation.

 

[JayUtah]

This study reduces the likelihood that these anecdotes have a strictly materialistic explanation.

The author of the study has specifically repudiated non-materialistic explanations. Who do you think knows best what his study supports: its author, or you? You haven't even read the study. You read a summary of it in a book that takes such materials published elsewhere and spins them to appear to support the notion of life after death.

 

[JayUtah]

In this study, NDE anecdotes were not consistent with being of strictly materialistic explanation

Where does the author show that he considered all possible materialistic explanations? (Hint: he didn't.)

here, the descriptions given by subjects who claimed NDE's were significantly more detailed, and accurate...

Describe the empirical controls used by the author to measure detail and accuracy. In fact, describe all the empirical controls.

This supports the claim that the anecdotes were not simply guesses -- that something more was going on here.

False dilemma. The question is not between "guesses" and "souls leaving the body." Or even between "guesses" and "something vaguely supernatural." You're still simply leaping to the desired conclusion because you're reading a book that expressly invites you to do so and getting all your data through their filter.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- In this study, NDE anecdotes were not consistent with being of strictly materialistic explanation -- here, the descriptions given by subjects who claimed NDE's were significantly more detailed, and accurate, than were the descriptions given by the subjects who did not claim NDEs.
- The anecdotes were consistently more consistent with the facts than were the acknowledged guesses based upon prior knowledge. This supports the claim that the anecdotes were not simply guesses -- that something more was going on here.
- This study reduces the likelihood that these anecdotes have a strictly materialistic explanation.

Jabba,

That's not true. At least one of the authors has specifically come out and said that's not what he was testing.

However, even if that's what these two people wanted to study, they failed. As the AWARE study showed, consciousness or even unconscious memory can accompany very low brain activity. So, if the studies didn't focus on things that a conscious person could not have known (a toy on a high shelf, perhaps) or only test zero brain activity, then the study did not falsifiably rule out material explanations.

So, you've produced two papers that, even if they claim what you say they do, don't actually provide falsifiable evidence.

They are worthless for this question.

The possibility of immateriality still stands at zero because we have yet to see repeatable, falsifiable evidence.

 

[annnnoid]

Took five minutes to find a whole pile of examples that explicitly demonstrate that NDE anecdotal information can support / dismiss a scientific hypothesis. In some form or other, NDE anecdotal information is included in each of these studies…often very fundamentally.


http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)07100-8/abstract?cc=y=

Explicitly references anecdotally related NDE information in developing the hypothesis of the study.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014067369092780L

Numerous references to patient ‘reports’….aka: anecdotal evidence.

http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Abstr..._Death_Experience_Scale__Construction,.7.aspx

Numerous references to patient generated NDE accounts. AKA…anecdotal evidence.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.631.792

A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing

“We report a case in which there was strong evidence for both healing and a veridical OBE.”

“The patient’s account (…aka: anecdotal evidence) of an OBE contained many veridical elements that were corroborated by the medical team attending his medical emergency.”

The authors are all accredited medical professionals. Doubtless they are all lying!

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1025055109480

Explicitly reference NDE anecdotal evidence to compare to ketamine induced experiences.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300957200003282

References numerous NDE anecdotal reports to explore a range of hypothesis in the study.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712604773952403/full

Explicitly references anecdotally related NDE information in developing the hypothesis of the study.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163834303000422

Explicitly references anecdotally related NDE information in developing the hypothesis of the study.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300957206006691

Explicitly references anecdotally related NDE information in developing the hypothesis of the study.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600820139

Explicitly references anecdotally related NDE information in developing the hypothesis of the study.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.142.8.967

Explicitly references anecdotally related NDE information in developing the hypothesis of the study.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01078240

Explicitly references anecdotally related NDE information in developing the hypothesis of the study.

Several posters have explicitly stated that anecdotes may generate hypotheses. Did you miss that or are you intentionally moving the goalposts? "Generate" =/= "provide evidence to support".

I’m guessing you are reading a different thread…or perhaps those you are reading just don’t really know what they’re talking about one way or the other.

Anecdotes are troublingly free of evidentiary value.

Evidence is falsifiably and repeatably testable. Nothing else is evidence.

Once again, an anecdote cannot be evidence.

(My bolding.)

No. They may agree or disagree with certain hypotheses, but they will never be considered evidence. Stop trying to dilute the meaning of evidence. Seriously, stop it.

(So my question to you: Can anecdotes support, or counter, a scientific hypothesis?)
NO.

Anecdotes are not evidence of anything because they do not make a hypothesis more or less likely.

The anecdotes have no evidentiary value.

Only falsifiable testing provides evidence.

(I think that anecdotes can support, or counter, a scientific hypothesis,)

They cannot.

I agree with Loss Leader and Wikipedia that anecdotes are not scientific evidence.

It doesn't matter if there are hundreds of billions of anecdotes, they will not make one iota of difference to the probability of a scientific hypothesis being supported or falsified.

(Can anecdotes increase (or decrease) the probability of a scientific hypothesis?)

No.

Anecdotes are unverified, and therefore have no value as evidence. They have no effect whatsoever on the probability of a given hypothesis being true.

 

[Hokulele]

Once again, all we are presented is an equivocation between "anecdote" and "patient interview".

 

[annnnoid]

Once again, all we are presented is an equivocation between "anecdote" and "patient interview".

...the question is still there Hokulele. Y'know...the one that supposedly means so little that you have run away from it at least 12 times now!

Here it is again....but maybe you'd better not read it. You might get nightmares!

Are...or are not...the words you just wrote in your post evidence of what you were thinking / feeling / experiencing when you wrote them???