Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Garrette]

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.

Yes. Helped in developing the hypothesis, not in providing evidence for it.

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

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

No. The reports were in the medical records which were what was reviewed. Nor did the reports within the records constitute any evidence; it was, in fact, what they were looking at to determine if there was a difference between the two groups of people, i.e., did thos who would have died without intervention report the same number of experiences as those who were not in danger.

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

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

Not as evidence of anything except as having occurred. The study was an attempt to quantify the experiences.


Given that your first three links do not show what you claim they show, I see little reason to view the rest of your list, and I fully expect you to pretend I have misunderstood something while it is painfully obvious you have as little knowledge of the sources you link as Jabba does of his.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Shifting goalposts. Developing the hypothesis was stipulated early in this debate as an acceptable use for anecdotes. The actual study was an attempt to find correlations statistically among demographic factors.

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

Equivocates the definition of "anecdotal evidence." We have already drawn a distinction between Jabba-esque anecdotes and patient/subject interviews. That you decline to acknowledge the difference does not matter.

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

No, that's misleading. The actual study was to develop a codification of NDE reports, akin to psychometric instruments. "References to ... NDE accounts" is not even remotely the same as patient accounts of NDEs being used to support a hypothesis.

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

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

Bwahaha! This is Penny Sartori's "research," published in a pseudo-journal. Sartori is an ordinary nurse, not a scientist. Her PhD is in theology. In your mad rush to Gish-gallop up some backfill for your too-hastily-made claim, you haven't been very discriminating in your sources.

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

No, there's no explicit reference to anecdotal evidence. There's a whole lot of reference to biochemical evidence, though.

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

Asked and answered. Prospective studies are those which develop hypotheses to be studied later. We stipulated this is an acceptable use of anecdotes in science.

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

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

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

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

Etc.

Asked and answered. Developing hypotheses for later study is explicitly an acceptable use of anecdotes in science.

I’m guessing you are reading a different thread…

He is. He's reading the actual thread, not your cherry-picked version.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

And 12 examples standing in for the claimed 3 million.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

Ask yourself whether or not I love my wife, and you shall have your answer.

 

[Hokulele]

...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???

Do you consider my posts in this thread to be anecdotes?

 

[annnnoid]

Yes. Helped in developing the hypothesis, not in providing evidence for it.


No. The reports were in the medical records which were what was reviewed. Nor did the reports within the records constitute any evidence; it was, in fact, what they were looking at to determine if there was a difference between the two groups of people, i.e., did thos who would have died without intervention report the same number of experiences as those who were not in danger.


Not as evidence of anything except as having occurred. The study was an attempt to quantify the experiences.


Given that your first three links do not show what you claim they show, I see little reason to view the rest of your list, and I fully expect you to pretend I have misunderstood something while it is painfully obvious you have as little knowledge of the sources you link as Jabba does of his.

The links clearly demonstrate the claim that NDE anecdotal evidence can be used to support / dismiss scientific hypothesis. Nowhere does that claim have to include the hypothesis that NDE events are authentic in and of themselve. Wherever 'experiences' occur, anecdotal evidence (by definition) happens (unless you know of some magical scanning technology that has the capacity to explicitly adjudicate subjective experience such that 'descriptions' [aka: anecdotes] are no longer necessary).

Even in those studies which confine themselves to physiological issues...the anecdotal evidence is still crucial if for no other reason than that self-report (aka: anecdotal evidence) is essential to recognizing what specific cognitive activity is occurring.

 

[annnnoid]

Do you consider my posts in this thread to be anecdotes?

They are anecdotal. They are personal accounts. As the question points out, they are explicit evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, experiencing, when you wrote them.

THAT is the point. Even if you refuse to use the word 'anecdote'...it changes nothing. Your posts are STILL explicit evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, experiencing...when you wrote them.

They are evidence...by definition and default.

 

[annnnoid]

Ask yourself whether or not I love my wife, and you shall have your answer.

So basically...your philosophy reduces to..."I always expect everyone else to be lying."

...I'm sure that is a recipe for a truly happy life.

 

[Garrette]

The links clearly demonstrate the claim that NDE anecdotal evidence can be used to support / dismiss scientific hypothesis.

No, they most assuredly do not. They are used, in your links remember, in the development of they hypothesis.

Nowhere does that claim have to include the hypothesis that NDE events are authentic in and of themselve.

I have not said they do.

Wherever 'experiences' occur, anecdotal evidence (by definition) happens (unless you know of some magical scanning technology that has the capacity to explicitly adjudicate subjective experience such that 'descriptions' [aka: anecdotes] are no longer necessary).

Yes. That much is simultaneously obvious, undisputed, and non-supportive of your claim.

Even in those studies which confine themselves to physiological issues...the anecdotal evidence is still crucial if for no other reason than that self-report (aka: anecdotal evidence) is essential to recognizing what specific cognitive activity is occurring.

No. In your third link they are used to develop metrics in regard to the anecdotes themselves.


Let's be hypothetical with our anecdotes:

10 people spend the weekend in a cabin, dark woods. Afterward, five of the people report seeing a Whatsit while five report no such thing.


The analogy with your first link would be comparing the socio-economic and health backgrounds of the group reporting a sighting of a Whatsit with the socio-economic and health backgrounds of the group not reporting a sighting.

The analogy with your second link would be comparing how much the group reporting a sighting of a Whatsit had to drink with how much the group not reporting a sighting had to drink.

The analogy with your third link would be the creation of a chart which measures the subjective certainty of the sightings along with details of the supposed sightings, e.g., size of the Whatsit, color of the Whatsit, etc.


What hypothesis in any of those scenarios are the anecdotes supporting?

ETA: You have yet to acknowledge that your links do not say what you claimed they said. It would be help to provide some reason for continuing this discussion if you were to do so.

 

[annnnoid]

No, they most assuredly do not. They are used, in your links remember, in the development of they hypothesis.


I have not said they do.


Yes. That much is simultaneously obvious, undisputed, and non-supportive of your claim.


No. In your third link they are used to develop metrics in regard to the anecdotes themselves.


Let's be hypothetical with our anecdotes:

10 people spend the weekend in a cabin, dark woods. Afterward, five of the people report seeing a Whatsit while five report no such thing.


The analogy with your first link would be comparing the socio-economic and health backgrounds of the group reporting a sighting of a Whatsit with the socio-economic and health backgrounds of the group not reporting a sighting.

The analogy with your second link would be comparing how much the group reporting a sighting of a Whatsit had to drink with how much the group not reporting a sighting had to drink.

The analogy with your third link would be the creation of a chart which measures the subjective certainty of the sightings along with details of the supposed sightings, e.g., size of the Whatsit, color of the Whatsit, etc.


What hypothesis in any of those scenarios are the anecdotes supporting?

ETA: You have yet to acknowledge that your links do not say what you claimed they said. It would be help to provide some reason for continuing this discussion if you were to do so.

The anecdotal information is used evidentially in some way shape or form in every study. The entire premise of every study is anecdotal BY DEFAULT…since the ONLY way we know of NDE events is anecdotally. The only way the various subjective features of NDE experiences (many of which are referenced in those studies) can be communicated is anecdotally.

…so each study begins by implicitly acknowledging the anecdotal veracity of NDE evidence. That these claims occur and that they describe unique conditions. If NDE anecdotal evidence did NOT support / dismiss scientific hypothesis…then…none of those studies would even happen.

Just by happening each of those studies has ALREADY confirmed that NDE anecdotal evidence is used to support / dismiss a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Garrette]

The anecdotal information is used evidentially in some way shape or form in every study. The entire premise of every study is anecdotal BY DEFAULT…since the ONLY way we know of NDE events is anecdotally. The only way the various subjective features of NDE experiences (many of which are referenced in those studies) can be communicated is anecdotally.

…so each study begins by implicitly acknowledging the anecdotal veracity of NDE evidence. That these claims occur and that they describe unique conditions. If NDE anecdotal evidence did NOT support / dismiss scientific hypothesis…then…none of those studies would even happen.

Just by happening each of those studies has ALREADY confirmed that NDE anecdotal evidence is used to support / dismiss a scientific hypothesis.

This is not shifting the goalposts; it is removing them from the field entirely and claiming that anyone who claims to have seen the ball has scored a point.

 

[JayUtah]

The anecdotal information is used evidentially in some way shape or form in every study.

But none of them in the same way Jabba hopes to use it here. You keep bonking on this straw man.

 

[Hokulele]

They are anecdotal. They are personal accounts. As the question points out, they are explicit evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, experiencing, when you wrote them.

THAT is the point. Even if you refuse to use the word 'anecdote'...it changes nothing. Your posts are STILL explicit evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, experiencing...when you wrote them.

They are evidence...by definition and default.

Incorrect and incorrect. Anecdote has a very specific definition. It is not "anything written by anyone, ever".

 

[annnnoid]

This is not shifting the goalposts; it is removing them from the field entirely and claiming that anyone who claims to have seen the ball has scored a point.

Some of the studies explore physiological issues…which establishes that the reports themselves have evidentiary relevance (if they didn’t…why do any studies????).

Some of the studies explore the cognitive issues…which establishes that the contents of the reports have evidentiary relevance (if it didn’t …why reference the contents???).

…all of the studies begin with the assumption that ‘something of sufficient relevance has occurred to warrant this study.’

The ONLY reason that assumption occurs is because someone has had an NDE experience and generated an anecdotal report of it.

The anecdotal information (aka: evidence) precipitates the physiological study and often informs what specific neural issues are explored…and the anecdotal information (aka: evidence) precipitates the cognitive study and, to a much greater degree, informs what cognitive issues are involved.

NDE anecdotal evidence supports / dismisses scientific hypothesis.

 

[annnnoid]

Incorrect and incorrect. Anecdote has a very specific definition. It is not "anything written by anyone, ever".

You are over-rationalizing.

...and this changes nothing. Your posts are STILL explicit evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, experiencing...when you wrote them.

 

[Garrette]

Some of the studies explore physiological issues…which establishes that the reports themselves have evidentiary relevance (if they didn’t…why do any studies????).

Some of the studies explore the cognitive issues…which establishes that the contents of the reports have evidentiary relevance (if it didn’t …why reference the contents???).

…all of the studies begin with the assumption that ‘something of sufficient relevance has occurred to warrant this study.’

The ONLY reason that assumption occurs is because someone has had an NDE experience and generated an anecdotal report of it.

The anecdotal information (aka: evidence) precipitates the physiological study and often informs what specific neural issues are explored…and the anecdotal information (aka: evidence) precipitates the cognitive study and, to a much greater degree, informs what cognitive issues are involved.

NDE anecdotal evidence supports / dismisses scientific hypothesis.

Anecdotes are evidence that there are anecdotes, yes, which is what your post boils down to. If that's your claim, then you win; I won't disagree.

Anecdotes help inform the development of hypotheses, yes. If that's your claim, then you win; I won't disagree (though I will point out that no one has disagreed with that).

However, in the general case, anecdotes do not provide evidence for a hypothesis, so if that is your claim, we disagree, and we will not even be able to have that discussion until you specify your definition of it; as others have pointed out, you have not presented a consistent usage.

In specific cases, it is perhaps possible for anecdotes to provide evidence, and that is what is at stake in this thread. Sadly for Jabba, that does not apply to any of his specific cases.

As to the mere fact that a study was conducted being evidence that an anecdote is evidence, I'm afraid I have to disagree. You ascribe to interest a basis which is not necessarily there.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So basically...your philosophy reduces to..."I always expect everyone else to be lying."

...I'm sure that is a recipe for a truly happy life.

Straw man which spectacularly misses the point. Since I've explicated the point more than once, I can only assume that this is wilful on your part.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Your posts are STILL explicit evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, experiencing...when you wrote them.

Then you should have no trouble whatsoever assessing whether or not I love my wife.

 

[Hokulele]

You are over-rationalizing.

...and this changes nothing. Your posts are STILL explicit evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, experiencing...when you wrote them.

Which is a completely different claim than "anecdotes support/dismiss a scientific hypothesis".

 

[JayUtah]

As to the mere fact that a study was conducted being evidence that an anecdote is evidence, I'm afraid I have to disagree.

Me too. I don't think "supports" means "bears whatever superficial relationship I can think of to...".