Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Fudbucker]

ok, so please clarify... do you consider anecdotes on par with controlled clinical trials as far as the quality of the evidentiary evidence they provide?

Depends on the trial. Anecdotes won't be important in testing a new cancer drug. But they'll be indispensable in testing a new anti-depressant.

 

[annnnoid]

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.

How is it even remotely possible to describe this as a ‘mere fact!’

Entire study’s were developed based not just on the fact that anecdotes had evidential relevance (the veracity of which many here still have yet to decide)…but that they were NDE anecdotes. It’s not some random act. They looked at the NDE evidence (which is all-but exclusively anecdotal) and came to the conclusion that the evidence was substantial enough to develop not just general physiological studies…but specifically NDE-related physiological AND cognitive studies.

ALL of those studies are explicitly NDE related. Many of them explicitly reference the content of the anecdotes as well as the simple occurrence of the events.

So it’s anything but a ‘mere fact’….!

…and since the other thread is closed…I’m going to include a response to something you included over there. You made the following comment:

“On your third point, no, not by themselves. It is only in conjunction with other factors that you can remotely say this.”

You just finished agreeing that “if something raises the probability of something from 1% to 1.01% then it is by definition evidence.”

The quality and content of virtually any anecdote can, all by itself, describe legitimate avenues of neural (as well as cognitive) speculation (hypothesis) far beyond a .01% degree of accuracy (and this is trivially easy to demonstrate)…so this conclusion is simply false.

You also included the following comments:

“As I said in the other thread, if you are arguing that anecdotes are evidence that anecdotes exist, I agree. As to your second point, I can agree with that, too, or at least close enough to not worry about the quibbles that would inevitably arise if we delved into it.

On your fourth point, possibly, and that has been what is discussed.”


…and since you have already agreed that “if something raises (changes) the probability of something from 1% to 1.01% then it is by definition evidence.”…you have essentially argued that anecdotal evidence, of ANY kind, IS valid evidence.

…because…ANY piece of anecdotal evidence can raise / change the probability of a relevant conclusion. Which…if any of you have taken the time to read the definition of ‘evidence’ … is exactly what it says.

Evidence is whatever generates a conclusion.

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

…what I now have no trouble assessing is that you have admitted that you blatantly lie. Having made that admission, your credibility has arrived at zero so I haven’t a clue whether you love your wife or not. I rather doubt there is a single thing that you could say in the future that would influence me to change that conclusion.

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

Irrespective of whether the claim is or is not different (which I shall address shortly) …are or are not your posts evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, and / or experiencing when you wrote them?

This is the silliest derail in the history of silly derails.

The word "anecdote" is being stretched nearly to the breaking point.

…only because all of you consistently refuse to acknowledge what is blindingly obvious: People describe what they are thinking / feeling / experiencing. That is the relevant issue (in relation to specifically NDE anecdotes).

Whether you want to refer to that meaning as an anecdote, rabbit turd, or purple fairy dust is irrelevant. That is what is being referenced here.

The word "evidence" has lost all meaning.

The word ‘evidence’ has always meant exactly the same thing: whatever generates a conclusion. You all just can’t seem to live with that…constantly insisting that your own posts are somehow not evidence of what you are thinking / feeling /experiencing. How anyone can possibly come to such a conclusion is utterly beyond me.

And nowhere in any of it do we find any support whatsoever for the concept that NDE's show immateriality. Jabba has yet to move the needle off zero on that. And that is the only thing that matters to this thread.

…NDE’s quite explicitly show immateriality…within certain constrained hypothesis. You can challenge those hypothesis till you’re blue in the face (and you will ultimately be unsuccessful…just as they will ultimately be unsuccessful in establishing a significant probability of certainty)…what you CANNOT do is challenge the indisputable FACT that NDE anecdotal evidence is, BY DEFINITION…evidence…AND that it can support not just hypothesis but scientific hypothesis.

In case it has escaped your attention (and considering the fact that you’re a lawyer it is rather surprising that it has)…but there is no law that says that the evidence used to initiate and / or support a scientific hypothesis HAS to be 100% verifiable, falsifiable, and quantifiable. In fact…a vast amount of scientific research references evidence that does not qualify for a single one of this lofty standards (and this is a documented fact).

…I wonder how they managed to get all that by the science gods!

 

[abaddon]

How is it even remotely possible to describe this as a ‘mere fact!’

Entire study’s were developed based not just on the fact that anecdotes had evidential relevance (the veracity of which many here still have yet to decide)…but that they were NDE anecdotes. It’s not some random act. They looked at the NDE evidence (which is all-but exclusively anecdotal) and came to the conclusion that the evidence was substantial enough to develop not just general physiological studies…but specifically NDE-related physiological AND cognitive studies.

ALL of those studies are explicitly NDE related. Many of them explicitly reference the content of the anecdotes as well as the simple occurrence of the events.

So it’s anything but a ‘mere fact’….!

…and since the other thread is closed…I’m going to include a response to something you included over there. You made the following comment:

“On your third point, no, not by themselves. It is only in conjunction with other factors that you can remotely say this.”

You just finished agreeing that “if something raises the probability of something from 1% to 1.01% then it is by definition evidence.”

The quality and content of virtually any anecdote can, all by itself, describe legitimate avenues of neural (as well as cognitive) speculation (hypothesis) far beyond a .01% degree of accuracy (and this is trivially easy to demonstrate)…so this conclusion is simply false.

You also included the following comments:

“As I said in the other thread, if you are arguing that anecdotes are evidence that anecdotes exist, I agree. As to your second point, I can agree with that, too, or at least close enough to not worry about the quibbles that would inevitably arise if we delved into it.

On your fourth point, possibly, and that has been what is discussed.”


…and since you have already agreed that “if something raises (changes) the probability of something from 1% to 1.01% then it is by definition evidence.”…you have essentially argued that anecdotal evidence, of ANY kind, IS valid evidence.

…because…ANY piece of anecdotal evidence can raise / change the probability of a relevant conclusion. Which…if any of you have taken the time to read the definition of ‘evidence’ … is exactly what it says.

Evidence is whatever generates a conclusion.




…what I now have no trouble assessing is that you have admitted that you blatantly lie. Having made that admission, your credibility has arrived at zero so I haven’t a clue whether you love your wife or not. I rather doubt there is a single thing that you could say in the future that would influence me to change that conclusion.




Irrespective of whether the claim is or is not different (which I shall address shortly) …are or are not your posts evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, and / or experiencing when you wrote them?




…only because all of you consistently refuse to acknowledge what is blindingly obvious: People describe what they are thinking / feeling / experiencing. That is the relevant issue (in relation to specifically NDE anecdotes).

Whether you want to refer to that meaning as an anecdote, rabbit turd, or purple fairy dust is irrelevant. That is what is being referenced here.




The word ‘evidence’ has always meant exactly the same thing: whatever generates a conclusion. You all just can’t seem to live with that…constantly insisting that your own posts are somehow not evidence of what you are thinking / feeling /experiencing. How anyone can possibly come to such a conclusion is utterly beyond me.




…NDE’s quite explicitly show immateriality…within certain constrained hypothesis. You can challenge those hypothesis till you’re blue in the face (and you will ultimately be unsuccessful…just as they will ultimately be unsuccessful in establishing a significant probability of certainty)…what you CANNOT do is challenge the indisputable FACT that NDE anecdotal evidence is, BY DEFINITION…evidence…AND that it can support not just hypothesis but scientific hypothesis.

In case it has escaped your attention (and considering the fact that you’re a lawyer it is rather surprising that it has)…but there is no law that says that the evidence used to initiate and / or support a scientific hypothesis HAS to be 100% verifiable, falsifiable, and quantifiable. In fact…a vast amount of scientific research references evidence that does not qualify for a single one of this lofty standards (and this is a documented fact).

…I wonder how they managed to get all that by the science gods!

Why then do you still believe in a soul?

 

[Jedi]

Depends on the trial. Anecdotes won't be important in testing a new cancer drug. But they'll be indispensable in testing a new anti-depressant.

I reread and saw that you are agreeing that controlled clinical trials provide better quality evidentiary evidence than anecdotes. ok.

 

[Fudbucker]

I reread and saw that you are agreeing that controlled clinical trials provide better quality evidentiary evidence than anecdotes. ok.

Try rereading again

 

[jt512]

ok, so please clarify... do you consider anecdotes on par with controlled clinical trials as far as the quality of the evidentiary evidence they provide?

No. Of course not, in general. But, we have to be careful, because there are a lot of terrible clinical trials.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/201218

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1902230

 

[Sideroxylon]

Annecdotes on par with terible clinical trials. Sounds fair. Neither are basis for belief.

 

[Jedi]

Try rereading again

ok fair enough. but i wasn't asking about 'important' or 'indispensable.' in fact I think anecdotes, on their own, are always good to know for a variety of reasons that doesn't include evidence. what I was asking was:
whether you consider anecdotes on par with controlled clinical trials as far as the quality of the evidentiary evidence they provide?

 

[Jedi]

Annecdotes on par with terible clinical trials. Sounds fair. Neither are basis for belief.

yes, anecdotes are on par with 'terrible' clinical trials

 

[Jedi]

No. Of course not, in general. But, we have to be careful, because there are a lot of terrible clinical trials.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/201218

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1902230

ok, yes, i agree with you on that. but note that unlike anecdotes, clinical trials are repeatable and falsifiable, which is what those articles you posted are demonstrating. anecdotes are neither repeatable nor falsifiable on their own, which is another reason why the evidence they provide is dubious.

therefore, I still contend that anecdotes can provide nothing more than a starting point; their use is to help come up with hypotheses to test. they offer no evidentiary evidence, in line with quote in the Wiki article from Riffenburgh's book "Statistics in medicine'

"Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[9] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence."

and this is my point regarding the OP. anecdotes can never be used as validating evidence.

 

[Hokulele]

@Annnnoid

Do you consider every single one of my posts to be anecdotes?

 

[Fudbucker]

ok fair enough. but i wasn't asking about 'important' or 'indispensable.' in fact I think anecdotes, on their own, are always good to know for a variety of reasons that doesn't include evidence. what I was asking was:
whether you consider anecdotes on par with controlled clinical trials as far as the quality of the evidentiary evidence they provide?

Again, it depends on the type of trial you're doing.

 

[Jedi]

Again, it depends on the type of trial you're doing.

ok. can you give an example of a trial in which anecdotal evidence is on par/better than a controlled study as far as the quality of the evidentiary evidence it provides? I'm not disagreeing, but an example would help me see your point.

 

[annnnoid]

@Annnnoid

Do you consider every single one of my posts to be anecdotes?

You have already asked this question. I have already answered it. When you want to get around to answering the question I've presented...what is it now ... 15 or 20 times....then we can continue this discussion.

 

[Nonpareil]

Depends on the trial. Anecdotes won't be important in testing a new cancer drug. But they'll be indispensable in testing a new anti-depressant.

Even then, this is not anecdotal evidence.

As has been explained, there is a difference between using the fact that people have reported a certain thing as evidence and using the thing reported as evidence. The former is a verifiable behavior; the latter is an unconfirmed claim.

If I were to tell you that I feel sad, this would indeed be evidence - not conclusive evidence, but evidence - that I was feeling sad. But this is not because what I said is evidence of that in and of itself. It is because reporting feelings of sadness is behavior consistent with being sad.

And this still gets no one any closer to proving immortality via reports of near-death experiences.

Entire study’s were developed based not just on the fact that anecdotes had evidential relevance

Only inasmuch as they show that there is something to investigate, which has already been repeatedly admitted - and then dismissed as trivial and irrelevant.

Because they have no ability whatsoever to act as indicators of what that something actually is. None.

…and since the other thread is closed…I’m going to include a response to something you included over there. You made the following comment:

“On your third point, no, not by themselves. It is only in conjunction with other factors that you can remotely say this.”

You just finished agreeing that “if something raises the probability of something from 1% to 1.01% then it is by definition evidence.”

The quality and content of virtually any anecdote can, all by itself, describe legitimate avenues of neural (as well as cognitive) speculation (hypothesis) far beyond a .01% degree of accuracy (and this is trivially easy to demonstrate)…so this conclusion is simply false.

Gibberish.

…and since you have already agreed that “if something raises (changes) the probability of something from 1% to 1.01% then it is by definition evidence.”…you have essentially argued that anecdotal evidence, of ANY kind, IS valid evidence.

Don't try to tell anyone else what their argument is, annnnoid. You have yet to even get your own straight.

…because…ANY piece of anecdotal evidence can raise / change the probability of a relevant conclusion.

No, it can't. It can raise or change your personal confidence in any given hypothesis.

They are not the same thing, no matter how much you try to equivocate between them.

This is the silliest derail in the history of silly derails.

The word "anecdote" is being stretched nearly to the breaking point.

…only because all of you consistently refuse to acknowledge what is blindingly obvious: People describe what they are thinking / feeling / experiencing. That is the relevant issue (in relation to specifically NDE anecdotes).

Whether you want to refer to that meaning as an anecdote, rabbit turd, or purple fairy dust is irrelevant. That is what is being referenced here.

The word "evidence" has lost all meaning.

The word ‘evidence’ has always meant exactly the same thing: whatever generates a conclusion.

And, for those who have somehow missed every instance of it happening beforehand: annnnoid utterly fails to understand what the words "anecdote" and "evidence" mean. Under his definitions, "anecdote" is "literally anything anyone says, ever", while "evidence" is "literally anything that makes me think that something else might be true, regardless of any actual connection between the two things".

For those keeping score at home, the actual definitions are, respectively, "an unverified report" and "something which supports the logical inference or deduction of a given conclusion".

This is the same pointless semantic game that annnnoid has been playing for years, across a dozen arguments in a dozen threads. It never changes. It never improves. It always falls at the same hurdles. And it is always nothing but fallacious equivocation.

Unfortunately, the rules of logic are not going to change themselves around to suit him any time soon.

 

[Hokulele]

You have already asked this question. I have already answered it. When you want to get around to answering the question I've presented...what is it now ... 15 or 20 times....then we can continue this discussion.

No, you equivocated.

Is the above statement also an anecdote?

 

[Fudbucker]

Even then, this is not anecdotal evidence.

As has been explained, there is a difference between using the fact that people have reported a certain thing as evidence and using the thing reported as evidence. The former is a verifiable behavior; the latter is an unconfirmed claim.

If I were to tell you that I feel sad, this would indeed be evidence - not conclusive evidence, but evidence - that I was feeling sad. But this is not because what I said is evidence of that in and of itself. It is because reporting feelings of sadness is behavior consistent with being sad.

And yet nobody acts like this. If someone tells you they're sad, don't you take them at face value? Isn't that enough? Do you need to see crying before you're convinced? I don't how you interact with people, but when someone reports an emotion to me, I don't need further convincing. I'm guessing that in 99% of the interactions you have, you don't demand further evidence when someone claims they're feeling a certain way.

 

[jt512]

ok, yes, i agree with you on that. but note that unlike anecdotes, clinical trials are repeatable and falsifiable, which is what those articles you posted are demonstrating. anecdotes are neither repeatable nor falsifiable on their own, which is another reason why the evidence they provide is dubious.

therefore, I still contend that anecdotes can provide nothing more than a starting point; their use is to help come up with hypotheses to test. they offer no evidentiary evidence, in line with quote in the Wiki article from Riffenburgh's book "Statistics in medicine'

"Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[9] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence."

and this is my point regarding the OP. anecdotes can never be used as validating evidence.

I have never said that anecdotal evidence is "validating evidence," since there is special category "validating evidence" in statistics. Indeed, the phrase "validating evidence" does not appear anywhere in the current (3rd) edition of the book you cite.

What I have said (over and over again) is that anecdotal evidence is evidence, a fact with which your very own source explicitly agrees:

"The accumulating information resulting from medical studies is evidence. Some types of study yield more credible evidence than others. Anecdotal evidence, often dismissed by users seeking scientific information, is the least credible, yet is still evidence." [emphasis added] [1]

Are we done now?

______________

1. Riffenburgh R. (2012). Statistics in Medicine, 3rd ed. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

 

[Nonpareil]

And yet nobody acts like this.

How you act in day-to-day life is irrelevant here. You are free to be as irrational as you like in your everyday activities. I do not care, and it has absolutely no bearing on the argument in hand.

For the record, however, yes, this is how people act.

If someone tells you they're sad, don't you take them at face value? Isn't that enough?

No. I determine someone's attitude through observing their actions. As I have already mentioned, saying "I am sad" is one of these actions, and one of those that can lead to the conclusion that they are sad, but it is hardly the only one, or even a particularly convincing one.

You do this as well, of course. If someone says "I'm sad" while grinning from ear to ear, you wouldn't take that at face value. Perhaps you would believe it, after examining their behavior more closely. Perhaps you wouldn't.

But it doesn't ultimately matter which you choose, because the point is that you drew the conclusion based on observed behaviors. You do this all the time. It is simply that, in most cases, doing so is trivial and requires no active, conscious thought on your part, so it's easy to simply skip over it entirely when examining your thought processes and say "well I just believe them outright obviously".

You don't. But, even if you did, that wouldn't make it right.

 

[Fudbucker]

How you act in day-to-day life is irrelevant here. You are free to be as irrational as you like in your everyday activities. I do not care, and it has absolutely no bearing on the argument in hand.

For the record, however, yes, this is how people act.



No. I determine someone's attitude through observing their actions. As I have already mentioned, saying "I am sad" is one of these actions, and one of those that can lead to the conclusion that they are sad, but it is hardly the only one, or even a particularly convincing one.

You do this as well, of course. If someone says "I'm sad" while grinning from ear to ear, you wouldn't take that at face value. Perhaps you would believe it, after examining their behavior more closely. Perhaps you wouldn't.

But it doesn't ultimately matter which you choose, because the point is that you drew the conclusion based on observed behaviors. You do this all the time. It is simply that, in most cases, doing so is trivial and requires no active, conscious thought on your part, so it's easy to simply skip over it entirely when examining your thought processes and say "well I just believe them outright obviously".

You don't. But, even if you did, that wouldn't make it right.

Except when people on Facebook or text me me how they're feeling, I still take it face value. You do too. So this whole "observed behaviors" tangent is a red herring.

Just admit that anecdotes can be evidence. It's not like it's controversial.