Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[wollery]

Sorry. I meant "case report," not "case history." Wikipedia states that "n medicine, a case report is a detailed report of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient."

Such a case report, if used as evidence to support a hypothesis of the effectiveness of a treatment would be anecdotal. Say a doctor has a hypothesis that a treatment causes improvement in a disease, say hypertension. The doctor checks one hypertension patient's blood pressure, perhaps over several visits; then gives the patient the treatment; then checks the patient's blood pressure, perhaps again several times; and the doctor finds that the patient's blood pressure has decreased. The doctor writes up the case report and gets it published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The report is anecdotal evidence that the treatment worked. It's completely uncontrolled: the improvement cannot be ascribed to the treatment with anything near the degree of confidence required by the customary standards of medicine.

Certainly, such a case report would have some evidential value for the hypothesis, but the evidence is anecdotal, at least as the term is usually used in medicine. Here you will find a compilation of the definition of "anecdotal" from various medical dictionaries. The majority of the medical dictionaries define the term as meaning data from a single case in contrast with a formal controlled study.

In which case the medical profession are using anecdotal in a different sense to the rest of the scientific community.

 

[Jabba]

Hokulele,
-Thanks -- but, I don't think that denies that they are not evidence, or that they do not support immateriality.
- From https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=prima facie definition.
-Prima facie: based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
- Sabom wasn't claiming that the implications of the studies were necessarily correct. He was just claiming that there were implications of the studies, and that they implied that the reports given were not just the result of prior knowledge.

Jabba -

Whatever you're talking about, it doesn't matter. Neither of these "studies" did anything to rule out low brain activity memory. Neither of these "studies" did anything to limit themselves to information that could only be obtained without physical senses. They are unfalsifiable in relation to immateriality. Whatever they say, they do not rule out physical perception so that the information could only be obtained immaterially.

In fact, they seem to agree with the AWARE study. People who are conscious enough to have NDE's are more likely to consciously or unconsciously remember sensory input than people who aren't. That doesn't help you. None of this helps you.

There is no falsifiable evidence of immateriality. There is no reason to believe it even might exist. Our confidence in the material model of consciousness still stands at 100%.

Instead of begging for someone to agree with something, try this: Admit that no argument by anyone can change your mind. Admit you believe this as an article of faith. Trust me, you'll feel better just saying it.

LL,
- But, evidence against a claim does not need to rule out the claim.

 

[John Jones]

LL,
- But, evidence against a claim does not need to rule out the claim.

I sense another equivocation coming.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Great sideshow you got going here, Jabba. Fine distraction from the utter failure of your Bayesian proof attempt.

 

[Belz...]

LL,
- But, evidence against a claim does not need to rule out the claim.

Claim has no evidence in its favour, only anecdotes, and plenty of evidence against. It may not be ruled out but it is rightly discarded until further evidence can be discovered.

 

[Jabba]

Claim has no evidence in its favour, only anecdotes, and plenty of evidence against. It may not be ruled out but it is rightly discarded until further evidence can be discovered.

Argumemnon,
- There is some evidence in favor of immateriality, and this evidence is appropriately considered when estimating the prior probability of immateriality.

 

[annnnoid]

As has been pointed out several times, all this talk of annecdotes and we are a million miles away from the crucial fact that people's reported experiences following serious bodily trauma are no evidence of life after death.

Of course they are. What so many of you fail to comprehend is the blindingly obvious fact that there is good evidence and there is not-so-good evidence ... and there are an infinite range of variations in between. Ultimately...the choice is subjective, NOT objective.

Anyone anywhere is entirely free to look at "people's reported experiences" and come to any conclusion they want. Life after death, little purple fairies, Chewbacca lives inside my head...anything.

In case it has escaped your attention...there is no omnipotent arbiter sitting on some distant mount Olympus of science or not-science who has the capacity to make absolute pronouncements on such issues.

IOW...there is no axiomatic mathematics of meaning. People decide....and as of right now, no one has a clue how that happens (thus, no mathematics of meaning). And the people are entirely free to come to conclusions that you flatly disagree with...and you will have absolutely nothing to say about it.

In fact...depending on the hypothesis in question...Bayesian reasoning can be used to support the hypothesis that NDE anecdotal evidence supports a life after death conclusion. The hypothesis in question may be fundamentally disputable...but that has nothing to do with the subsequent reasoning.

 

[annnnoid]

And this is basically what this entire thread has been reduced to. The application of Bayesian reasoning is not a function of the integrity of any hypothesis. The hypothesis can be straight from hell…the reasoning works just the same.

…which is why everyone here has resorted to challenging the question of the scientific (or otherwise) admissibility of the anecdotal evidence itself (…”we can’t verify it so it’s not legitimate evidence”…[patently contradictory reasoning by definition…but anyone who doesn’t understand that by now isn’t going to]).

And when that doesn't work...we get endless incoherent questions about the explicit meaning of the word ‘anecdote’…and the explicit meaning of the word ‘evidence’…and the explicit meaning of the word ‘meaning’…and the explicit meaning of the word ‘word’…and and and and and and…

Such is life in a world populated by individuals who supposedly subscribe to advanced standards of critical thinking!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Argumemnon,
- There is some evidence in favor of immateriality, and this evidence is appropriately considered when estimating the prior probability of immateriality.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

How is it that you continue to make the highlighted claim, and yet never, ever present such "evidence"?

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

I remain idefatigably yours, &ct.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- But, evidence against a claim does not need to rule out the claim.

Jabba,

That is exactly what falsifiability means . The evidence must rule out competing explanations.

Otherwise, the statement, "Water is wet," would be evidence for immateriality, because it doesn't rule immateriality out. That's not how logic works.

Stop looking for combinations of words that will magically create evidence. You don't have it. You can't continue with constructing any sort of logical argument.

 

[Nonpareil]

Lets see…according to Nonpareil…an anecdote is an ‘unverified report.’

I guess that makes your post an anecdote then…doesn’t it.

No.

Sorry. I meant "case report," not "case history." Wikipedia states that "n medicine, a case report is a detailed report of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient."

Such a case report, if used as evidence to support a hypothesis of the effectiveness of a treatment would be anecdotal. Say a doctor has a hypothesis that a treatment causes improvement in a disease, say hypertension. The doctor checks one hypertension patient's blood pressure, perhaps over several visits; then gives the patient the treatment; then checks the patient's blood pressure, perhaps again several times; and the doctor finds that the patient's blood pressure has decreased. The doctor writes up the case report and gets it published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The report is anecdotal evidence that the treatment worked.

That isn't what "anecdotal" means.

It may be the definition that they use specifically in the context of medicine, but it is in no way related to the discussion actually taking place here.

There is some evidence in favor of immateriality

No.

and this evidence is appropriately considered when estimating the prior probability of immateriality.

Your considerations are anything but appropriate.

Of course they are. What so many of you fail to comprehend is the blindingly obvious fact that there is good evidence and there is not-so-good evidence ... and there are an infinite range of variations in between. Ultimately...the choice is subjective, NOT objective.

Sorry, annnnoid, but the rules of logic do not change according to your feels.

Anyone anywhere is entirely free to look at "people's reported experiences" and come to any conclusion they want. Life after death, little purple fairies, Chewbacca lives inside my head...anything.

Anyone is also free to watch Star Wars and conclude that it was all real, because anyone telling a story that intricate and detailed must be speaking from experience.

That doesn't make Star Wars evidence of the existence of Alderaan.

And this is basically what this entire thread has been reduced to. The application of Bayesian reasoning is not a function of the integrity of any hypothesis. The hypothesis can be straight from hell…the reasoning works just the same.

…which is why everyone here has resorted to challenging the question of the scientific (or otherwise) admissibility of the anecdotal evidence itself

No. It has been challenged, from the beginning, because it is wrong.

And when that doesn't work...we get endless incoherent questions about the explicit meaning of the word ‘anecdote’…and the explicit meaning of the word ‘evidence’…and the explicit meaning of the word ‘meaning’…and the explicit meaning of the word ‘word’…and and and and and and…

Yes. Because you keep getting them wrong, annnnoid.

If you are irritated at people telling you what words mean, stop using them incorrectly.

This is not complicated.

 

[Jabba]

LL,
- But, evidence against a claim does not need to rule out the claim.

Jabba,

That is exactly what falsifiability means . The evidence must rule out competing explanations.

Otherwise, the statement, "Water is wet," would be evidence for immateriality, because it doesn't rule immateriality out. That's not how logic works.

Stop looking for combinations of words that will magically create evidence. You don't have it. You can't continue with constructing any sort of logical argument.

LL,
- This is certainly interesting...
- I think you're saying that "falsifiable evidence" is evidence that can prove an hypothesis false -- rather than, "evidence" that can be proven false. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Jabba]

My Dear Mr. Savage:

How is it that you continue to make the highlighted claim, and yet never, ever present such "evidence"?

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

I remain idefatigably yours, &ct.

Slowvehicle,

- You too!

- First, we need to agree upon what constitutes evidence.

 

[Nonpareil]

First, we need to agree upon what constitutes evidence.

Jesus take the wheel.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

- You too!

- First, we need to agree upon what constitutes evidence.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

It pains me, on this festal day, to have to disagree with you. "We" know what "constitutes evidence". You disagree, because you want your sincerely-held beliefs, your comfort-blankey, and your campfire tales to be granted the status of "evidence".

Refresh my memory, an you would be so kind: what "evidence" of "immateriality" have you presented? For that matter, what "evidence" of the mere existence of a "soul" (to say nothing of it's "immortality") have you presented?

I thank you for responding to my post.

Greet your family and co-celebrants with joy.

I remain about-to-log-off-and-go-brew-beer-ingly yours, &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jesus take the wheel.

Inorite?

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- There is some evidence in favor of immateriality

Let's see it, then.

Oh, that's right. You don't have this evidence and have admitted as such. Your feeble attempt at redefining "evidence" to include claims has been one of many, designed to hide the fact that, in the end, there is ZERO evidence in favour of immateriality, and you know it.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Jabba
Argumemnon,
- There is some evidence in favor of immateriality

Let's see it, then.

Oh, that's right. You don't have this evidence ......

Of course not, it's "immaterial".

 

[jaydeehess]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11600479&postcount=356

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
The op doesn't say anything about normative experience or more data. It says that anecdotes increase probability of a hypothesis << being correct>> . Fudbucker noted that evidence (in this case we are assuming said evidence is anecdotal) can equally apply to several hypotheses.
If at least two of those hypotheses are mutually exclusive then anecdotes are useless in terms of increasing the veracity of either hypothesis and the OP is not correct.

I think the NDE stories are interesting, and don't count as very good evidence for survival-after-death, but...

If I had a scientific-based view of the world, and just stumbled onto the NDE phenomenon, I would be surprised. I think it's very strange that so many people, after being resusccitated, come back with amazingly consistent apparently-spiritual experiences. When surprising evidence is discovered, it needs to be explained.

Would your science based view of the world include a spiritualist hypothesis, or any hypothesis that assumes the possibility of an plane of existence outside of the one that physics explores?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

annnnoid, you appear to have missed my questions in post #1596. Since you've complained at length about other people not answering questions you've posed, I'm sure you wouldn't have not answered them on purpose. Now you have the opportunity to do so. Thank you.