• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Empirical Proofs of reincarnation.

theprestige said:
I dunno. "Philosophy Thread" seems prejudicial to me.
Click to expand...

I think we have to be at least a bit euphemistic and vague. "Buddha's sermons. Don't bother responding, he won't listen," may be more accurate and technically not contain a value judgement, but it's still just a bit rude.
 
halleyscomet said:
I think we have to be at least a bit euphemistic and vague. "Buddha's sermons. Don't bother responding, he won't listen," may be more accurate and technically not contain a value judgement, but it's still just a bit rude.
Click to expand...

Regrettably, the self-aggrandising user name chosen by "Buddha" (meaning "the enlightened") makes it possible for people to mistake those thread names with criticism on specific religions.

I find his user name extremely disrespectful.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Regrettably, the self-aggrandising user name chosen by "Buddha" (meaning "the enlightened") makes it possible for people to mistake those thread names with criticism on specific religions.

I find his user name extremely disrespectful.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. "Philosophical Ejaculations" would be a good name, if not for the fact that very few people these days think "to utter suddenly and briefly; exclaim" when they read the second word.

What about "Ouroboros?" It hints at the mystical aspects of the conversations, while warning people of the endlessly looping nature of the woo-woo claims made within, all without making a value judgement on the arguments themselves.

Since reincarnation and the notion of an endless deity are part of the discussions held within, the Ouroboros association with death/rebirth and natural cycles would make it a good fit.
 
halleyscomet said:
That's a very good point. "Philosophical Ejaculations" would be a good name, if not for the fact that very few people these days think "to utter suddenly and briefly; exclaim" when they read the second word.
Click to expand...

Either meaning convey the misleading notion that each sub-thread will end sooner or in proper time and never later, as it is always the case.

halleyscomet said:
What about "Ouroboros?" It hints at the mystical aspects of the conversations, while warning people of the endlessly looping nature of the woo-woo claims made within, all without making a value judgement on the arguments themselves.

Since reincarnation and the notion of an endless deity are part of the discussions held within, the Ouroboros association with death/rebirth and natural cycles would make it a good fit.
Click to expand...

Let that name for making Tiffany lamps. I propose "merged: the shaggy-dog stories started by user 'Buddha' thread".
 
aleCcowaN said:
Either meaning convey the misleading notion that each sub-thread will end sooner or in proper time and never later, as it is always the case.



Let that name for making Tiffany lamps. I propose "merged: the shaggy-dog stories started by user 'Buddha' thread".
Click to expand...

Merged: The Orphanage for recycled arguments.
 
Buddha v. Popper, since that seems to be where all his threads head -- with due acknowledgement that his choice of user name makes conversation awkward. Since the telekinesis thread is guaranteed to hit PEAR@Princeton heavily, and since the decades-old debunking of that nonsense requires understanding the ins and outs of practical empirical methods, I'm sure "But I think Popper is garbage" is probably going to be a fairly common deflection.

For those who don't want to read the previous threads, PEAR was one guy's labor of love at Princeton, largely privately funded but using Princeton's facilities and prestige to maintain altitude for that guy's useful career. It purported to show a weak statistical significance for a hypothesis of telekinesis. Most of that unraveled when meta-analysis showed the purported effect was attributed almost entirely to one subject, thought to be one of PEAR's staffers. When that subject was eliminated, the "telekinesis" effect shrank back into the statistical noise. Further criticism pointed to papers that were long on hype but short on descriptions and validations of its methodology and controls -- stuff that Buddha the Claimant would find familiar.
 
JayUtah said:
For those who don't want to read the previous threads, PEAR was one guy's labor of love at Princeton, largely privately funded but using Princeton's facilities and prestige to maintain altitude for that guy's useful career. It purported to show a weak statistical significance for a hypothesis of telekinesis. Most of that unraveled when meta-analysis showed the purported effect was attributed almost entirely to one subject, thought to be one of PEAR's staffers. When that subject was eliminated, the "telekinesis" effect shrank back into the statistical noise. Further criticism pointed to papers that were long on hype but short on descriptions and validations of its methodology and controls -- stuff that Buddha the Claimant would find familiar.
Click to expand...

0.05% iirc, not exactly the outer reaches of the bell curve. And of course the issue that if telekinesis is real why not demonstrate it by causing an effect (even a small one) with no other reasonable explanation rather than relying on effects adequately explained by chance.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
0.05% iirc, not exactly the outer reaches of the bell curve.
Click to expand...

And I recall it shrank to 0.01% after the anomalous subject was disregarded.

And of course the issue that if telekinesis is real why not demonstrate it by causing an effect (even a small one) with no other reasonable explanation rather than relying on effects adequately explained by chance.
Click to expand...

That's why the PEAR researchers were rightly criticized for their experiment design and for jumping to conclusions.

I'm sure Buddha will have reasonable explanations for all those problems when and if he gets around to posting again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom