Chaos Magic

[PixyMisa]

Discrepancies? Physics, Biology, Chemistry,>>>>.

Of course, if we accept it as simply an anecdotal report of a hallucinatory episode modified by confirmation bias and confabulation, there's no conflict at all.

Happy with that, AkuManiMani?

 

[tsig]

I'm just saying that I've my own reasons for mocking Pixy and I'd prefer you not jump into the crossfire as I still maintain a degree of respect for you that I don't for him/her.

Wow, cheap manipulative tactics, "shut up or I won't like you".

 

[Nonpareil]

Wow, cheap manipulative tactics, "shut up or I won't like you".

Apathy: the ultimate defense!

 

[PixyMisa]

When was this ever about OBEs?

Well, it has been all about the value of anecdotes as evidence (i.e. not much) so in a sense, Malerin was actually on-topic.

 

[Malerin]

If it were doing something more than reporting a secondhand account, then yes, that would be evidence. As it is, it's nothing more than another anecdote.

Anecdotes are evidence. It's amazing how many "skeptics" here don't realize that.

ETA: More to the point, the authors of the paper thought it was reliable enough to be included in the paper itself.

 

[Nonpareil]

Anecdotes are evidence. It's amazing how many "skeptics" here don't realize that.

It's amazing how many believers here believe that.

 

[PixyMisa]

Anecdotes are evidence. It's amazing how many "skeptics" here don't realize that.

The question is, what are they evidence for?

 

[Malerin]

When was this ever about OBEs?

I thought we were talking about veridical supernatural experiences.

 

[AkuManiMani]

All scientific studies are just systematized and formalized anecdotes. Unless you're conducting a study for yourself you're simply placing a certain degree of trust in other peoples' word.

Quite correct. However, as studies are done in large groups and subject to peer review, the amount of falsification is very small. Otherwise it gets discovered and tossed out.

Malerin's quote was from a scientific study, yes, but it was a paragraph in that study reporting an anecdote from a nurse at the hospital where it took place. As it is not part of the actual data from the study (and the actual study did not attempt to verify it), it's nothing more than a secondhand account.

Granted. But, whether or not a particular anecdote is given the official sanction of a formal scientific community/institution is irrelevant to it's veracity. It simply means it does not have the backing and credibility of a community of individuals you trust.

Also, not everything is science is a laboratory enterprise [for example, the field studies of naturalists, or in the social sciences]. There are so many anecdotal cases out there along the lines of the one's I've just given [such as cases of OBEs, and alleged contacts with "spirit" entities] with so many parallels that they cry out for serious inquiry. Whether or not one wants to describe such accounts as "paranormal" or "mundane" there is clearly more going on than meets the eye. You may not find them interesting or worthy of consideration, but they personally itch my curiosity in the extreme.

 

[Mister Earl]

Anecdotes are evidence. It's amazing how many "skeptics" here don't realize that.

I've got a perfectly fine bridge to sell you. It's in great shape, the maintenance has not been neglected, has heavy traffic, and you'll be able to set any toll you want without interference.

 

[Zanders]

What I am interested in is how one would be able to find good evidence for contact with whatever these entities are. If they don't have psychic powers, but exist, what would convince people that there are entities like this that you can talk to?

And Malerin, I just got done talking to Jesus Christ and he told me that you are mistaken. The man has to be right, he is God in the flesh, so there is no arguing with that.

 

[Malerin]

The question is, what are they evidence for?

That depends on the anecdote and the person telling it.

 

[carlitos]

I'm not talking about psychics, I'm talking about interaction with non-human or discriminate entities.

What? Do you have evidence for this?

We don't. You reported an anecdotal experience. We gave you some plausible explanations. You became defensive, evasive, accusatory, and puerile. Why?

Come on dlorde, he's just shaking your all-knowing pedestal.
Obvious troll is obvious.

I mean really -

"here's a cool paranormal-type story"
"here's ten obvious explanations; happened to me too, nothing too weird..."
"nyah nyah nyah"
"here's ten more obvious explanations; also, why won't you share the details?"
"you don't even know why I posted that story; it might not be true."
" "
"don't you see why I posted this story, that might not even have happened?"
"so you're trolling?"
"no, and by the way, she told me this, and blah blah mind-**** head sparks ****"
"sounds like a seizure, here's what happened to me...."
"no this was different. i am special. seizures are for mere mortals."
" "

Anyway, cool story bro!



At this point, I think that even Limbo might be too embarrassed to post further.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I'm just saying that I've my own reasons for mocking Pixy and I'd prefer you not jump into the crossfire as I still maintain a degree of respect for you that I don't for him/her.

Well, quite frankly, you're going to have to put up with it. If you say something to Pixy that I feel like responding to, I'm going to respond to it.

Okay, we've an understanding then. Just giving you the heads up not to take my comments toward Pixy personally as my ire is not directed at you.

 

[Malerin]

It's amazing how many believers here believe that.

What, that anecdotes are evidence? You're kidding, right?

Eyewitness Testimony.

 

[Nonpareil]

\But, whether or not a particular anecdote is given the official sanction of a formal scientific community/institution is irrelevant to it's veracity.

I never said otherwise.

It simply means it does not have the backing and credibility of a community of individuals you trust.

Not exactly. It certainly doesn't, but that isn't the reason that it can't be accepted as evidence.

The reason it can't be accepted as evidence is that it simply hasn't been verified. There's no evidence supporting it. It's just the nurse's word that it's true, and even if they aren't lying, they have no evidence that they are remembering it correctly. It's the same problem that the anecdotes you have presented here have: there's no way to tell if you're telling the truth, or whether or not your memory of the event is false, or whether or not there's a mundane explanation. We don't have the information or evidence necessary to render judgment either way. Thus, it is not evidence for the paranormal.

Also, not everything is science is a laboratory enterprise [for example, the field studies of naturalists, or in the social sciences].

But their reported must be systematic, repeatable, and verifiable. Otherwise they can't support them. These areas of science get no special treatment. It's simply harder to collect data in them.

There are so many anecdotal cases out there along the lines of the one's I've just given [such as cases of OBEs, and alleged contacts with "spirit" entities] with so many parallels that they cry out for serious inquiry.

And serious inquiry has been given on multiple occasions. All the studies have turned up nothing, been discredited, or proven unrepeatable.

Whether or not one wants to describe such accounts as "paranormal" or "mundane" there is clearly more going on than meets the eye. You may not find them interesting or worthy of consideration, but they personally itch my curiosity in the extreme.

I never said that they weren't interesting or worthy of consideration. In fact, I find them extremely interesting. I simply said that they are not valid as evidence of the paranormal, and using them as a basis for belief in the paranormal is irrational.

 

[Zanders]

What? Do you have evidence for this?

Well, many people who delve in to these mystical concepts end up having these encounters that are very similar. How would we test it out if they can't present physical evidence?

 

[Malerin]

What I am interested in is how one would be able to find good evidence for contact with whatever these entities are. If they don't have psychic powers, but exist, what would convince people that there are entities like this that you can talk to?

And Malerin, I just got done talking to Jesus Christ and he told me that you are mistaken. The man has to be right, he is God in the flesh, so there is no arguing with that.

Not all anecdotal evidence is of equal value.

 

[Nonpareil]

What, that anecdotes are evidence? You're kidding, right?

Eyewitness Testimony.

If the testimony contradicts the evidence... guess which they believe.

If the testimony lacks supporting evidence... guess whether or not they believe it.

 

[Malerin]

If the testimony contradicts the evidence... guess which they believe.

Depends on the evidence and testimony. If 10 independent eyewitnesses saw the same individual rob and flee a store, but the physical evidence are tire tracks that don't match the suspect's car, I would guess the testimony would be believed- it's more likely the suspect changed tires at some later point.

If the testimony lacks supporting evidence... guess whether or not they believe it.

Again, it depends on the eyewitness testimony. Of course you want to corroborate it with other kinds of evidence. Sometimes you can't.

Note that I never claimed anecdotal evidence can't be trumped by other evidence. Obviously, it can. You claimed that it wasn't evidence. Obviously, you're wrong.

ETA: A simple case will suffice:

You're about to join a poker game. A trusted friend whispers to you, "I wouldn't, I saw the dealer cheating". Your belief that the poker game is fair will drop quite a bit based on the anecdotal evidence from your friend.