Chaos Magic

[AkuManiMani]

Epistemologically speaking, what makes the assessment of a third party more valid than the experience of firsthand observers?

What I stated was that the combination and examination of multiple first hand accounts can lead to a better udnerstanding of the event than that given by any individual first hand account. You want to know why I get upset? Because of your statements like this, that simply apply an apparently random meaning to what I actually say.

The original point was that multiple corroborating 1st-hand accounts are a form of independent verification. Your pointing out that they "help narrow the range of possibilities" is redundant.

So, to put it simply, its more an issue of credulity than veracity.

No, it's a matter of resources. If there is no need to investigate something, then don't. However, when we are looking into whether or not something is true...when it actually matters, then it warrants a more careful look.

Again, the determination of whether a claim "actually matters" is completely relative to the credulity of the party(s) hearing it. One's criteria for "evidence" tends to be considerably steeper when views they're deeply accustomed to are on the line.

Not to mention that no event occurs in a vacuum. We know people make coffee, we know people drink coffee, so there is no need to prove that coffeee exists, that it was available in the area, that it can be ingested by people, etc, etc, etc. Compare that to a case where we're positing a whole new category of energy, entirely new entities that do not mesh with what is currently known. THe coffee exampel does not have to overcome any previous evidence. A claim for psi powers, spirits, or similar has to overcome a host of past experiements that show failed results, as well as have a valid way to overcome the problems that would develop in fitting it with current knowledge.

There have been numerous experiments with positive results. By your own admission, you're simply more inclined to lend credence to negative reports, as they mesh better with the worldview you ascribe to.

I never claimed the accounts of my experiences as proof of their reality. Whether a claim is accepted as fact is purely the personal prerogative of the third party hearing the claim, regardless of the value that party attributes to certain kinds of evidence. Without firsthand experience a claim [accepted or rejected, accurate or inaccurate] is not knowledge but a bare proposition that one may attribute a certain degree of trust or distrust.

So you argue for solipsism.

No. I'm arguing that all knowledge is inherently firsthand; all else are propositions that one may take on varying degrees of faith, bad faith, or simply suspend judgement.

-Ofcourse- there will be variations between different observers' accounts of different events. Do you mean to suggest that such variation somehow nullifies the veracity of those experiences?

I mean to argue that differences between the accounts of the same experience can help one determien which parts are true, and which are not. It can help determine which aspects of the accounts are more likely to be true (i.e.-more consistent), and which are more the result of failed perception, faulty memory, or simple lying. If ten people witness a robbery, and 9 say they say a white man and one says they saw a black man, in the absence of other information what is the likely color of the robber? This is not a complicated concept.

There are many documented accounts with numerous features common between them. However, if you're disqualifying all of them off-hand, assessing the common features is a pointless exercise anyway -- unless of course, it's done purely for the purpose of trying to confirm the null hypothesis.

The 'strength' of any evidence is relative to the credulity a given party is willing to extend. Even if one is presented with 'proof' of an event it is still their choice of whether to accept it or not. In either case, the veracity of an account is not dependent upon the degree of evidence available or the credulity of those hearing it.

I agree, something is either true or not, regardless of Belief. But the argument here is how one can best arrive at truth, by what method(s). The metaphysical argument you keep trying to turn this into is unanswerable and essentially meaningless.

The above statement is primarily epistemological, not metaphysical. The fact still remains that, by your own admission, you've cognitive biases against accepting any of the claims in question. The reason for this is that you have a strong, internally coherent, world-view with a large consensus of opinion backing it up. Accounts like the ones being discussed in this thread appear to be inherently at odds with this world-view so you are highly inclined toward discounting any positive evidence regarding them. The bald truth of the matter is that this is not skepticism or critical thinking, but criticality in the service of dogmatism.

You gave examples. I asked for more relevant examples. You accused me of dishonesty in response to this request. Your underhanded conditional apology not withstanding, you were %100 at fault. Period.

Well, since my own experience is the only real knowledge, you are wrong.

So you directly experience my motivations and intentions? Fascinating.

We've no clear model for how "coherent spiritual energy" should operate so its more than a little premature to speak of it's (im)plausibility.

No, it isn't. There are certain properties it must have to act in ways as reported. Many of these properties are incompatible with current understanding. This makes them, at the least, very implausible.

Just to be clear, what do you mean when you speak of "coherent spiritual energy"?

I wouldn't jump to conclusions on that just yet.

I was waiting for you to bring up quantum. Are you familiar with actual research in quantum mechanics?

Yes.

Do you have any understanding of what it means when it talks about entangled states?

Yes.

Do you undertsand why it uses the modifier "pseudo-" in front of telepathy?

Yes.

That you believe this supports the existence of telepathy as reported simply confirms your limited understanding.

My understanding is limited but not yours is not?

I'm not recommending that standards should be lowered. What I am suggesting is that the methods may very well have to be modified to investigate certain phenomena. Even more "mundane" studies of consciousness require extensive "internal" introspective study as well as "external" observation. Whenever one is dealing with phenomena related to consciousness subjective factors must be taken into serious consideration.

But science already has methods to do this. Social science do look at personal perspectives and introspective study, but with the understanding that these can often be flawed. That's the part you've been arguing against. Your claim seems to be that your own personal experience trumps everything else (the generic you here, as in any individual). Yet, assuming this simply leads to solipsism. It's a form of special pleading, especially when there is ample evidence that the personal perceptions of people are often incorrect. The only way to form this into something coherent is to assume that only your own perspective counts.

The special pleading comes in when fallibility of personal experience is invoked as the only possibility when it is at odds with theoretical expectation. Such criteria put theory ahead of empirical observation in the assessment of truth which is inherently inimical to the epistemology of the scientific method. If a subject reports seeing red when the theoretical expectation is that they should be seeing purple then it is the theory that requires the greater measure of critical scrutiny. The same applies if multiple subjects report the same class of experiences which happen to be at odds with certain theoretical expectations -- especially when those experiences have corroborating details and commonalities.

If you haven't noticed I've already given pages of details regarding my personal experiences. The more I've given, the more I've been accused of "self-aggrandizement" and claims that I must be mistaken or making things up. I'm then given lectures about standards of evidence and insistence that all the details I've given are insufficient evidence anyway, precisely because they're anecdotal. Again, what it comes down to really isn't an issue of the quantity or quality of the information I've provided, but of the willful incredulity of the parties involved. The details I've provided are more than sufficient to make an honest assessment. How much credence you choose to lend my accounts is not my problem or my responsibility. I don't intend to waste my own time playing the "prove it" game.

Then why bring it up to begin with if you don't plan to prove it? And I'd argue about details...you've been vague. You typed a lot of words, but said little. Technically, you gave enough details for an honest assessment, that assessment being that you have not sufficiently ruled out mundane reasons for your experience.

I never claimed that "mundane" explanations were wrong. I did, however, state that the explanations, as given, were not sufficient in themselves to account for all the features of the events in question. In anycase, if any account I give of my experiences are purely "anecdotal" and inherently unreliable, what difference does it make how much detail is shared? If the default position is that my recollection of the events is mistaken and "confabulated" why the insistence that I recall more? The truth is, I've given all the relevant details of the story, and then some extra. The fact that none of them aid you in fishing for an "easy out" explanation doesn't change this fact.

If you're that curious start doing your own investigations. Arguing with me about it over a web forum isn't going to accomplish a damn thing in the way of advancing your own knowledge or understanding of the topic. In any case, you can read up on actual studies done on the subject [including those with positive and negative reports] till you're blue in the face, but until you have your own fisthand experience of such phenomena you'll not have any real proof. Even then it is still your choice whether to accept or reject it.

Did you understand what I actually said there? Because, from your response, I don't think you did.

The whole point is that you haven't given enough information for anyone to even attempt to recreate your experience. And replication matters.

And yes, there are studies and such on this, and other accounts. But you know what? They aren't consistent. Studies with good controls are invariably negative. Accounts with successes range as far as the imagination in methods to achieve them, including some of the same methods that failed when tested more rigorously.

Speaking of special pleading, it seems that the only studies you count as reliable, rigorous and accurate are the ones that report negative results which confirm your own stated biases. Do you consider it impossible that even a small portion of documented positive cases/studies are true and accurate? If thats the case then your assessment is not honest.

Actually, the Wright brothers reference wasn't my example, but Katopale's. The example that I actually brought up was that of the controversy surrounding Ludwig Boltzmann's atomic theory and the professional persecution he [and like minded colleagues] faced on account of it. Either way, all you have to do is read up on the history of science yourself. Its not always pretty and the individuals involved do not always behave rationally -- even in the face of contravening evidence. The main point one can draw from this is that science is only as good as the people conducting it.

Actually, I never made the claim that science could not be dogmatic, or that individuals always behave rationally. That's your straw man.

You're not the only participant in this discussion nor do all of my posts and arguments revolve around you and your responses. The above was a valid point addressed specifically to another poster and it just so happens to be one that should be taken into consideration by anyone discussing a topic like this. Quite frankly, I getting sick and tired of being wrongfully accused of the very same logical fallacies being committed by my accusers.

I asked for examples of where a well-tested theory was overturned. Where is the contravening evidence? In cases where it existed, it has been accepted...not immediately, not without growing pains, and not without haeartache on both sides. But even then, I'm still waiting for an example where a fundamental, well-tested theory was shown to be wrong.

The Newtonian model of physics was for centuries, and still is, a very well tested theory. However it was formulated upon many theoretical assumptions which turned out to be inaccurate or flatly false. It was eventually superseded by two other physical theories: General/Special Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Even so, it's still a useful tool and is applicable in a limited range of problem scenarios. That is what all theories are; conceptual tools. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As it so happens, the topic of contention in -this- discussion isn't so much a scientific conflict as it is a clash of metaphysical views. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing that we scientifically -know- which logically precludes the reality of the of kind experiences I, and many others, have reported. What does preclude them are strongly held metaphysical/ideological assumptions masquerading as scientific fact.

I'm motivated enough to do my own reading on the subject and to form my own conclusions. From what I've read of history individual scientists [and communities of scientists] have behaved dogmatically and irrationally, scientific methodology not withstanding. Hindsight just makes the follies of the past more apparent, and we would be wise to learn from them.

I agree. And this is where our disagreement lies. These scientists relied on their own, personal experience instead of looking at and accepting the evidence beign presented. And on the flip side of this coin are the numerous examples of scientists who based conclusions on personal experience, and very little evidence. Pauling and vitamin C, for example, or Newton and Alchemy. Hoyle and the Steady State theory.

I think you're conflating ideological assumption with personal experience. If Newton genuinely observed the efficacy of alchemical practice then it would be solid evidence for it's validity.

Theories and principles are not knowledge. That you don’t understand this is not my failure

Just out of curiosity, what are they if not knowledge? Are do you simply equate knowledge with your own personal experience? Let me ask you point blank...are you a solipsist?

The basis of all knowledge is direct experience. All things beyond one's direct experience are, relative to the subject(s) in question, propositionals with varying degrees of accuracy and approximation to the truth. This includes all scientific theories -- which is precisely why they are inherently tentative and open to revision.

The only intellectual dishonesty you see is your own projection, dude. If anything, you're the one associating yourself with a cohort of group-thinking reactionaries looking to defend an established world-view. I've no "side" to score points for; I've my own views, unique to my own perspective, which are liable to be at odds with the opinions of just about everyone else -- "woo-woo" and "skeptic" alike. If you wanna make this some kind of ego shoving match I'll be more than willing to just aggravate the hell out of you. If you want a rational exchange with me quit getting your knickers inna bunch everytime I ask a question or make a point you don't feel comfortable with. Otherwise, we can just drop the issue and you can kill time in a manner you feel is less challenging. Its really your call.

If I want a rational exchange, I'll most liekly have to go elsewhere. My "knickers get in a twist" because I have to keep explaining what should be simple, obvious concepts (such as more matching eyewitness accounts means the event in question is more likely to have occurred as reported). It's not that you make a point that I don't feel comfortable with, it's that you continually and, unless you are truly ignorant, intenitonally misunderstand straightforward statements. It's that you claim knowledge of subjects (quantum telepathy, for example) that you are proveably ignorant of. It has nothing to do with an "ego shoving match"...I'm not the one claiming my own personal experience as the sole arbiter of reality. I'm not the one making "pronouncements from the mountain" on what is really real, or on what is true "knowledge". But I agree, if you want to drop the insults, condescention, and "I have a secret window to reality" attitude, and actually respond to my arguments instead of what you think I'm arguing (or what you might prefer someone were arguing), I'm more than happy to. Besides, it takes two to argue, you're in this just as much as I am. So it's really your call, too, "dude".

As I've pointed out, there are numerous documented witness accounts and scientific studies which corroborate the kinds of experiences being discussed. The contention revolves around your explicit bias towards discounting any and all accounts that to not mesh with your accepted world-view. I'm not claiming the special "privilege" of my own personal experience, but of firsthand experience in general. An individual's personal experience is not the only criteria of reality but it -is- the only definitive connection that any individual can have to it. Experience is the fundamental basis for all knowledge, all understanding, and all belief.

 

[tsig]

Slippery as a greased willy aren’t you Pixy.

At least be specific. You’re being an awfully sloppy skeptic.

Are you suggesting that everyone’s memory is unreliable and malleable?
…all some memories?
…all some of the time?

Or are there gray areas, and what are they…specifically? Upon what definitive evidence do you base any of these conclusions?

Inserted gray areas for you.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Actually that's what you do in physics classes. They're called experiments.

Here's some you can do yourself.

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsexperiments/Physics_Experiments.htm

"whoosh"....

 

[Nonpareil]

Until you personally investigate for yourself, scientific reports are just formalized anecdotes.

Essentially, yes. We've been over this before.

Scientific reports are formalized anecdotes, but they are formalized anecdotes which can be verified to be correct. They keep records. The raw data is still available. And so on.

You stated some pages back that you accept the findings of the scientific community on faith [albeit, not a large leap of faith] that they aren't all lying/mistaken.

Correct.

Why then, when there is a sizable population of people -- including scientists -- who are reporting these particular phenomena do you automatically assume that the reports are untrue or otherwise unreliable?

Where did I say that I did?

I don't doubt that these people are actually experiencing what they believe to be OBEs. Scientists study this regularly - in fact, there's a large study on the subject going on right now. But merely reporting that someone believes that they had an OBE is not proof that it was actually an OBE.

You are trying to use reports of people saying they had OBEs with reports of people verifying that they had OBEs. There are plenty of the former, but, oddly, none of the latter.

I can't help but to conclude that your criteria for "evidence" is steeply lopsided and biased towards maintaining a strongly held world view.

You conclude incorrectly. There simply isn't any evidence of OBEs. If there were, I would believe in them. That's rather the point of skepticism.

Have you made the effort to personally verify them for yourself or are you simply taking their word?

We've been over this. I am taking their word - both the word of the people who did the original study and of those who presented rebuttals. Both the methodology of the original studies and the criticisms of that methodology are available online.

Or did you think that I was just looking for any site that said "this study's methodology was flawed" without saying how? No. I don't do that. That's not how skepticism works. You don't just take someone's word for something, even if they are nominally on your side.

The criticisms are out there, and are available in detail for a moment's Googling. You can go look them up yourself, if you want.

Do you consider it possible that the critics themselves are mistaken/dishonest? Why/why not?

Not really. Oh, undoubtedly some of them are, but they aren't the ones I'm talking about; that some people have made invalid criticisms does not mean that all of the criticisms are invalid.

It's a simple matter of comparing the objections to the methodology and seeing if they match up. For example, if someone says that the sample size in the study was too small to even begin to alleviate the chance of... well, chance, then you can look at the study itself and see how large their sample size was. If it was ten, then the criticism is valid. If it was five thousand, it probably isn't.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Slippery as a greased willy aren’t you Pixy.

At least be specific. You’re being an awfully sloppy skeptic.

Are you suggesting that everyone’s memory is unreliable and malleable?
…all memories?
…all the time?

Or are there gray areas, and what are they…specifically? Upon what definitive evidence do you base any of these conclusions?

PixyMisa cannot recall the contents of his hallucinations or even report what hes feeling at this moment because his memories are hopelessly "confabulated" and his introspection inherently "unreliable". He considers this especially true for any recollections or experiences that contradict his bald assertions.

 

[tsig]

"whoosh"....

Is that the sound a point makes when it escapes?

 

[annnnoid]

This is funny. So much more so in that humor wasn't intended.

Glad to bring some levity into the cosmos. Perhaps you might like to elaborate.

 

[Nonpareil]

Allow me:

Slippery as a greased willy aren’t you Pixy.

At least be specific. You’re being an awfully sloppy skeptic.

Are you suggesting that everyone’s memory is unreliable and malleable?
…all memories?
…all the time?

Or are there gray areas, and what are they…specifically? Upon what definitive evidence do you base any of these conclusions?

Some memories, some of the time.

The point isn't that any given memory is guaranteed to be faulty. It is that it can be faulty, and that, without evidence supporting it, we can't know if it is or not. Because we can't know if the memory is actually reliable, it can't be used as evidence on its own. It must have something to back it up.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Until you personally investigate for yourself, scientific reports are just formalized anecdotes.

Essentially, yes. We've been over this before.

Scientific reports are formalized anecdotes, but they are formalized anecdotes which can be verified to be correct. They keep records. The raw data is still available. And so on.

However, the very same thing can be said of many of the accounts in question. The problem is that they are explicitly being held to a standard that more "mundane" findings are not.

You stated some pages back that you accept the findings of the scientific community on faith [albeit, not a large leap of faith] that they aren't all lying/mistaken.

Correct.

Why then, when there is a sizable population of people -- including scientists -- who are reporting these particular phenomena do you automatically assume that the reports are untrue or otherwise unreliable?

Where did I say that I did?

I don't doubt that these people are actually experiencing what they believe to be OBEs. Scientists study this regularly - in fact, there's a large study on the subject going on right now. But merely reporting that someone believes that they had an OBE is not proof that it was actually an OBE.

You are trying to use reports of people saying they had OBEs with reports of people verifying that they had OBEs. There are plenty of the former, but, oddly, none of the latter.

The highlighted statement is demonstrably untrue. There are plenty of others who know, or were acquainted with, the claimants and who report corroborating information. Unless one wants to suggest conspiracy in every case, it seems very unlikely that none of the reports are true.

I can't help but to conclude that your criteria for "evidence" is steeply lopsided and biased towards maintaining a strongly held world view.

You conclude incorrectly. There simply isn't any evidence of OBEs. If there were, I would believe in them. That's rather the point of skepticism.

Once again, I'd amend that to say there isn't any evidence you consider reliable or admissible.

Have you made the effort to personally verify them for yourself or are you simply taking their word?

We've been over this. I am taking their word - both the word of the people who did the original study and of those who presented rebuttals. Both the methodology of the original studies and the criticisms of that methodology are available online.

Or did you think that I was just looking for any site that said "this study's methodology was flawed" without saying how? No. I don't do that. That's not how skepticism works. You don't just take someone's word for something, even if they are nominally on your side.

The criticisms are out there, and are available in detail for a moment's Googling. You can go look them up yourself, if you want.

I've spent a great deal of time reading up on both sides of the debate -- both "pro" and "con". Judging from what I've read and my own experiences, I do not find the null hypothesis to be as convincing as you do, to say the least.

Do you consider it possible that the critics themselves are mistaken/dishonest? Why/why not?

Not really. Oh, undoubtedly some of them are, but they aren't the ones I'm talking about; that some people have made invalid criticisms does not mean that all of the criticisms are invalid.

It's a simple matter of comparing the objections to the methodology and seeing if they match up. For example, if someone says that the sample size in the study was too small to even begin to alleviate the chance of... well, chance, then you can look at the study itself and see how large their sample size was. If it was ten, then the criticism is valid. If it was five thousand, it probably isn't.

There are quite a number of legitimate studies done, with considerable sample sizes, and they aren't all as unanimously conclusive of the null hypothesis as you seem to think. You may not consider any of the "positive" evidence very convincing, but it is there. If held by the same standards as the "negative" findings, at the very least, they indicate a need to radically expand our scientific understanding of consciousness.

 

[AkuManiMani]

"whoosh"....

Is that the sound a point makes when it escapes?

Indeed, it is. Let me know when you recognize mine

 

[The Norseman]

I've spent a great deal of time reading up on both sides of the debate -- both "pro" and "con". Judging from what I've read and my own experiences, I do not find the null hypothesis to be as convincing as you do, to say the least.

So where is the "con" link again?

 

[Nonpareil]

However, the very same thing can be said of many of the accounts in question.

Such as?

The highlighted statement is demonstrably untrue. There are plenty of others who know, or were acquainted with, the claimants and who report corroborating information.

And yet they were unable to come up with support for their contentions.

Bare assertion doesn't stop being bare assertion just because more people do it. It's just bare assertion by proxy rather than regular bare assertion.

Once again, I'd amend that to say there isn't any evidence you consider reliable or admissible.

Fair enough. You would technically be correct to say that, of course. But it is also true that the vast majority of scientists and researchers in this area agree with me.

I've spent a great deal of time reading up on both sides of the debate -- both "pro" and "con". Judging from what I've read and my own experiences, I do not find the null hypothesis to be as convincing as you do, to say the least.

That's as may be, but it's irrelevant unless you can come up with verifiable evidence against it.

There are quite a number of legitimate studies done, with considerable sample sizes

The sample size bit was just an example.

and they aren't all as unanimously conclusive of the null hypothesis as you seem to think.

Your link doesn't support you.

Celia Green wasn't looking to prove the existence of OBEs. She was collecting information on what people who claimed to have experienced OBEs said about them. Bozzanno and Crookall were doing the same thing. Ditto Alegretti and Trivellato.

And so on and so on. Out of all the studies listed in that article, only one - van Lommel's - claims to have found any proof of OBEs. And Wikipedia is, as it is so frequently, wrong.

Van Lommel's study was not intended to provide proof of NDEs. It was, like all the others, merely a study of what people who reported NDEs said they were like. Van Lommel and others offered their unconfirmed opinions on whether or not the stories they had heard from the subjects constituted proof of genuine OBEs.

You may not consider any of the "positive" evidence very convincing, but it is there.

You haven't presented any. And I suspect that many of the things which you would consider "evidence", I would not, as they are either unconfirmed or refuted.

 

[Hellbound]

You know, most of this comes down to you insisiting that there are positive studies that we are ignoring.

I'm not aware of any positive studies that were done with good controls, that adequately removed the possibility of more mundane options. And none that were replicated.

I don't discount these because they "clash with my worldview", per se. I discount these because of past history: there are no definitive studies done. The OBE and NDE accounts are a perfect example, there is very weak evidence for these events, usually after-the-fact, without controls. No way to verify that the data supposedly gained in the OBE was actually gained during the time that a person was clinically dead, none (that I am aware of) where brain activity was known to be stopped, in short none that rule out other explanations.

That history is what must be overcome. Thathistory forms my worldview. I don't discount the possibility, but I do expect a high level of evidence...because it has to be higher than the evidence against.

I'm going to address a few specific points, because again you are placing words in my mouth and missing the obvious. But I believe it would be best to limit the discussion to a single class/category of paranormals experiences, so that specific studies and evidence can be examined. If you're game, why not point us to a study you think offers good support fo OBE/NDE?

To specifics:

So you directly experience my motivations and intentions? Fascinating.

No, I don't, therefore I don't beleive you hacve them. All knowledge is first-hand, and since I have no first-hand experience of your motivations and intentions, I don't believe you have any. I'm simply applying your own logic...because my own experience is the only knowledge.

Just to be clear, what do you mean when you speak of "coherent spiritual energy"?

The typical idea of a non-corporeal intelligence that survives a physical body, or exists independent of any detectable physical structure.

My understanding is limited but not yours is not?

First, this is another perfect example of you creating a straw man. Not what I said, stated, or implied.

I did, however, state, imply, and intend to convey the idea that my understanding is not as limited, because I understand what that article was stating as to actual possibilities, and it does not support, even remotely, the idea of telepathy being a possibility. That you would post it as a possibility simply tells me you did a quick search for something that, at a first glance, might give one pause, but either did not bother to actually read it or did not understand it.

The special pleading comes in when fallibility of personal experience is invoked as the only possibility when it is at odds with theoretical expectation. Such criteria put theory ahead of empirical observation in the assessment of truth which is inherently inimical to the epistemology of the scientific method. If a subject reports seeing red when the theoretical expectation is that they should be seeing purple then it is the theory that requires the greater measure of critical scrutiny. The same applies if multiple subjects report the same class of experiences which happen to be at odds with certain theoretical expectations -- especially when those experiences have corroborating details and commonalities.

And here is where you simply run off the rails entirely.

The theory is supported by an enormous amount of obersvational evidence. If 9,475 people are shown a box and asked what color it is, and 9,450 claim "It's red", 25 claim "it's green". First, what color is the box? We know that red-green color blindness exists. We can objectively measure the precise wavelengths of light reflected form the box. We can establish, very soundly, the theory that the box is red.

Now, if another person comes along and says "Hey, that's a nice green box there", you are stating that it would be unscientific to then say "No, the box is red. Sorry, but you're wrong." Of course, in this situation no one else can look at the box, so a better analogy is someone statign they looked at the box before it was destroyed, and the box was green. The data does not support that. They may well have seen it as green...but there's no reason to believe it was green. And the observer themselves, if they are actually being skeptical, should consider the possibility that they are mistaken somehow.

Do you consider it impossible that even a small portion of documented positive cases/studies are true and accurate? If thats the case then your assessment is not honest.

IMpossible? NOt to a 100% level, no. However I consider it very highly unlikely, to the point that I treat it as an impossibility in my day-to-day decisions. In other words, I don't design computer security with a thought to preventing clairvoyant spying, or OBE snoops. I don't try to use ESP to see where I'm driving when in a car. I don't waste money for a psychic to tell me what to expect in the future. And even in general, I regard it as unproven and false, as I've yet to see evidence otherwise.

And how can you claim that is not honest? After all, aren't you the one saying that first-hand experience is our only knowledge? I've yet to see any well-controlled studies to support most of these notions. I've seen a lot more studies that show no effect, and even more studies that show how much of the supposed paranormal can be expalined by perceptual and cognitive issues (which can be proven to exist). I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but that's exactly what it will take: evidence.

You're not the only participant in this discussion nor do all of my posts and arguments revolve around you and your responses. The above was a valid point addressed specifically to another poster and it just so happens to be one that should be taken into consideration by anyone discussing a topic like this. Quite frankly, I getting sick and tired of being wrongfully accused of the very same logical fallacies being committed by my accusers.

Okay, first off, I am not anyone else on this board. Their arguments are not mien unless I specifically claim them. I suppose I should change that from a straw man fallacy you commited to a hasty generalization. And the specific issue wasn't about dogma, it was about a point I'm going to make below.

The Newtonian model of physics was for centuries, and still is, a very well tested theory. However it was formulated upon many theoretical assumptions which turned out to be inaccurate or flatly false. It was eventually superseded by two other physical theories: General/Special Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Even so, it's still a useful tool and is applicable in limited range of problem scenarios. That is what all theories are; conceptual tools. Nothing more. Nothing less.

First, do you mean Newtonian mechanics or Newtonian Gravity? OR both? I'm going to assume Newton's 3 laws of motion and the law of gravity.

In either case, what Newton developed were Laws, not Theories. That's a point that actually works against your argument, and if you don't understand the difference between a Law and a Theory I can explain it to you.

Second, Newton's laws are highly accurate...they were not wrong so much as they were of limited scope or incomplete. Relativity simply expanded Newton's Gravity to make it applicable to a much larger domain. Likewise for newtonian mechanics. For the vast majority of things these are perfectly adequate. For almost everything that can be directly experienced they are accurate.

As to Quantum Mechanics replacing something, can you be a bit more explicit there? Because I don't see that QM has anything to do with Newton's mechanics (unelss you're simply referring to the change from a deterministic view of the universe to a less-deterministic one).

In any case, both of these still work against you. First, in none of these cases were the existing theories overturned, so much as expanded into new domains (GR extended Newton's gravity to work at high speeds and high masses, QM expanded into the micro-level..but that level came after Newton).

And yes, theories are tools based upon the combined observations of large groups who study and observe phenomena in controlled ways. On the one hand, you want to elevate first-hand experience to the level of being unquestionable, yet on the other hand you discount theories which are based on the accumilation of these first-hand expereinces. I'm having trouble seeing how your viewpoint is logically consistent.

As it so happens, the topic of contention in -this- discussion isn't so much a scientific conflict as it is a clash of metaphysical views. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing that we scientifically -know- which logically precludes the reality of the of kind experiences I, and many others, have reported. What does preclude them are strongly held metaphysical/ideological assumptions masquerading as scientific fact.

Actually, there are several things we know that contradict many things. Your experience in particular could not be explained by any of the current forces, and a new force would mean that several of the physical equations we currently use (very, very successfully) are incorrect. It would also mean that the abundant evidence of consicousness arising from the brain is wrong, fundamentally. And it really depends on the specific experiences...spirits in particualr cause issues with thermodynamics, for one. It does contradict the current understanding and evidence...it's not a nmetaphysical objection no matter how much you wish to believe so. And the level of evidence required to accept these would need to be at least equal to that required to accept, to use your examples above, General relativity. Present the theory, make a quantifiable prediciton that can be tested. Has not been done to date. And spirits, and mysticism in general, has had a lot longer to do so than GR took.

As I've pointed out, there are numerous documented witness accounts and scientific studies which corroborate the kinds of experiences being discussed. The contention revolves your explicit bias towards discounting any and all accounts that to not mesh with your accepted world-view. I'm not claiming the special "privilege" of my own personal experience, but of firsthand experience in general. An individual's personal experience is not the only criteria of reality but it -is- the only definitive connection that any individual can have to it. Experience is the fundamental basis for all knowledge, all understanding, and all belief.

Show me a positive study, with good controls, that had a statistically significant sample size and that can be repeated.

There aren't any. The best of the lot in the parapsychology field rely on data-mining expeditions that show positive effects orders of magnitude below that reported byt eh everyday experience of supposed psychics and msytics. You keep talking about these positive studies...show me one. I don't reject them due to some metaphysical difference, I reject them due to a lack of sufficient rigor and a lack of evidence. To borrow a quote form you:
So you directly experience my motivations and intentions? Fascinating.

 

[PixyMisa]

Slippery as a greased willy aren’t you Pixy.

At least be specific. You’re being an awfully sloppy skeptic.

Are you suggesting that everyone’s memory is unreliable and malleable?

No. I am stating that everyone's memory is unreliable and malleable.

…all memories?
…all the time?

What is that even supposed to mean?

Or are there gray areas, and what are they…specifically?

What does that mean?

Upon what definitive evidence do you base any of these conclusions?

This is universally recognised in neurology and psychology and all related sciences. Everyone knows about this. It's so well-understood that I'm surprised you'd question it at all.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-monitoring_error
And once you've got your feet wet, jump in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
And swim for your life.

 

[PixyMisa]

And when you're finished with that list, go on to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

And you wonder why we keep asking for evidence?

 

[Zanders]

PM: "It's not true!"

AMM: "How do you know this?"

PM: "Because it isn't. Theres no evidence."

AMM: "But there are countless reports of such events even from scientists who've endeavored to experimentally test them."

PM: "They're all lying fools! I know this because I can consult with 'The Entirety of Science'. It is infallible and always corroborates my bald assertions"

AMM: "Um, thats quite a feat, to know what un-met strangers have experienced. Can you give us information as to your own experiences?"

PM: "Of course. My knowledge is absolute. Ask away."

AMM: "What are you feeling right now?"

PM: ".............."

AMM: "Erm, okaaay...You mentioned experiencing some peculiar auditory hallucinations during periods of great 'stress'. Care to share with us the contents of those hallucinations?"

PM: ".............."

AMM: "Uhm...PM, are you going to answer the questions?"

PM: "YOUR MEMORY IS FALLIBLE! YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP!"

AMM: ".............."

Your posts are really starting to get embarrassing, bro. You keep saying the same things over and over with the same logical fallacies. We can't say all anecdotes are false for sure, but until we get evidence they have no scientific value.

Would you like address my werewolf comment? Plenty of anecdotes about them in the past.

You can't prove anything extraordinary like this with anecdotes, deal with it. Do you know how many kids claim they see monsters under their beds or in their closets? Oh wait, maybe there really are monsters and demons in their closets and under their beds.

And where are the tests the proved positive for OBEs? Where is your proof that science is trying to undermine these legitimate and well executed experiments? Like I said earlier, not all scientists are complete and total materialists, that's an assumption to explain the lack of solid scientific evidence. What do scientists have to be afraid of if you can exit your body and view stuff while unconscious? There would be quite a reward for proving that. Prove to me that there is a collective refusal to even test such things (even though it has been done and scientists are still doing it)

Why are even still posting here? All you can do is tell me that a lot of people have extraordinary experiences, and then tell me you know because so-in-so said so. What good is that? Maybe they do have these experiences, but present more than stories. You haven't presented anything more than anecdotes.

Where are the scientific studies that we are ignoring? Provide one that is actually an experiment and not an anecdote like "I was at the hospital, then my soul left and looked at the doctors. they were impressed" Or "I compiled a lot of cased and they are similar"

Stop telling us stories. I know you are just going to reply to this saying that an abundance of stories makes it true, but if you are going to come back please bring actual experimental or testable evidence. Do you know why we need that? Because these things are testable. I'm not saying they don't happen. In fact, I've read a lot about this sort of thing and find it fascinating. But I don't know how many times we can stress this, more than anecdotes are needed for stories so extraordinary, especially when it is something that could be tested easily.

Anyway...



Cool story, bro.

 

[PixyMisa]

And where are the tests the proved positive for OBEs? Where is your proof that science is trying to undermine these legitimate and well executed experiments? Like I said earlier, not all scientists are complete and total materialists, that's an assumption to explain the lack of solid scientific evidence. What do scientists have to be afraid of if you can exit your body and view stuff while unconscious? There would be quite a reward for proving that. Prove to me that there is a collective refusal to even test such things (even though it has been done and scientists are still doing it)

If someone were to actually establish one of these nonsensical claims as true, they'd have done humanity such a service that they'd be awarded one of each Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal, and the Victoria Cross just on general principle. They'd be showered with grant money from every research organisation on the planet. They'd be treated like they were Einstein, The Beatles, Winston Churchill and a young Diana Rigg rolled into one.

And what do we have?

Nothing.

 

[tsig]

Until you personally investigate for yourself, scientific reports are just formalized anecdotes. Even if you are told that the findings are replicated the claim itself is "anecdotal" until you actually make the same observations firsthand.

I'm saying that even reports of scientific testing are "anecdotal" unless you participate in one yourself. You stated some pages back that you accept the findings of the scientific community on faith [albeit, not a large leap of faith] that they aren't all lying/mistaken. Why then, when there is a sizable population of people -- including scientists -- who are reporting these particular phenomena do you automatically assume that the reports are untrue or otherwise unreliable? I can't help but to conclude that your criteria for "evidence" is steeply lopsided and biased towards maintaining a strongly held world view.



Have you made the effort to personally verify them for yourself or are you simply taking their word? Do you consider it possible that the critics themselves are mistaken/dishonest? Why/why not?

Actually that's what you do in physics classes. They're called experiments.

Here's some you can do yourself.

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsexperiments/Physics_Experiments.htm

"whoosh"....

Indeed, it is. Let me know when you recognize mine

Your point seemed to be "the claim itself is "anecdotal" until you actually make the same observations firsthand" I pointed out that in physics class the students do make the observations first hand.

Further all science is built on replication so that anyone can replicate any result so no one has to accept any anecdotes.

If there is some other point flying around then please explicate it.

 

[tsig]

If someone were to actually establish one of these nonsensical claims as true, they'd have done humanity such a service that they'd be awarded one of each Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal, and the Victoria Cross just on general principle. They'd be showered with grant money from every research organisation on the planet. They'd be treated like they were Einstein, The Beatles, Winston Churchill and a young Diana Rigg rolled into one.

And what do we have?

Nothing.

That's a bit unfair, we do have a lot of nice campfire stories. I always like the song better.

 

[Zanders]

If someone were to actually establish one of these nonsensical claims as true, they'd have done humanity such a service that they'd be awarded one of each Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal, and the Victoria Cross just on general principle. They'd be showered with grant money from every research organisation on the planet. They'd be treated like they were Einstein, The Beatles, Winston Churchill and a young Diana Rigg rolled into one.

And what do we have?

Nothing.

That is why I said there would have to be some sort of conspiracy to undermine it for nefarious reasons.