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?
Fair enough. Lets start with the links I provided in my
reply to
Pure Argent.
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.
Actually, the above statement demonstrates that you either
A) do not understand my actual argument or
B) you're deliberately straw-maning as, once again, you're confusing
belief with experiential knowledge. You have direct access to your motivations and intentions. Your direct knowledge of your internal subjective states epistemologically trumps a third party's beliefs concerning them --unless they somehow have a direct mental link to your consciousness. Of course, you could be
lying about your actual motivations but, without direct access, an external third party can only make inferences and decide whether to invest a certain degree of faith in them; the third' party's relation to said knowledge is one of inherent uncertainty.
In the same vein, I directly experience my intentions and motivations -- I know them with complete certainty. This direct knowledge allows me to
know that your earlier accusation of dishonesty was completely false, as well as unfounded. Being as how I directly
-know- what my intentions were, and you responded to a strait-forward request for more relevant examples with charges of dishonesty, I'm inclined to suspect that you're projecting.
[BTW, I tested out your claim that your earlier color/font mishap was an artifact of "transferring" text from Word. I conducted an experiment of my own which produced negative results. Should I conclude that you're full of it?]
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.
In principle, such an entity should
not be undetectable by physical structures, as it must be able to operate in tandem with the physical structures we refer to as organic bodies. If they exist
[independently or not] they have physical consequences and are thus congruent with known physics, even if they are not, as of yet, included in current physical models.
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.
Actually, I specifically searched for a short wiki article on the subject as I'd already read much about that specific topic, non-locality, and entanglement phenomena in general. The point was to demonstrate that, even within the confines of known physical theory, non-local distal influence akin to telepathy is considered possible. Its a bit silly and disparaging for you to automatically assume that disagreement with you on this topic implies incomprehension.
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.
Correction: Here is where you,
once again, completely miss the point of my argument and,
once again, chalk it up to a failing on my part...
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.
Okay, consider this:
I personally know a synesthete who experiences sounds visually. In his awareness, each human voice is a dynamic and unique array of shapes and colors. One person's voice is experienced as warm, pulsating orange ovals, another as purple circles, and mine he experiences as "red spinnie squares". There are many other synesthetes who have different subjective experiences of the world which can vary widely, yet they receive veridical information from their senses none the less -- some of which, their "normal" peers may not have access to.
Do you consider the senses of synesthetes faulty? If so, would you submit that they are not qualified to make valid scientific observations? If a given synesthete
[with his/her own unique subjective makeup] has a perception that differs from what a well established scientific theory predicts they should is their perception "false", or is it indicative of a limitation in the theory?
This ties into a much broader point: The current paucity of scientific understanding with regard to consciousness and the subjective in general.
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?
And with that in mind, any conclusions you draw concerning things beyond your direct experiential knowledge
[even if they're drawn from a source you trust] is based upon faith. This includes your beliefs concerning the possibility of OBEs or ESP.
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.
Hold the phone. On what basis are you designating which studies were "well controlled"? Is this based upon reports you've received concerning the studies in question or did you actually participate in them yourself? How do you know that your conclusion isn't an artifact of your admitted bias?
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.
You interjected in a point you knew I was making to another individual and requested that I elaborate on it. When I did so you claimed that the point it was addressing wasn't your argument and accused me of making a straw-man. I'm seeing a trend here...
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.
Okay, this is genuinely getting sad -- you're actually trying to make a weasel argument by technicality. Are you
really trying to argue that Issac Newton
[as in the father of classical physics] didn't formulate any
physical theory --
none whatsoever?
"Well you see, Newton only formulated physical laws.
I specifically asked you for a well established theory
that had been over turned in science."
What was that you were saying earlier about dishonesty,
Hellbound?
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).
I
specifically stated that the two modern physical theories superseded Newton's, ya fork-tongued sophist
In any case, both of these still work against you.
Imagine that...
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).
Couldja tap dance a little more...?
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.
Ding-ding-ding! I think hes got it! Yes, theories are
conceptual tools that are
inferred from firsthand observations. Your inability to see how this logically ties into my point is...
[how shall I put this?] ...not my failure.
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.
Oh, heavens
forbid such a thing! Tell me, would you consider the wildly successful
Standard Model of particle physics to be an infallible and complete model of reality? Would introducing entities not included in said model
[like say -- I don't know -- maybe financial instruments, or pain] require "extraordinary" evidence? Even better -- Lets expand that little example to include all scientific models, theories, and principles. Would entities existing outside of said models render all of them null and void? Would science as a whole be invalidated?
[BTW, what was that you were saying earlier about me making you look stupid? If you ask me you're doing that just fine on your own...]
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.
HB: "
Formulate a theory I'm willing to accept or its not real."
AMM: "Roger, that."
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.
Okay, I'll get right on it...
...Oh-
ho! You really had me going there. I almost thought you were open to honest investigation. Had me fooled for a sec
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.
Yea, yea. I get it, I get it. You have all the answers and there is absolutely no evidence for me to present to the contrary because you just KNOW there isn't any. I'll leave ya to it then.
