Setting the proper standard of evidence

How should we think about weird things?
Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Tue May 02, 2017 5:43 pm

Note to Reader: My opening statement here is vague and will stir up some disagreement. However, I clarify later on what I actually mean by what I am saying below here. Therefore, don't jump to conclusions such as that I am crazy, talking nonsense, etc.

If you set your standard of evidence too high which is something mainstream science might be doing, then you will overlook things that could be actual evidence. But if you set your standard of evidence too low, then you will overlook things that could not be evidence at all. However, if you set your standard of evidence right in the middle, then I think this might be the proper standard.
Last edited by Omniverse on Wed May 10, 2017 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue May 02, 2017 6:00 pm

LMFTFY: "f you set your standard of evidence too high which is something mainstream science might be doing, then you will overlook things that could be actual evidence. But if you set your standard of evidence too low, then you will overlook include things that could not be evidence at all. However, if you set your standard of evidence right in the middle, then I think this might be the proper standard you will get errors of both kinds because that is what science is: correcting errors, not magically get it right the first time.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nobrot
Poster
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Nobrot » Tue May 02, 2017 9:17 pm

Omniverse wrote:If you set your standard of evidence too high which is something mainstream science might be doing, then you will overlook things that could be actual evidence. But if you set your standard of evidence too low, then you will overlook things that could not be evidence at all. However, if you set your standard of evidence right in the middle, then I think this might be the proper standard.

Now that your rather uninspiring overture is out of the way can we skip to the fourth movement?
What are you trying to sell this time?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:LMFTFY: "f you set your standard of evidence too high which is something mainstream science might be doing, then you will overlook things that could be actual evidence. But if you set your standard of evidence too low, then you will overlook include things that could not be evidence at all. However, if you set your standard of evidence right in the middle, then I think this might be the proper standard you will get errors of both kinds because that is what science is: correcting errors, not magically get it right the first time.


Then you will need a scientific middle standard rather than the high scientific standard that I think mainstream science has.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19798
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue May 02, 2017 10:59 pm

Omniverse wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:LMFTFY: "f you set your standard of evidence too high which is something mainstream science might be doing, then you will overlook things that could be actual evidence. But if you set your standard of evidence too low, then you will overlook include things that could not be evidence at all. However, if you set your standard of evidence right in the middle, then I think this might be the proper standard you will get errors of both kinds because that is what science is: correcting errors, not magically get it right the first time.


Then you will need a scientific middle standard rather than the high scientific standard that I think mainstream science has.

Yes, science needs to be dumbed down to the point where your pets are actually credible.

Ain't gonna happen.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26780
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 02, 2017 11:02 pm

Omniverse wrote:If you set your standard of evidence too high which is something mainstream science might be doing, then you will overlook things that could be actual evidence.
Nope. Either the evidence exists or it doesn't. It's obvious that you can't think of, or offer one example, for your ridiculous assertion.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26780
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 02, 2017 11:06 pm

Omniverse wrote:Then you will need a scientific middle standard rather than the high scientific standard that I think mainstream science has.


Explain in your own words how the scientific method weeds out bad evidence? If you can't answer that, then you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

" The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:"
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/ ... node6.html

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Tue May 02, 2017 11:19 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Omniverse wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:LMFTFY: "f you set your standard of evidence too high which is something mainstream science might be doing, then you will overlook things that could be actual evidence. But if you set your standard of evidence too low, then you will overlook include things that could not be evidence at all. However, if you set your standard of evidence right in the middle, then I think this might be the proper standard you will get errors of both kinds because that is what science is: correcting errors, not magically get it right the first time.


Then you will need a scientific middle standard rather than the high scientific standard that I think mainstream science has.

Yes, science needs to be dumbed down to the point where your pets are actually credible.

Ain't gonna happen.


What about other standards of evidence such as what is used in a court of law?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19798
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue May 02, 2017 11:25 pm

Omniverse wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Omniverse wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:LMFTFY: "f you set your standard of evidence too high which is something mainstream science might be doing, then you will overlook things that could be actual evidence. But if you set your standard of evidence too low, then you will overlook include things that could not be evidence at all. However, if you set your standard of evidence right in the middle, then I think this might be the proper standard you will get errors of both kinds because that is what science is: correcting errors, not magically get it right the first time.


Then you will need a scientific middle standard rather than the high scientific standard that I think mainstream science has.

Yes, science needs to be dumbed down to the point where your pets are actually credible.

Ain't gonna happen.


What about other standards of evidence such as what is used in a court of law?

Lawyering isn't science. Hearsay is acceptable in many courts. Reproducibility is required in science. You can't change the rules to support your position.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7645
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby TJrandom » Tue May 02, 2017 11:34 pm

Omniverse wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Omniverse wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:LMFTFY: "f you set your standard of evidence too high which is something mainstream science might be doing, then you will overlook things that could be actual evidence. But if you set your standard of evidence too low, then you will overlook include things that could not be evidence at all. However, if you set your standard of evidence right in the middle, then I think this might be the proper standard you will get errors of both kinds because that is what science is: correcting errors, not magically get it right the first time.


Then you will need a scientific middle standard rather than the high scientific standard that I think mainstream science has.

Yes, science needs to be dumbed down to the point where your pets are actually credible.

Ain't gonna happen.


What about other standards of evidence such as what is used in a court of law?


So are you advocating for fabricated or simply false evidence to be accepted at court, or in science?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19798
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue May 02, 2017 11:36 pm

"Dude, do you even science?"
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7645
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby TJrandom » Tue May 02, 2017 11:40 pm

Oh, and by the way - it isn`t `mainstream science`. Science is simply science - no need to modify it with `mainstream`. All other `modified` sciences - are NOT science.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26780
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 03, 2017 12:07 am

Omniverse wrote:What about other standards of evidence such as what is used in a court of law?

There is no connection between the evolved rules of evidence in law (civil and criminal law) and the application of the scientific method to scientific evidence.

Again, stop wasting our time. If you can't think of one example to support your ridiculous claim, then you now have to accept your claim has no merit......as there is no evidence for your claim.


Now go away and stop trolling to get attention.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Sat May 06, 2017 10:25 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote:What about other standards of evidence such as what is used in a court of law?

There is no connection between the evolved rules of evidence in law (civil and criminal law) and the application of the scientific method to scientific evidence.

Again, stop wasting our time. If you can't think of one example to support your ridiculous claim, then you now have to accept your claim has no merit......as there is no evidence for your claim.


Now go away and stop trolling to get attention.


Actually, let me explain what I mean here. For example, in regards to the collected anecdotes regarding children with past lives by Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker, I don't think it is a simple matter of what science says which is that these are nothing more than anecdotes and we should, therefore, just dismiss them as being no evidence at all. This, to me, is setting the standard way too high. It is so high that these anecdotes could really be evidence and that most scientists today are simply dismissing them as nothing more than anecdotes.

What if it's more complicated than that? What if it is not as simple as what most scientists today think which is that we should always dismiss anecdotes since they are always not evidence? What if in some cases they really are evidence? I just don't think one size fits all here. I don't think this entire life in all its complexity can be contained within one simple standard of evidence here. I think you need to keep an open mind and open yourself up to other possibilities besides just one simplistic view.

After all, don't we do this already in our daily lives? Don't we make decisions on our own without the need for applying this standard of evidence science has?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 06, 2017 10:36 pm

Omni: you are just making this up.

Of course anecdotes are "used" to suggest areas of exploration and scientific testing. Its only when the "same" anecdote is raised for the umpteenth time that THAT SPECIFIC ANECDOTE is dismissed.

The anecdote starting with "I was taken up into an Alien Spaceship...." is correctly dismissed. Its been shown to lead no where.

The anecdote starting with "I was sick and ate this plant......." should and will be investigate.... time, money, and interest becoming available in the mix of competing interests.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Sat May 06, 2017 10:36 pm

You're missing the point, Omniverse. The high standard of evidence excludes most pap from consideration as science. That's completely intentional. Scientists DO have open minds. Give them some high-quality evidence and they'll look at it open-mindedly. Give 'em BS and they'll throw it right out.
Where's the problem?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Sat May 06, 2017 11:07 pm

Poodle wrote:You're missing the point, Omniverse. The high standard of evidence excludes most pap from consideration as science. That's completely intentional. Scientists DO have open minds. Give them some high-quality evidence and they'll look at it open-mindedly. Give 'em BS and they'll throw it right out.
Where's the problem?


I will tell you the problem. The skeptics and the nde researchers as well as those who believe in the anecdotes of reincarnation as being actual evidence will argue and debate all day long. The skeptics will point out how these researchers are flawed both in their research as well as their conclusions. However, the researchers would argue in return and attempt to correct these skeptics.

Where I am getting at here is what if these researchers are right? What if it's the case that skeptics just give up on these sorts of debates and regard these researchers as crackpots and whatnot due to their high standard of evidence when it could really be the case that there is actual evidence here if only these skeptics kept on debating to the point where they would eventually come to this realization?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Sat May 06, 2017 11:16 pm

If the researchers are right, then sooner or later they'll find high-quality evidence to back up their claims. The evidence will be a result of a high-quality research program rather than acceptance of bald assertion. Skeptics are skeptical in inverse proportion to the quality of the available evidence. Hearsay doesn't count.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 06, 2017 11:29 pm

Advances in science are not made by debate or argument or sudden or drawn out recognition. Its done by TESTING.

What if?

........................... silly. What if.................. indeed.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19798
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat May 06, 2017 11:34 pm

Omnibus, do you even science? "Too hard" is an excuse, not a plan.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Sat May 06, 2017 11:37 pm

Poodle wrote:If the researchers are right, then sooner or later they'll find high-quality evidence to back up their claims. The evidence will be a result of a high-quality research program rather than acceptance of bald assertion. Skeptics are skeptical in inverse proportion to the quality of the available evidence. Hearsay doesn't count.


It may not be high quality, but how does that necessarily lead you and other skeptics to the conclusion that it is not evidence at all? Or what if it really is high quality evidence and that it only seems like bold assertions on the surface until these skeptics eventually come to the realization that these researchers were right all along through an ongoing debate between them and the skeptics?

I would also like to add one last thing here in regards to the quality of evidence. You can be convinced of a certain thing or situation in your personal life at a range from 0%-100%. If your level of conviction is at 0%, then this would be a certain thing or situation to you that is simply to be dismissed as woo. If your level of conviction is at 50%, then this would be a thing or situation where it seems like it could be true to you, but you are not sure and you are keeping your fingers crossed on this one. Finally, if your level of conviction is at 100%, then you will be absolutely convinced that this thing or situation is definitely true.

Therefore, maybe this concept also applies to the nde research and other areas of research that investigate the afterlife and the paranormal. Perhaps the standard of evidence that science sets is simply too black and white and that there is a such thing as evidence that is not rock solid, but still yields a 50% conviction or any conviction that lies in a range below 100%. When I look at the nde research and the reports of children with past lives, I am not convinced that this is real.

However, at the same time, it certainly looks more valid than the wild claims of tooth fairies or Santa Claus. It looks like something that could definitely be true. Especially considering the fact that we have all this converging claimed evidence for the afterlife and paranormal by various researchers such as Dean Radin, Jeffery Long, Sam Parnia, and many others. I would put my level of conviction at 50%.
Last edited by Omniverse on Sat May 06, 2017 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Sat May 06, 2017 11:42 pm

Omniverse wrote:... However, at the same time, it certainly looks more valid than the wild claims of tooth fairies or Santa Claus. It looks like something that could definitely be true ...


Exactly how did you determine how it 'looks' valid and so 'looks like' something that could be definitely true?
Last edited by Poodle on Sat May 06, 2017 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7645
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby TJrandom » Sat May 06, 2017 11:42 pm

The earth was once flat - science proved otherwise. Flies were spontaneous, science proved otherwise. etc., etc. No need to fault science for not accepting less than high quality evidence. If ndes and reincarnation are real, eventually science will show that too, but until that time, like it or not, it is just woo.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Sun May 07, 2017 12:02 am

Poodle wrote:
Omniverse wrote:... However, at the same time, it certainly looks more valid than the wild claims of tooth fairies or Santa Claus. It looks like something that could definitely be true ...


Exactly how did you determine how it 'looks' valid and so 'looks like' something that could be definitely true?


By the same method we use all the time in our daily lives. We make decisions all the time in our daily lives and we can either be convinced of something to a certain degree where it seems like it could true or you could not be convinced at all. I look into the debates between the researchers and the skeptics and I have come to the conclusion that it seems like it could be the case that the afterlife and paranormal are real. But I think you and others are right here in saying that we need a solid conviction because it was the case that many things seemed like they could be true in the past, but were later disproved.

I have also heard that debates and arguments are no means for building any sort of conviction as one member here pointed out in this topic. The nde researchers and other researchers such as Dean Radin have performed tests and experiments. However, there needs to be a debate because, on the surface, it would appear that these are nothing more than bold assertions and flawed conclusions/research. Especially since this is something that challenges the widely held conviction of science today which states that death is final and that there is no such thing as the paranormal.

There could be actual real high quality evidence here though buried and hidden deep within these debates under this seemingly bold assertion and under these seemingly flaws in conclusions and research. That is why I stated earlier that perhaps these researchers are right and that it takes an ongoing debate for skeptics to eventually come to this realization.

User avatar
Nobrot
Poster
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Nobrot » Sun May 07, 2017 12:06 am

Poodle wrote:You're missing the point, Omniverse. The high standard of evidence excludes most pap from consideration as science. That's completely intentional. Scientists DO have open minds. Give them some high-quality evidence and they'll look at it open-mindedly. Give 'em BS and they'll throw it right out.
Where's the problem?

From memory. In the years prior to Andrew Wiles solving Fermat's Last Theorem, just about every mathematics department of every university on the planet received various 'proofs' of FLT, submitted by armature, hobbyist mathematicians. Now those armature mathematicians weren’t necessarily nutters, some clearly had a grounding in complex mathematics. Unfortunately, they were all blatantly obviously wrong . Now this is the part I find most entertaining. They didn't go all Pauli on their asses, what they did was something like:
"Sir, I find your paper most fascinating, It has been submitted to peer review".
Peer review in this case means they sent it to one of the other armchair mathematicians for review. Apparently it was a most effective method of keeping the in tray empty. Much hilarity ensured :)

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Sun May 07, 2017 12:18 am

Omniverse - you're asking the rest of the world to do your work for you. It won't. If you believe (as you appear to do) that there could be high-quality evidence buried within debates on e.g. NDEs, then it is incumbent upon you to dig it out, clean it up and present it to the world (with not a single use of the word 'maybe'). I do not believe that it's there, so I certainly won't be doing the work. No skeptic will come to any realisation through debate of the current claims because a claim is not evidence. Evidence is reproducible. Physical phenomena are not nebulous things which hide away at the first expression of doubt. You believe that there MAY be some truth in current claims so - OK - you need to work to get rid of the may bit and produce the goods - solid research technique resulting in hard facts from expertly-designed tests.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 07, 2017 12:20 am

One should not even believe "claims" until the work to prove them is done.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Sun May 07, 2017 12:48 am

Poodle wrote:Omniverse - you're asking the rest of the world to do your work for you. It won't. If you believe (as you appear to do) that there could be high-quality evidence buried within debates on e.g. NDEs, then it is incumbent upon you to dig it out, clean it up and present it to the world (with not a single use of the word 'maybe'). I do not believe that it's there, so I certainly won't be doing the work. No skeptic will come to any realisation through debate of the current claims because a claim is not evidence. Evidence is reproducible. Physical phenomena are not nebulous things which hide away at the first expression of doubt. You believe that there MAY be some truth in current claims so - OK - you need to work to get rid of the may bit and produce the goods - solid research technique resulting in hard facts from expertly-designed tests.


I don't believe that there is high quality evidence hidden in these debates. I am merely saying that there could be due to the fact that these nde researchers and other researchers investigating the paranormal have said that their research has no flaws and that their conclusions are correct. After all, these are highly trained researchers. Now, you come to the conclusion that you do not believe that there is any high quality evidence hidden within these debates. How is it that you come to that conclusion? Was it through looking into these debates?

If so, this clearly says that debates regarding this research are a means for building one's own conviction. If this is not the case, then how is it that you are able to conclude from looking at the research conducted that it is immediately flawed and that there is no evidence? Do you just look at the research, conclude that there is no evidence, and that there is no need to debate at all or to look into the debates regarding this research? Again, things will look flawed and whatnot on the surface. But how do you base this on your conviction that there is no evidence?

I would like to also add one last thing here in this post. That is, there is a difference between a solid 50% conviction and a 50% conviction that is based upon flawed reasoning and biases. If I looked into the debates regarding the paranormal and the afterlife research and my 50% conviction was based upon an honest open mind, then I can trust my own personal judgment. But if I were biased, then I would not trust my judgment. Likewise, I think we can trust our own judgments in our daily lives if they are honest open minded conclusions. That personal judgment is something I would stick with until new information comes out that would convince me otherwise.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 07, 2017 1:13 am

Omniverse wrote:
Poodle wrote:I don't believe that there is high quality evidence hidden in these debates. I am merely saying that there could be.


Wow.

Absence of rigor rarely presents itself so relentlessly.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Sun May 07, 2017 1:16 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Omniverse wrote:
Poodle wrote:I don't believe that there is high quality evidence hidden in these debates. I am merely saying that there could be.


Wow.

Absence of rigor rarely presents itself so relentlessly.


We already have evidence for that claim you just quoted. There are plenty of highly trained researchers who had plenty of skeptics doubting their findings. But as it later turned out, these skeptics were wrong. Therefore, I don't think that statement I made you just quoted should be dismissed.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 07, 2017 1:20 am

I apologize to you and Poodle. Who is saying what and when has tripped me up..... and I don't wish to review to find the turn/fork in the road.

Its simple: wait until their is a consensus and be comfortable with ambiguity or not knowing until then. After that...... be ready to change your mind when the consensus changes.

Works like a charm.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Sun May 07, 2017 1:41 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I apologize to you and Poodle. Who is saying what and when has tripped me up..... and I don't wish to review to find the turn/fork in the road.

Its simple: wait until their is a consensus and be comfortable with ambiguity or not knowing until then. After that...... be ready to change your mind when the consensus changes.

Works like a charm.


I will just say one last thing here for you and others to respond to. That is, I think there is a way to have a valid conviction through looking into the debates regarding this nde research. For example, the claim that is being made by these researchers is that people are having these ndes during a flatlined brain. But skeptics would sometimes claim that the eeg did not pick up on the brain activity.

Now, if this skeptical claim is so unlikely to be true that it can be dismissed, then we can conclude that the skeptics are wrong here. If you apply this whole process to the entire debate regarding the nde research and the research into the paranormal, then the skeptics could be wrong about all their claims.

I just think that coming to a conclusion without having any sort of debate about it is close minded when it comes to this afterlife/paranormal research. It is judging a book by its cover and not bothering to even read into the story to see how great the story truly was. In this case, the skeptics would be judging the research conducted by Dean Radin, Sam Parnia, Jeffery Long, etc. as not being evidence at all simply because it appears flawed on the surface.

But if these skeptics really looked into this research and dedicated their lives into looking into it, then they might see the high quality evidence that might have been there all along. When we have an argument or a debate with a friend or family member, we say something and then we sit down to talk about it. This conversation is to help the friend or family member be convinced one way or the other. If we didn't talk about it and just jumped to conclusions, then that would be close minded.
Last edited by Omniverse on Sun May 07, 2017 3:46 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19798
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun May 07, 2017 1:55 am

Nobrot wrote:
Poodle wrote:You're missing the point, Omniverse. The high standard of evidence excludes most pap from consideration as science. That's completely intentional. Scientists DO have open minds. Give them some high-quality evidence and they'll look at it open-mindedly. Give 'em BS and they'll throw it right out.
Where's the problem?

From memory. In the years prior to Andrew Wiles solving Fermat's Last Theorem, just about every mathematics department of every university on the planet received various 'proofs' of FLT, submitted by armature, hobbyist mathematicians. Now those armature mathematicians weren’t necessarily nutters, some clearly had a grounding in complex mathematics. Unfortunately, they were all blatantly obviously wrong . Now this is the part I find most entertaining. They didn't go all Pauli on their asses, what they did was something like:
"Sir, I find your paper most fascinating, It has been submitted to peer review".
Peer review in this case means they sent it to one of the other armchair mathematicians for review. Apparently it was a most effective method of keeping the in tray empty. Much hilarity ensured :)

"amateur"
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Sun May 07, 2017 4:09 am

Let me extend upon my previous post. Therefore, go ahead and reply both to this post and my previous one. I will add that any given skeptical claim regarding the nde research or the paranormal research such as that the eeg did not detect any brain activity when there was brain activity or that ndes are hallucinations induced by lack of oxygen to the brain, then these claims are opening statements for a debate.

They are NOT any basis for a conviction yet. Not until the debate has been complete and a final decision has been made by either the believers or the skeptics. Imagine if the skeptics just went along with their claim that there was brain activity that the eeg did not detect without even bothering to talk to an eeg expert about this. I think this would be very close minded. Therefore, the way I see it, there has to be a debate regarding this research to be convinced one way or the other. Otherwise, you are only being convinced by nothing more than opening statements for a debate.

However, if the skeptics are not convinced of their claims and are instead using their claims as a means to dismiss the research as not being evidence, then this would also be close minded. It is just saying:

"Welp, this could have been the cause of these ndes even though I am not convinced of my personal claim yet. Therefore, let's just dismiss the nde research as not being any evidence of consciousness independent of the brain. I am not even going to bother reading further into the debates regarding this research to see if there is actual evidence there. I am just going to dismiss the research based upon my skeptical claims which may or may not be true."

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Sun May 07, 2017 6:45 am

A little niggle for you, Omniverse ...
If, as you report, the NDEs are claimed to have occurred when the subjects' brains were flatlining (which, as far as I can ascertain, would probably mean they were dead - a DE rather than an NDE, if you see what I mean) then the researchers saw nothing at all and have no supporting data to back up what is now exposed as simple reportage by the subjects rather than detection by the researchers.
There, in a nutshell, is why skeptics remain skeptical. It Is a basis for skepticism, not conviction as you wrote above. Flat denial of a phenomena which has not been demonstrated either way is nothing to do with skepticism. You are, I think, complaining to the wrong people. My personal belief that there is no such thing as an NDE which has a basis in reality is just that - a belief - but I'm taking the time to discuss it with you because I'm a skeptic and do not allow my beliefs to become my convictions.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7645
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby TJrandom » Sun May 07, 2017 10:48 am

It is not up to skeptics to prove your belief is wrong, but rather it is for you to prove you are right. You came here with your claim. Skeptics, just as any person, are free to believe what they want - with, or without the rigours of science. I choose to not believe in ndes, and so far science is seemingly on my side. Please find the science that proves my belief to be wrong.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Sun May 07, 2017 1:33 pm

OK - I've done a modicum of reading around flatlined brains. And the result of this is that I now know that if there is no electrical activity within your brain for an EEG to detect (that's flatlining, I guess) then you are already dead and have been for some time. You are not - absolutely NOT - going to recover to report a near-death experience because you've gone Full Monty. You are defunct, deceased; you have shuffled off your mortal coil and departed for the Great Nowhere. It matters not a whit what anyone's local legal definition of death is - no brainy wavy things and you're toast.
I think I can draw a conclusion from this - any 'researcher' claiming recovery after a subject's brain has flatlined is either a charlatan, a liar, or doesn't know how to set up an EEG (it's also a small possibilty that the electrodes have been stuck onto the patient's arse instead of his/her head). Alternatively, the world's more conventional brain researchers are all wrong - all of 'em.
I know what I'm going to bet on.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19798
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun May 07, 2017 1:43 pm

I think the leads are on the arse of the people who report such things. Proximity to the brain being important and all that...
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11445
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun May 07, 2017 1:50 pm

One of the most useful subjects I ever took was "Science Communication". In other words, "How to Speak to Idiots".

Speak to the layman. Avoid jargon and ambiguousness.

They're easily confused.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Sun May 07, 2017 1:53 pm

Poodle wrote:A little niggle for you, Omniverse ...
If, as you report, the NDEs are claimed to have occurred when the subjects' brains were flatlining (which, as far as I can ascertain, would probably mean they were dead - a DE rather than an NDE, if you see what I mean) then the researchers saw nothing at all and have no supporting data to back up what is now exposed as simple reportage by the subjects rather than detection by the researchers.
There, in a nutshell, is why skeptics remain skeptical. It Is a basis for skepticism, not conviction as you wrote above. Flat denial of a phenomena which has not been demonstrated either way is nothing to do with skepticism. You are, I think, complaining to the wrong people. My personal belief that there is no such thing as an NDE which has a basis in reality is just that - a belief - but I'm taking the time to discuss it with you because I'm a skeptic and do not allow my beliefs to become my convictions.


There is a difference between clinical death and official death. Your brain can still be flat lined and you can still be alive. It is not yet irreversible death. Experiments have been performed by the nde researchers to clearly indicate that people were having these experiences during the flat line as well as verified out of body perceptions of conversations being overheard in distant rooms as well as the equipment being performed on these flat lined patients. The equipment has been reported in great detail by these patients.

TJrandom wrote:It is not up to skeptics to prove your belief is wrong, but rather it is for you to prove you are right. You came here with your claim. Skeptics, just as any person, are free to believe what they want - with, or without the rigours of science. I choose to not believe in ndes, and so far science is seemingly on my side. Please find the science that proves my belief to be wrong.


So, are you saying that I am shifting the burden of proof which is a fallacy? I wish to know why this is a fallacy here. The skeptics are expecting evidence for the claims the nde researchers are making. They expect experiments that yield good evidence. So, why would it be a fallacy for the nde researchers to expect the same of the skeptics and their claims? Yes, we know that the physical world exists and we can make arguments that support a materialistic view of ndes. However, these materialistic explanations are still claims. They need evidence.

Just because we know the physical world exists does not mean we can automatically rule out ndes as being brain based phenomena. The AWARE Study is a study that has been trying to discover evidence for a non-materialist view of ndes by studying nde patients and doing experiments. Therefore, I would also think there would need to be a Skeptical AWARE Study which involves skeptics doing experiments and trying to discover evidence to support their materialistic explanations as well.

This is only a fair assessment here. I don't think it is fair for skeptics to just stick with their claims and dismiss the claims of the nde researchers. But even if skeptics have performed their own experiments and have come up with their own findings, I think this still all comes down to a matter of debate as I've said before. Sometimes in life, it is not always as simple as coming up with some findings and immediately being convinced one way or the other. A debate is sometimes required to clear up misconceptions and close minded views.

Edit: Never mind. If there is no evidence for ndes being non-materialistic, then it's obvious that the skeptics do not need to support their claims. However, where I am getting at here is that perhaps there is already good evidence hidden in these debates as I've said before. Such evidence would make it a requirement for skeptics to perform their own experiments and try to come up with evidence to support their claims.
Last edited by Omniverse on Sun May 07, 2017 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests