Setting the proper standard of evidence

How should we think about weird things?
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 09, 2017 5:21 am

Omniverse wrote: You don't need a mechanism if this phenomenon is already true.
Yes you do. Unless you claim pixies and leprechauns tell the person, claiming they had an NDE, what they claimed they saw. :lol:

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Tue May 09, 2017 5:33 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote: You don't need a mechanism if this phenomenon is already true.
Yes you do. Unless you claim pixies and leprechauns tell the person, claiming they had an NDE, what they claimed they saw. :lol:


If one has researched extensively into the nde research and the debates and has discovered for a fact that this phenomenon is really true and not just some fuzzy anecdote that you are making it out to be, then no mechanism is required. The nde researchers claim that they have done their research and experiments properly. If this is the case, then this phenomenon is already true and no mechanism is required. However, if the research really was flawed, then that would make this phenomenon some fuzzy anecdote and a mechanism would really be required here.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

No evidence for NDEs.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 09, 2017 5:37 am

Omniverse wrote: If one has researched extensively into the nde research and the debates .....
I have done so. That's how I quickly showed you Stevenson''s fraud, that Hameroff didn't have a model and Roger Penrose didn't make any claim about NDE's.

Name the books on NDEs you have read? That would be zero, right?
:lol:

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19473
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Failure at every level : NDEs

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue May 09, 2017 10:05 am

Omniverse wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote: So, you are not even going to bother explaining to me why I need this hypothesis if those phenomena the nde researchers described are real phenomena?
I have five times.

You cannot have a falsifiable experiment without a working hypothesis. Without a working hypothesis you simply have a fuzzy open-ended set of anecdotes. Science doesn't bother with subjective fuzzy anecdotes.
:D


Allow me to illustrate the point I am trying to make here. In the past, people used to believe the earth was flat. But then there were some findings that came along. These were real findings that challenged the notion of the earth being flat. But these were merely findings at the time. However, they did keep flat earth believers in a mindset of not knowing whether the earth was flat or a sphere. But then there was evidence that the earth was a sphere later on.

We didn't need any hypothesis to make these findings a challenge to the notion of the earth being flat. In that same sense, if the findings that the nde researchers have described are real findings in regards to people reporting information from distant rooms during their nde and subtle brain activity that is insufficient to explain the ndes people were having during that time of subtle brain activity, then these findings alone are enough to at least challenge the materialistic worldview.

Even though there might not be actual evidence for a non-materialistic nde just as how there was no evidence that the earth was a sphere at the time, we do at least have these findings that challenge the skeptics just as how there were findings that challenged the flat earth believers at the time.

There was evidence that the Earth was round back then, some people just ignored it.

See where I'm going with this?
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: 7371
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 09, 2017 12:56 pm

I`d like to know more about that leprechaun. Was it seen during an nde? Or maybe after a snog of Baileys, Black Bush, or Jamesons? What – all three?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Tue May 09, 2017 1:43 pm

The skeptics here are saying that even if it really is the case that patients are having ndes during a moment where they have subtle brain activity that is insufficient to give a materialistic explanation of their nde or if it really is the case that patients are getting information from distant rooms during their moment of subtle brain activity, that we still need a mechanism here. Otherwise, this is all still nothing more than a fuzzy anecdote.

This is the skeptical guideline that is being presented here. I just think that this guideline only applies to a certain degree before it becomes absurd. This is because I think it would be absurd to think that those phenomena I mentioned above, if they really are real, that they do not pose any challenge to the materialistic model without that explained mechanism.

Another skeptical guideline that only applies to a certain degree before it becomes absurd is in regards to anecdotes. I think that, in some scenarios, anecdotes really do pose a challenge to the materialistic model and are not just these fuzzy ambiguous things. There is a difference between anecdotes that are nothing more than stories as opposed to the types of anecdotes that were a result of impeccable research.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8119
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 » Tue May 09, 2017 1:53 pm

They are? I've been back through the thread and I've come to the conclusion that either you're an extremely wishful thinker or you can't read. Try your hardest, Omniverse, but it's not easy to change word definitions merely as a result of clicking your heels three times and saying 'There's no place like home'.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
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 09, 2017 2:03 pm

Omniverse wrote:The skeptics here are saying that even if it really is the case that patients are having ndes during a moment where they have subtle brain activity that is insufficient to give a materialistic explanation of their nde or if it really is the case that patients are getting information from distant rooms during their moment of subtle brain activity, that we still need a mechanism here. Otherwise, this is all still nothing more than a fuzzy anecdote.

This is the skeptical guideline that is being presented here. I just think that this guideline only applies to a certain degree before it becomes absurd. This is because I think it would be absurd to think that those phenomena I mentioned above, if they really are real, that they do not pose any challenge to the materialistic model without that explained mechanism.

Another skeptical guideline that only applies to a certain degree before it becomes absurd is in regards to anecdotes. I think that, in some scenarios, anecdotes really do pose a challenge to the materialistic model and are not just these fuzzy ambiguous things. There is a difference between anecdotes that are nothing more than stories as opposed to the types of anecdotes that were a result of impeccable research.


... even if it really is the case that
... or if it really is the case that
... if they really are real
... anecdotes that were a result of impeccable research

Lots of ifs. And anecdotes that were a result of impeccable research? They wouldn`t be anecdotes if they were the result of impeccable research - but rather simply research results.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19473
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 09, 2017 5:58 pm

TJrandom wrote:I`d like to know more about that leprechaun. Was it seen during an nde? Or maybe after a snog of Baileys, Black Bush, or Jamesons? What – all three?

Careful, leprechauns are badass.

Image
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
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby fromthehills » Tue May 09, 2017 9:17 pm

TJrandom wrote:I`d like to know more about that leprechaun. Was it seen during an nde? Or maybe after a snog of Baileys, Black Bush, or Jamesons? What – all three?



As I said, it was after much physical activity, no sleep and very little food in 36 hours. Perhaps the "leprechaun" was due to cultural beliefs.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
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 09, 2017 10:36 pm

fromthehills wrote:
TJrandom wrote:I`d like to know more about that leprechaun. Was it seen during an nde? Or maybe after a snog of Baileys, Black Bush, or Jamesons? What – all three?



As I said, it was after much physical activity, no sleep and very little food in 36 hours. Perhaps the "leprechaun" was due to cultural beliefs.


Erm... that physical activity was limited to your right arm - correct? Those shooters and mugs do get heavier as the evening wears on. :oldman:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 09, 2017 11:30 pm

Omniverse wrote:The skeptics here are saying that even if it really is the case that patients are having ndes ......
No skeptic ever said there was a real case of paranormal NDE. You simply made that up.

What's even funnier, is that after three pages you haven't actually presented one case of a NDE, supporting your claim, for us to review.


Omniverse wrote: This is because I think .........
Who cares what you think? You haven't read any books or papers on NDEs. You don't know what a hypothesis is or what the scientific method is. You can't quote any "NDE Researcher" explaining what a NDE is. You can't explain why NDE anecdotes conflict in detail or logic.

We may as well talk about leprechauns.


Location. Inverary, Scotland
Date: circa 1914
Time: afternoon

Eyewitness account of Leprechaun Encounter
While riding his tricycle along a pathway near this city, the witness, a young boy, took a hard tumble, and thinks to this day that he probably broke his arm. After he'd been sitting there alone and crying for a few minutes, a little person---no more than two and a half feet tall...appeared out of nowhere to assist him. Somehow he tended to the boy and healed his injury almost instantly.

The young boy asked the little man who he was, and the reply came that he was a gnome; the boy observed that he resembled more a "leprechaun" and the little man corrected him patiently, saying that no, he was a gnome.

About this time the boy's parents who had been looking for him, came near to the scene, and the little man scurried away into the underbrush. His parents did not believe his story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIT_ov0lOXo

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 12:47 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote:The skeptics here are saying that even if it really is the case that patients are having ndes ......
No skeptic ever said there was a real case of paranormal NDE. You simply made that up.

What's even funnier, is that after three pages you haven't actually presented one case of a NDE, supporting your claim, for us to review.


Omniverse wrote: This is because I think .........
Who cares what you think? You haven't read any books or papers on NDEs. You don't know what a hypothesis is or what the scientific method is. You can't quote any "NDE Researcher" explaining what a NDE is. You can't explain why NDE anecdotes conflict in detail or logic.

We may as well talk about leprechauns.


Location. Inverary, Scotland
Date: circa 1914
Time: afternoon

Eyewitness account of Leprechaun Encounter
While riding his tricycle along a pathway near this city, the witness, a young boy, took a hard tumble, and thinks to this day that he probably broke his arm. After he'd been sitting there alone and crying for a few minutes, a little person---no more than two and a half feet tall...appeared out of nowhere to assist him. Somehow he tended to the boy and healed his injury almost instantly.

The young boy asked the little man who he was, and the reply came that he was a gnome; the boy observed that he resembled more a "leprechaun" and the little man corrected him patiently, saying that no, he was a gnome.

About this time the boy's parents who had been looking for him, came near to the scene, and the little man scurried away into the underbrush. His parents did not believe his story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIT_ov0lOXo


I never said that the skeptics were saying that there was a real case of a paranormal nde. Read the rest of that post to get the full picture rather than quoting brief snippets of what I have written and jumping to conclusions.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 12:57 am

Omniverse wrote: Read the rest of that post to get the full picture rather than quoting brief snippets of what I have written and jumping to conclusions.

Let's check that list again......
You haven't offered one example of a paranormal NDE,
You haven't offered one hypothesis for what a paranormal NDE is, or how it works,
You haven't read one book on NDEs,
You don't know what the scientific method is or what a hypothesis is to allow any review of NDEs at all,
You can't name one "paranormal NDE researcher" who has a working model,

We have linked you to scientific papers that explain the exact working psychology of why people think they have had NDEs.

Where do we go from here?
:lol:

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 1:00 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote: Read the rest of that post to get the full picture rather than quoting brief snippets of what I have written and jumping to conclusions.

Let's check that list again......
You haven't offered one example of a paranormal NDE,
You haven't offered one hypothesis for what a paranormal NDE is, or how it works,
You haven't read one book on NDEs,
You don't know what the scientific method is or what a hypothesis is to allow any review of NDEs at all,
You can't name one "paranormal NDE researcher" who has a working model,

We have linked you to scientific papers that explain the exact working psychology of why people think they have had NDEs.

Where do we go from here?
:lol:


You are saying that we need a hypothesis and a mechanism in order to validate a paranormal nde as being a real phenomenon. But what I am saying here is that if these paranormal ndes are already real, then why would we need a hypothesis and a mechanism? If the nde research is flawless and these paranormal ndes are already real and that one just has to really search deep into this research as well as the debates regarding the research to find out that they are real, then why would we need a hypothesis and a mechanism in order to make these real paranormal ndes a challenge to the materialistic worldview?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

No evidence for NDEs

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 1:10 am

Omniverse wrote:You are saying that we need a hypothesis and a mechanism in order to validate a paranormal nde as being a real phenomenon.
Yep. I have explained that five times.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 1:17 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote:You are saying that we need a hypothesis and a mechanism in order to validate a paranormal nde as being a real phenomenon.
Yep. I have explained that five times.


The rest of that post was also very important for you to read and respond to as well. It seems as though you have just simply taken that small snippet you have quoted out of context of the rest of my post which gave you the impression that I was doing nothing more than reiterating something you have already stated 5 times. Read the rest of that post to get the full picture.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 1:42 am

Omniverse wrote: The rest of that post was also very important for you to read and respond to as well.
Nope. You have written the same thing three times and I responded three times. You simply ignored my responses.

You won't answer this question either..........Name one book you have read on NDE's?
:lol:

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 1:54 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote: The rest of that post was also very important for you to read and respond to as well.
Nope. You have written the same thing three times and I responded three times. You simply ignored my responses.

You won't answer this question either..........Name one book you have read on NDE's?
:lol:


Yes, and that is because you kept on insisting that I needed a hypothesis and a mechanism anyway even if these are real phenomena that the nde researchers describe. You have never explained why I would need that in such a scenario. Rather, you just kept on insisting that I needed it anyway. If it's to weed out other possible materialistic explanations, then I think this skeptical line of reasoning does apply to a certain degree before it becomes absurd. This whole skeptical notion that we need a hypothesis and a mechanism does apply to a certain degree before it becomes absurd. In the hypothetical situation of the phenomena that the nde researchers describe being real phenomena (i.e. people getting information from distant rooms during their moment of subtle brain activity), then it would be absurd to expect a hypothesis and a mechanism at this point in order to make such phenomena a challenge to the materialistic worldview.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 2:14 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: You won't answer this question either..........Name one book you have read on NDE's? :lol:
Omniverse wrote: Yes,
I didn't think you could, as you have never read anything on NDE's

Omniverse wrote: ..insisting that I needed a hypothesis and a mechanism anyway even if these are real phenomena that the nde researchers describe.
You haven't described any NDEs or quoted any NDE researcher's remember? :lol:

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 2:18 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: You won't answer this question either..........Name one book you have read on NDE's? :lol:
Omniverse wrote: Yes,
I didn't think you could, as you have never read anything on NDE's

Omniverse wrote: ..insisting that I needed a hypothesis and a mechanism anyway even if these are real phenomena that the nde researchers describe.
You haven't described any NDEs or quoted any NDE researcher's remember? :lol:


What I am asking here is this. Let's pretend that these nde phenomena were real and skeptics were all convinced that they were real (i.e. people getting information from distant rooms during their moment of subtle brain activity which is impossible to explain from a materialistic point of view), then why would we need a hypothesis and a mechanism in such a pretend scenario to make this a challenge to the materialistic worldview? I think that would be absurd to expect that at this point.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 2:53 am

Omniverse wrote:Let's pretend that these nde phenomena were real
Why stop there? Let's also pretend leprechauns are real.

Omniverse wrote:and skeptics were all convinced that they were real, then why would we need a hypothesis and a mechanism?
For the seventh time. A skeptic would not consider NDE's or Leprechauns are real unless there was a hypothesis and working mechanism to explain why NDE's and leprechauns are probably factual and real, because there is no DEFINED FACT being reviewed, using the scientific method.

You refuse to set out any NDE stories because you can't explain the conflicts in those very same stories . A "soul" floats through a wall? Define a soul. The soul sees another room? How does a soul see anything without physical yes focusing light waves and so on.

Let me give you a simple example. We don't have to worry how Sherlock Holmes travelled to Paris so quickly because Sherlock Holmes is a character from popular fiction. I don't have to worry about how a person having a paranormal NDE can see in another room, without physical eyes, as paranormal NDEs are a creation of popular fiction.

You can't present any evidence that paranormal NDEs are real because the stories conflict with themselves and can't be set out as a set of FACTS or working theories or hypotheses.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 3:04 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Let's pretend that these nde phenomena were real
Why stop there? Let's also pretend leprechauns are real.

Omniverse wrote:and skeptics were all convinced that they were real, then why would we need a hypothesis and a mechanism?
For the seventh time. A skeptic would not consider NDE's or Leprechauns are real unless there was a hypothesis and working mechanism to explain why NDE's and leprechauns are probably factual and real, because there is no DEFINED FACT being reviewed, using the scientific method.

You refuse to set out any NDE stories because you can't explain the conflicts in those very same stories . A "soul" floats through a wall? Define a soul. The soul sees another room? How does a soul see anything without physical yes focusing light waves and so on.

Let me give you a simple example. We don't have to worry how Sherlock Holmes travelled to Paris so quickly because Sherlock Holmes is a character from popular fiction. I don't have to worry about how a person having a paranormal NDE can see in another room, without physical eyes, as paranormal NDEs are a creation of popular fiction.

You can't present any evidence that paranormal NDEs are real because the stories conflict with themselves and can't be set out as a set of FACTS or working theories or hypotheses.


But what I am saying is that there is a way to determine whether these phenomena are real or nothing more than fuzzy anecdotes through, again, researching deep into the nde research as well as the debates regarding this research. If the phenomena such as people reporting information from distant rooms during subtle brain activity are, in fact, real due to it being a real discovered phenomena through extensive research into the nde research as well as the debates regarding this research, then I see no need for a hypothesis and a mechanism now.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 3:28 am

Omniverse wrote: what I am saying is that there is a way to determine whether these phenomena are real or nothing more than fuzzy anecdotes through, again, researching deep into the nde research as well as the debates regarding this research.
Nope. If you really really really thought that you could set out a set of anecdotes about NDE's or Leprechauns, which was consistent and not self conflicting, you would have done so. You refuse to do so because you can't No one can. They are human created stories from popular fiction.

Set out your best two NDE stories that are not in conflict. ( I know you don't actually know any NDE stories.... because you are making this thread up as you go)

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 3:48 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote: what I am saying is that there is a way to determine whether these phenomena are real or nothing more than fuzzy anecdotes through, again, researching deep into the nde research as well as the debates regarding this research.
Nope. If you really really really thought that you could set out a set of anecdotes about NDE's or Leprechauns, which was consistent and not self conflicting, you would have done so. You refuse to do so because you can't No one can. They are human created stories from popular fiction.


But these findings by the nde researchers could be consistent and not self conflicting and that it is just a matter of you giving up on looking any further into this nde research and the debates regarding the research to know otherwise. What appear to be conflicting findings might not be at all. I have seen the excuses skeptics give in giving up on looking further into this research and debates. They just do simple google searches and use simple dismissive guidelines. That, to me, is not a rational mindset. Proponents of the paranormal and the afterlife would do the same thing. They would also do simple google searches and use simple dismissive guidelines to dismiss the skeptics. This would not be a rational mindset either.

It's not rational because there can be things that appear to be flaws on the surface, but are actually not flaws at all upon further investigation. Therefore, as for the types of skeptics who immediately give up on this nde/paranormal research due to flaws that they perceive, then that is just giving up right there and being close minded. Unless they are absolutely certain that these are, in fact, real flaws and real conflicting findings through extensive research into the nde/paranormal research as well as the debates regarding this research, then these skeptics would be doing nothing more than being dismissive and close minded.

Therefore, that is the reason why it has to come down to extensively researching into this nde/paranormal research as well as the debates and coming to a conclusion that you are absolutely certain of. Have you done this? If you have, then that is your personal conclusion and I have nothing to say against it. If you are not doing this, then you would be jumping to conclusions and that would not be a rational mindset. But if you really have, then it is just up to me to do the same and draw my own definite conclusion as well.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 3:51 am

Omniverse wrote:But these findings by the nde researchers could be consistent and not self conflicting........

Set out two examples of non-conflicting paranormal NDE anecdotes. Either you can or you can't. :lol:

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 4:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote:But these findings by the nde researchers could be consistent and not self conflicting........

Set out two examples of non-conflicting paranormal NDE anecdotes. Either you can or you can't. :lol:


All I'm saying here is that these conflicts and flaws can resolve through further investigation into this research and the debates. They could resolve in a way that you've never expected. If you are truly open minded and are willing to go all the way through with looking into this research as well as the debates, then you could finally come to the realization that there were never really any flaws or conflicts at all. I can't point out to you any non-conflicting paranormal ndes yet because I haven't fully researched into this research and debates. All I'm doing here is merely sharing some words of advice and wisdom.

I am telling you and other skeptics here that it would be irrational and close minded to just jump to conclusions based on what you immediately think are flaws and conflicting findings without bothering to fully research more into this. After all, we are talking researchers here who have done this nde research for a very long time, know what they are doing, and have been careful in their experiments. Like I said though, if you really have fully researched and this is your absolute conclusion, then I understand and I have nothing to say against it.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 4:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Set out two examples of non-conflicting paranormal NDE anecdotes. Either you can or you can't. :lol:
Omniverse wrote:All I'm saying here is that these conflicts ........
So that's a big "No" then. :lol:

Can you set out any two examples of NDE stories where you can identify the inconsistencies? :lol:

You don't know any NDE stories at all, do you?
:lol:

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 4:18 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Set out two examples of non-conflicting paranormal NDE anecdotes. Either you can or you can't. :lol:
Omniverse wrote:All I'm saying here is that these conflicts ........
So that's a big "No" then. :lol:

Can you set out any two examples of NDE stories where you can identify the inconsistencies? :lol:

You don't know any NDE stories at all, do you?
:lol:


Are you even bothering to read the remainder of my post because it seems like you are just casually and laughingly giving a hasty response without bothering to read further. I think it's important that you read the remainder of my posts because what I say is important here.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 4:23 am

Omniverse wrote:Are you even bothering to read the remainder....... .
Nope. I'm waiting for you to set out your best NDE anecdote.

As you don't know any, it will be a long wait.
:lol:

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 4:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Are you even bothering to read the remainder....... .
Nope. I'm waiting for you to set out your best NDE anecdote.

As you don't know any, it will be a long wait.
:lol:


The stories of nde experiencers regarding the type of being, afterlife, or god they visited, this can be a conflicting issue because the conflict would be in regards to what type of god and afterlife we are talking about. That conflict would not negate ndes as being a real soul separate from body phenomenon. Therefore, I am not talking about these types of conflicts. I am instead talking about other conflicts that you think render this nde research as flawed and make the findings of the researchers nothing more than fuzzy conflicting findings.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 5:17 am

Omniverse wrote: The stories of nde experiencers regarding the type of god they visited, can be a conflicting issue because the conflict would be in regards to what type of god and afterlife we are talking about

Can you give me one example of a NDE story involving God?

No? Well..... that means we don't have to worry about that then.

Good news......that was so easy to disprove, wasn't it!
:lol:

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 5:32 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote: The stories of nde experiencers regarding the type of god they visited, can be a conflicting issue because the conflict would be in regards to what type of god and afterlife we are talking about

Can you give me one example of a NDE story involving God?

No? Well..... that means we don't have to worry about that then.

Good news......that was so easy to disprove, wasn't it!
:lol:


I have no idea what you are talking about. There are plenty of stories by nde experiencers involving various beings, gods, and different themed afterlives. They are all up on the nde website.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8119
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 » Wed May 10, 2017 5:47 am

Omniverse, your ideas on what skeptics should and should not do are straight out of Fantasyland. You are saying that NDEs should be thoroughly researched and investigated by skeptics merely because YOU think (with zero evidence) that they could be real. I can only assume that you insist upon the same consideration for leprechauns, fairies, kelpies, gnomes, elves, vampires, ghouls, and all other pretend beings which don't exist and never have.
Do your own research, you lazy sod.
(CLUE to help you begin your research program ... Reading the claims of other people who also have no evidence is not research - it's a hobby).

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 6:00 am

Poodle wrote:Omniverse, your ideas on what skeptics should and should not do are straight out of Fantasyland. You are saying that NDEs should be thoroughly researched and investigated by skeptics merely because YOU think (with zero evidence) that they could be real. I can only assume that you insist upon the same consideration for leprechauns, fairies, kelpies, gnomes, elves, vampires, ghouls, and all other pretend beings which don't exist and never have.
Do your own research, you lazy sod.
(CLUE to help you begin your research program ... Reading the claims of other people who also have no evidence is not research - it's a hobby).


If I saw people engaging in nothing more than a debate over the existence of Santa Claus, then you would not find me giving the advice I have been giving to skeptics such as that Santa Claus might be real and that you just have to look into this debate to find out. The reason why the nde research is a different situation that does warrant this advice though is because we have researchers who have done serious research, they have been at this for a long time, they have been careful with their experiments, etc. There is another factor that warrants this advice which is that there are many other areas of research with serious researchers who have also made findings that they think point to consciousness being independent of the brain and to paranormal phenomena.

There are many different lines of claimed converging evidence pointing towards these phenomena. Taken all of this together, you do not see this with claims such as Santa Claus, fairies, etc. As a matter of fact, if there were researchers out there who did serious research, performed experiments, and claimed they did it all impeccably and that all this research and experiments points towards the existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, then my advice would apply because as long as we have researchers who have done serious work and experiments into this, then I think that is well worthy of thorough investigation. To not do so and just jump to conclusions would be close minded.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8119
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 » Wed May 10, 2017 6:18 am

Omniverse wrote:There are many different lines of claimed converging evidence pointing towards these phenomena.

(My emphasis).
Claimed evidence??? It either is or it's not. You have illustrated perfectly what we're all saying. Millions of kids around the world say that Santa Claus exists so, using your criteria, he should be thoroughly investigated by skeptics. Yet you reject Santaism out of hand. Rather hypocritical, don't you think? I demand that you spend all of your waking hours disproving the existence of Santa Claus!

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 6:25 am

Poodle wrote:
Omniverse wrote:There are many different lines of claimed converging evidence pointing towards these phenomena.

(My emphasis).
Claimed evidence??? It either is or it's not. You have illustrated perfectly what we're all saying. Millions of kids around the world say that Santa Claus exists so, using your criteria, he should be thoroughly investigated by skeptics. Yet you reject Santaism out of hand. Rather hypocritical, don't you think? I demand that you spend all of your waking hours disproving the existence of Santa Claus!


It doesn't matter what the claim is. As long as we have serious researchers who have done serious research, did experiments, have been at this for a long time, are saying that they have evidence, and that their research and experiments were impeccable, then that warrants thorough investigation. Dean Radin says he has the evidence, Sam Parnia and Pim van Lommel say they have the evidence, Stuart Hameroff says he has the evidence, and the list goes on here. They are researchers who have been at this for a long time and have done serious research here. That makes their research worthy of thorough investigation.

If there were many different groups of kids making up wild mystical stories, then I would dismiss them since they are just little kids. I would not bother to thoroughly investigate their cases. But when it comes to serious researchers doing research, doing experiments, and making claims, then there is a far more likelihood that their claims could be true. Therefore, that is the reason why I think it would be worthy to thoroughly investigate their cases because, with the little kids, the likelihood that their wild mystical stories are true is far less likely.

Sure, there are many serious researchers who were wrong. However, just the fact that they are serious researchers makes their research worthy of thorough investigation. There were many researchers who were wrong and then there were many who were right. But you will never know which ones are right and which ones are wrong unless you thoroughly investigate their research to find out.
Last edited by Omniverse on Wed May 10, 2017 7:04 am, edited 3 times in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: No evidence for NDEs

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 6:55 am

Omniverse wrote: I have no idea what you are talking about. There are plenty of stories by nde experiencers involving various beings, gods, and different themed afterlives.
Quote one of them, so we can shred the story and laugh at you some more! :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

NDEs are just fairy tales

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 6:57 am

Omniverse wrote:As long as we have serious researchers who have done serious research, did experiments, have been at this for a long time, are saying that they have evidence,...
Quote one of them so we can pull them apart and laugh at you some more. It's your claim......you go find them. :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: NDEs are just fairy tales

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 7:04 am

Here is a very famous NDE from a little girl who had three visions before dying. The story is from 1845.

On a cold New Year's Eve, a poor young girl, tries to sell matches in the street. She is already shivering from cold and early hypothermia, and she is walking barefoot having lost her slippers. Still, she is too afraid to go home, because her father will beat her for not selling any matches, and also as the cracks in the house can't keep out the cold wind. The girl takes shelter in a nook or alley and sits down.

The girl lights the matches to warm herself. In their glow she sees several lovely visions, starting with a stove, then a holiday feast where the goose almost jumps out at her, and then a Christmas tree larger than the one at the rich merchant's house. The girl looks skyward and sees a shooting star; she then remembers her dead grandmother saying that such a falling star means someone is dying and is going to Heaven. As she lights the next match, she sees a vision of her grandmother, the only person to have treated her with love and kindness. To keep the vision of her grandmother alive for as long as she can, the girl lights the entire bundle of matches at once.

After running out of matches the child dies

Hans Christian Andersen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJzwC_8f6nA


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest