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

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Thu May 11, 2017 11:19 am

Major Malfunction wrote:You've been learnt. Pony-up, or bugger-off.


You are saying that I have already been told what the flaws were in those posts I've recently made. No, I haven't. You and others might have pointed out the flaws in the posts I've made in the past in this topic, but not my recent ones that talk about the standard by which we determine whether someone's research is worthy of thorough investigation or not and how one should not just jump to conclusions that their research is woo.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 11:47 am

All the flaws have been patiently pointed-out many times to you in different ways.
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 » Thu May 11, 2017 12:02 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:All the flaws have been patiently pointed-out many times to you in different ways.


It was said to me before that I needed a hypothesis and a mechanism and that I am shifting the burden of proof. None of these flaws apply to my recent posts since they discuss something different.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 12:10 pm

No point trimming the leaves when you can saw it down at the trunk.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19800
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu May 11, 2017 12:17 pm

Omniverse wrote:
I'm not choosing to remain ignorant here.

Yeah, why should here be different from anywhere else?
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 » Thu May 11, 2017 12:18 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:No point trimming the leaves when you can saw it down at the trunk.


If, by this, you mean that I can make matters much more simpler if I just presented some of the findings by the researchers here, then this is an exercise in futility since I already know skeptics would reject them. They would reject them just from the simple fact that there appears to be flaws on the surface with these findings. That is where my recent posts come in and explain how a thorough investigation into this research really is necessary to find out for yourself whether there is actual evidence or not. I cannot present any evidence here because, like I said, it is all a matter of researching thoroughly and finding out for ourselves. I just came here to explain how it would not be a rational mindset and how it would be close minded to base any given conclusion whether that be the researchers are good or bad or their research being woo or not on a lack of thorough investigation.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19800
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu May 11, 2017 12:25 pm

Omniverse wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:No point trimming the leaves when you can saw it down at the trunk.


If, by this, you mean that I can make matters much more simpler if I just presented some of the findings by the researchers here, then this is an exercise in futility since I already know skeptics would reject them. They would reject them just from the simple fact that there appears to be flaws on the surface with these findings. That is where my recent posts come in and explain how a thorough investigation into this research really is necessary to find out for yourself whether there is actual evidence or not. I cannot present any evidence here because, like I said, it is all a matter of researching thoroughly and finding out for ourselves. I just came here to explain how it would not be a rational mindset and how it would be close minded to base any given conclusion whether that be the researchers are good or bad or their research being woo or not on a lack of thorough investigation.

You haven't given one clue as to why we should even bother 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
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 12:33 pm

I'm just backing-away. It's obvious you have some problems I'm neither qualified nor capable of dealing with. Best of luck. Hope you find your peace. Maybe some meds.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19800
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu May 11, 2017 12:40 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:I'm just backing-away. It's obvious you have some problems I'm neither qualified nor capable of dealing with. Best of luck. Hope you find your peace. Maybe some meds.

"I have a magic frog. It sings, it dances, it has a hat and a cane. Don't you like my magic frog? Let's just sit here and listen to my magic frog sing. If you don't like my magic frog I'll kill your family. And don't yell! Why can't you be civil?"
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: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 12:47 pm

Some men, you just can't reach...
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 » Thu May 11, 2017 1:00 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Omniverse wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:No point trimming the leaves when you can saw it down at the trunk.


If, by this, you mean that I can make matters much more simpler if I just presented some of the findings by the researchers here, then this is an exercise in futility since I already know skeptics would reject them. They would reject them just from the simple fact that there appears to be flaws on the surface with these findings. That is where my recent posts come in and explain how a thorough investigation into this research really is necessary to find out for yourself whether there is actual evidence or not. I cannot present any evidence here because, like I said, it is all a matter of researching thoroughly and finding out for ourselves. I just came here to explain how it would not be a rational mindset and how it would be close minded to base any given conclusion whether that be the researchers are good or bad or their research being woo or not on a lack of thorough investigation.

You haven't given one clue as to why we should even bother with this {!#%@}.


You don't have to bother with it if you don't want to. All I'm pointing out here is that your rejection of this research at face value in deeming it as woo is an irrational mindset. Since skeptics are all about being rational, then everything I just said above would be the guideline for a rational mindset.

Major Malfunction wrote:I'm just backing-away. It's obvious you have some problems I'm neither qualified nor capable of dealing with. Best of luck. Hope you find your peace. Maybe some meds.


There is a difference between someone who is crazy and needs medication as opposed to someone with a load of misconceptions and having no clue as to what they are talking about. If you really think that I have no clue what I am talking about and that I am wrong in what I just said on every level, then feel free to point out why you think so and let's discuss this.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 1:06 pm

You're obviously obsessed with an idea that is obviously false.
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 » Thu May 11, 2017 1:07 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:You're obviously obsessed with an idea that is obviously false.


You think it is false. But, like I just said, if you are basing this conclusion on a lack of thorough investigation into this research and in finding out if these are really good researchers or not, then that would be an irrational position you are taking.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 1:26 pm

You're another person that should be dead, because you can't tell when it's safe to cross the road. You can't tell when there's a lack of cars.
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 » Thu May 11, 2017 1:31 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:You're another person that should be dead, because you can't tell when it's safe to cross the road. You can't tell when there's a lack of cars.


Just give me one reason that makes you think it makes it so blatantly obvious that this nde research is woo.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 1:33 pm

Zombies are just pretend, OK?
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 » Thu May 11, 2017 1:36 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:Zombies are just pretend, OK?


That analogy doesn't apply because there are no researchers doing serious research and experiments in regards to trying to discover zombies. But if there were, then it would be irrational and close minded to just dismiss the research at face value as woo simply because you see flaws on the surface in this research. You would need to do thorough investigation into finding out if these researchers are good or not and if their research has actual evidence or not rather than just jumping to conclusions at face value.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 1:42 pm

Santa is pretend. It's mythology. Only children and idiots believe it.
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 » Thu May 11, 2017 1:45 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:Santa is pretend. It's mythology. Only children and idiots believe it.


Again, same situation as I've mentioned before. If there were serious researchers on this claim as well, then what I said still applies. It doesn't matter what the claim is.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 1:47 pm

So DARPA needs a Santa Claus Detection Branch. Wanna put some of your tax on that?
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 » Thu May 11, 2017 1:52 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:So DARPA needs a Santa Claus Detection Branch. Wanna put some of your tax on that?


As for claims that don't have any researchers researching, doing experiments, and claiming evidence, then these claims can be dismissed. It is only the claims that do have serious research that should be considered worthy of thorough investigation. You would, again, need to determine whether these are good or bad researchers and if their research has actual evidence or not as they claim through thorough investigation.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 2:07 pm

Omniverse wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:So DARPA needs a Santa Claus Detection Branch. Wanna put some of your tax on that?


As for claims that don't have any researchers researching, doing experiments, and claiming evidence, then these claims can be dismissed. It is only the claims that do have serious research that should be considered worthy of thorough investigation. You would, again, need to determine whether these are good or bad researchers and if their research has actual evidence or not as they claim through thorough investigation.

It's pretty easy to dismiss obvious BS.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

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 » Thu May 11, 2017 2:26 pm

For the last time, Omniverse, it is a fact that your 'researchers' are (were in one case) incompetent. It is a fact that a flat EEG means the subject is dead and is not going to come back simply to spin a fairy tale. It is a fact that you haven't read a single word of the arguments against your case, and it is a fact that you're not here to engage in any serious discussion.
Enough. {!#%@} off.

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

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm

Poodle wrote:For the last time, Omniverse, it is a fact that your 'researchers' are (were in one case) incompetent. It is a fact that a flat EEG means the subject is dead and is not going to come back simply to spin a fairy tale. It is a fact that you haven't read a single word of the arguments against your case, and it is a fact that you're not here to engage in any serious discussion.
Enough. {!#%@} off.


Yes, we do know that people do not come back from a flat EEG. But this is not the basis of the claims the nde researchers are making. They are merely saying that there was subtle brain activity that is insufficient to give a materialistic explanation and that people were reporting distant information during that moment of subtle brain activity. Again, the researchers are not saying that there was completely flat brain activity. They are only merely saying that they were having subtle brain activity. How do they know this? You would have to thoroughly investigate to find out and you would have to thoroughly investigate before concluding that this is nonsense.

This applies to everything else you've said in regards to the researchers being incompetent (not good researchers) and any other flaw that appears on the surface to you in regards to the nde researchers and the research itself. You stated earlier that these nde researchers are psychiatrists and cannot be trusted since psychiatrists are known to not have much skill with equipment. But there are psychiatrists who do have good skill and it will, therefore, take thorough investigation to discover whether these nde researchers are the psychiatrists with the good skill or the poor skill.

I personally think we are just talking right past one another. You think my reasoning is somehow wrong and you are trying to correct me. But I see your corrections as wrong. I see them as close minded and irrational. The same thing applies the other way around. That is why we are getting nowhere. But what else can I do though? If I present anything here regarding the research which is something the skeptics have wanted me to do in order to get this discussion going somewhere, it actually won't get anywhere because the skeptics would still reject whatever it is I present here. Therefore, that is the reason why it has to all come back down to this discussion we have been having instead.

Lastly, there were many researchers whose level of skill remained ambiguous, but they were right and they did have actual evidence for their claims even though said claims challenged firmly established views of the world and universe. This could also apply to the nde researchers because, as long as you do not thoroughly investigate these researchers to determine their level of skill, then their level of skill, whether they be good researchers or bad researchers, that would have to remain ambiguous. This means that you are only dismissing the possibility that these are good researchers and that they really do have actual evidence since you refuse to thoroughly investigate.
Last edited by Omniverse on Thu May 11, 2017 6:57 pm, edited 21 times in total.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19800
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu May 11, 2017 2:56 pm

(Get ready to close the door.)

"Stick, boy, stick! Go fetch."

(Quick, slam it shut.)
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: 11447
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 2:58 pm

Poodle wrote:Enough. {!#%@} off.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAXLCwJCugA
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11143
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu May 11, 2017 3:05 pm

Poodle wrote: It is a fact that a flat EEG means the subject is dead and is not going to come back simply to spin a fairy tale.
Close, but "by definition" you need two flat EEG's at least 24 hrs apart. You know.... legally. I quibble here only because I was asked to confirm death on a patient with a flat EEG. But we waited 24 hrs and the patient left the hospital a week later. The Law.

Poodle wrote: Enough. {!#%@} off.
Well.......... when you're right, you're right.
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
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10535
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu May 11, 2017 6:31 pm

Omniverse wrote:If I present anything here regarding the research which is something the skeptics have wanted me to do in order to get this discussion going somewhere, it actually won't get anywhere because the skeptics would still reject whatever it is I present here.



Fact: Any neuroscientist worth a milliliter of sour owl {!#%@} can induce nde's pretty much at will. Anyone researching nde's needs to accommodate that fact. If they don't, then their research is fatally flawed from the get-go.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29477
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gord » Thu May 11, 2017 6:36 pm

Omniverse wrote:If, by this, you mean that I can make matters much more simpler if I just presented some of the findings by the researchers here, then this is an exercise in futility since I already know skeptics would reject them.

If you really believe this, then please extend that belief to all of your posts.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 12, 2017 12:43 am

Omniverse wrote:Last edited by Omniverse on Fri May 12, 2017 4:57 am, edited 21 times in total.


False Claim No 1 # "there are good NDE researchers"
You have failed to present one NDE researcher, good or bad. The onus is on you to present evidence that there are good NDE researchers with controlled experiments and a falsifiable hypothesis.

False Claim No 2 # "skeptics dismiss NDE anecdotes at face value"
Skeptics don't bother with anecdotes. Skeptics review claims that are specifically presented, to them, as a theory. To bother with anecdotes would require skeptics to also deal with leprechauns, angels, elves, Santa Clause and the tooth fairy.

False Claim No 3 # "scientists do no scientific research themselves into NDEs"
100% wrong. Scientists acknowledge that some patients experience out of body sensations. Therefore scientists researched that matter, performed repeatable scientific experiments that supported their working hypothesis and obtain a result. You simply didn't know because you have done no research.

How the Brain Creates Out-of-Body Experiences.
http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of ... ained.html

SCIENTISTS UNLOCK THE MYSTERY OF OBEs AND NDEs
http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... periences/

Science Explains the Sensations Commonly Experienced During an NDE
http://out-of-body-experience.info/scie ... s-the-nde/

Next task for Omniverse
We have presented to you the scientific theory for NDEs supported by repeatable experiments.
You haven't presented any evidence or one alternative working theory by "NDE researchers."

The onus is now on you to show us what is wrong with the existing scientific opinion by either finding fault in the science or presenting the alternative paranormal hypothesis and supporting evidence.


Prove to us you are serious or piss off :lol:

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

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Fri May 12, 2017 2:05 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Omniverse wrote:If I present anything here regarding the research which is something the skeptics have wanted me to do in order to get this discussion going somewhere, it actually won't get anywhere because the skeptics would still reject whatever it is I present here.



Fact: Any neuroscientist worth a milliliter of sour owl {!#%@} can induce nde's pretty much at will. Anyone researching nde's needs to accommodate that fact. If they don't, then their research is fatally flawed from the get-go.


At least you are saying to accommodate this fact when doing thorough investigation and are not immediately deeming the research as woo based immediately upon this fact you've pointed out. All the things these skeptics point out in dismissing this research as woo are not things to immediately draw the conclusion that this research is woo. Rather, they are only things to take into consideration when thoroughly investigating this research. There is just so much more to this research and the debates regarding this research than what the skeptics hastily conclude at face value.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Last edited by Omniverse on Fri May 12, 2017 4:57 am, edited 21 times in total.


False Claim No 1 # "there are good NDE researchers"
You have failed to present one NDE researcher, good or bad. The onus is on you to present evidence that there are good NDE researchers with controlled experiments and a falsifiable hypothesis.

False Claim No 2 # "skeptics dismiss NDE anecdotes at face value"
Skeptics don't bother with anecdotes. Skeptics review claims that are specifically presented, to them, as a theory. To bother with anecdotes would require skeptics to also deal with leprechauns, angels, elves, Santa Clause and the tooth fairy.

False Claim No 3 # "scientists do no scientific research themselves into NDEs"
100% wrong. Scientists acknowledge that some patients experience out of body sensations. Therefore scientists researched that matter, performed repeatable scientific experiments that supported their working hypothesis and obtain a result. You simply didn't know because you have done no research.

How the Brain Creates Out-of-Body Experiences.
http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of ... ained.html

SCIENTISTS UNLOCK THE MYSTERY OF OBEs AND NDEs
http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... periences/

Science Explains the Sensations Commonly Experienced During an NDE
http://out-of-body-experience.info/scie ... s-the-nde/

Next task for Omniverse
We have presented to you the scientific theory for NDEs supported by repeatable experiments.
You haven't presented any evidence or one alternative working theory by "NDE researchers."

The onus is now on you to show us what is wrong with the existing scientific opinion by either finding fault in the science or presenting the alternative paranormal hypothesis and supporting evidence.


Prove to us you are serious or piss off :lol:


In regards to your false claim #1, it is literally impossible to show you whether these are good researchers or not no matter how hard I try. This is because it is not a simple matter of presenting some things here. It all comes down to thoroughly investigating for ourselves and finding out for ourselves through extensive investigation. It is the only way. In regards to your false claim #2, I think there are exceptions to this rule because there might be situations where anecdotes really are evidence.

In which case, they might not even be anecdotes and might be instead referred to as research results. Therefore, there might be results in areas of research that skeptics conclude are anecdotes and that they just need to thoroughly investigate to find out. Again, do not ask me to show you that these are not anecdotes since I've already explained that this cannot be done no matter how hard I try. It is all about thoroughly investigating for ourselves.

Lastly, in regards to false claim #3, the nde research is a different story and puts a spin on the things you've pointed out that we already know in regards to out of body experiences. I will give you an example. Proponents of the paranormal/afterlife would say that the out of body experiments that you've pointed out have virtually no relationship to the types of out of body experiences that nde patients have.

They merely see a visual portion of a certain room or landscape, but it is nothing like the out of body experiences that nde patients report such as visualizing in 360 degree vision, reporting equipment in accurate detail, reporting information from distant rooms and remote areas, etc. There may be an overlap of features, but that does not negate a non-materialistic model here because, according to the transceiver model of the brain, this overlap is accommodated for just as well. I know you and other skeptics might disagree and have a debate about this. But that is where I am getting at here. It is a debate that requires thorough investigation into before you draw any sort of conclusion.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 12, 2017 2:24 am

Omniverse wrote: In regards to your false claim #1, it is literally impossible to show you whether these are good researchers or not no matter how hard I try.
You don't have to. We have researched their work and it is rubbish. Do have any evidence otherwise? Nope. :lol:

Omniverse wrote: Lastly, in regards to false claim #3, the nde research is a different story.
Nope. Scientists established exactly what a NDE experience is and can replicate it in experiments. Can you produce on alternative paranormal experiment which does this? Nope

To sum up this thread.
1) Scientists have identified why humans think they experience NDEs, formed a hypothesis, tested that hypothesis and reached a positive conclusion.

2) Omniverse can't produce one single paranormal hypothesis or experiment and can't find any errors in the scientific explanation.

That's all folks!

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

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Omniverse » Fri May 12, 2017 2:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote: In regards to your false claim #1, it is literally impossible to show you whether these are good researchers or not no matter how hard I try.
You don't have to. We have researched their work and it is rubbish. Do have any evidence otherwise? Nope. :lol:

Omniverse wrote: Lastly, in regards to false claim #3, the nde research is a different story.
Nope. Scientists established exactly what a NDE experience is and can replicate it in experiments. Can you produce on alternative paranormal experiment which does this? Nope

To sum up this thread.
1) Scientists have identified why humans think they experience NDEs, formed a hypothesis, tested that hypothesis and reached a positive conclusion.

2) Omniverse can't produce one single paranormal hypothesis or experiment and can't find any errors in the scientific explanation.

That's all folks!


But was it a result of thorough investigation that lead you to the conclusion that these are bad researchers and that their research is rubbish? If not, then you would be closed minded and irrational here.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 12, 2017 3:24 am

Omniverse wrote: But was it a result of thorough investigation that lead you to the conclusion that these are bad researchers and that their research is rubbish?
Yes. It was the result of an investigation and yes there is no such thing as paranormal NDE research, just collections of anecdotes.
http://www.skeptic.com/insight/science- ... e-of-life/

1) Have you read the scientific explanations for NDE experiences?

2) Have you found any holes in the scientific explanations?

3) Do you have any alternative paranormal explanation to offer us to review? YES or NO?
:lol:

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

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Omniverse » Fri May 12, 2017 3:55 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote: But was it a result of thorough investigation that lead you to the conclusion that these are bad researchers and that their research is rubbish?
Yes. It was the result of an investigation and yes there is no such thing as paranormal NDE research, just collections of anecdotes.
http://www.skeptic.com/insight/science- ... e-of-life/

1) Have you read the scientific explanations for NDE experiences?

2) Have you found any holes in the scientific explanations?

3) Do you have any alternative paranormal explanation to offer us to review? YES or NO?
:lol:


Well, that's good that you've reached your conclusion through a thorough investigation rather than a quick or moderate investigation which, if you did this instead, would be jumping to conclusions and would be close minded/irrational. That is all I wanted to know. As long as skeptics have done that, then I have nothing more to say since that is their conclusion. I am talking about the types of skeptics who do not thoroughly investigate and just jump to conclusions. These are the skeptics who, in my opinion, would be irrational/close minded.

I would like to say one last thing here in this post which is that the idea of the afterlife is so important to me since I want a personal private life all to myself where I can be happy all I want and get whatever I want. That is the only good thing in life to me. I don't care about the personal opinions of others who say that this is childish, I need to grow up, etc. We are talking about me as a human being here and if I am just biological material here for a short while only to forever decay when I die and not live on in an eternal blissful afterlife, then that is treating me like I am nothing more than a biological organism/machine or some sort of scrap material that will just break down, die, and decay one day.

That would be utterly insulting and degrading of me as a human being for such a treatment to be given to me. I just don't understand how nonbelievers think otherwise. Imagine how the Jews felt in regards to how Hitler treated them. I bet they felt quite insulted and degraded since they were being treated like nothing more than animals and torture devices. The same thing applies to me in a situation where death is final. If death really is final, then I would feel quite insulted and degraded as well since that is treating me like I am nothing more than something to be tossed and thrown away for good like a rotting and decaying piece of meat.

I will apply this concept to religious believers as well. If there is a God out there such as the God portrayed by fundamentalist Christianity, then that would be a far worse treatment of me. That would be treating me like a slave who is expected to serve and dedicate my life to God or burn forever in a lake of fire. It would be an even worse treatment than Hitler, in my opinion. But, at the same time, death being final is also a horrible, tragic, insulting, and degrading treatment as well for all the reasons I've just explained. Therefore, that only leaves one option by which I can be treated with dignity and respect.

That would be through the New Age spiritual view which advocates the idea that we are all loved by a God who will not condemn us, send us to hell, or have us simply rot and decay away to where we are nevermore. It is the one world religion that many people are uniting under. I don't have any religious beliefs. I don't believe in a God, an afterlife, and nor do I believe in the idea that once you die, that is it. Therefore, I just don't know what to expect when I die and I really hope it is the case that I do get to live on forever in the eternal blissful afterlife of my dreams.

But anyway, since this afterlife is so important to me, then it was important that I had this discussion to try and figure/sort things out here. At the same time, I do not wish to dedicate my life into this nde/paranormal research since I plan on dedicating my life to a different hobby. In other words, the afterlife is very important to me, but the research itself is not. Therefore, that is the reason why I was aiming for a different method to try and find out the truth besides painstaking and extensive research. I was trying to obtain the truth here through a discussion instead. But I see it's getting nowhere.
Last edited by Omniverse on Fri May 12, 2017 9:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 12, 2017 5:25 am

Omniverse wrote:Well, that's good that you've many qualified scientists reached your an objective repeatable experimental conclusion,through a thorough investigation.


Good, you can go away now and troll some other forum for a while. Why don't you return to trolling the children's Zelda forums like before?

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

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Omniverse » Fri May 12, 2017 5:37 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Well, that's good that you've many qualified scientists reached your an objective repeatable experimental conclusion,through a thorough investigation.


Good, you can go away now and troll some other forum for a while. Why don't you return to trolling the children's Zelda forums like before?


That could also be the case with the nde researchers. You never know unless you have thoroughly investigated their research to find out. Like I said before, it is not a simple matter of me presenting things here. One would have to find this out on his/her own through thorough investigation and not quick or moderate investigation.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 12, 2017 5:52 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Good, you can go away now and troll some other forum for a while. Why don't you return to trolling the children's Zelda forums like before?

Omniverse wrote: That could also be the case with the nde researchers.
Are you saying all your paranormal NDE researchers were busy trolling the children's Zelda forum at the same time you were? That's explains everything. :lol:

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

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Omniverse » Fri May 12, 2017 5:59 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: Good, you can go away now and troll some other forum for a while. Why don't you return to trolling the children's Zelda forums like before?

Omniverse wrote: That could also be the case with the nde researchers.
Are you saying all your paranormal NDE researchers were busy trolling the children's Zelda forum at the same time you were? That's explains everything. :lol:


No, I was referring to this when I said that:

Well, that's good that you've many qualified scientists reached your an objective repeatable experimental conclusion,through a thorough investigation.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 12, 2017 6:06 am

Omniverse wrote:No, I was referring to this when I said that:

MATT MSV's New Forest Sample for Zelda as sung by Omniverse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFxE4jC-v-c

Why do hang around children's forums, pretending to be a child, if you are 28 years old?


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest