# Astral Projection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542 "2004-04-28T19:10:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/341 "2004-05-20T03:12:31Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I have experienced a physical world and a spiritual world that interact with each constantly and consistently. I believe what I have experienced. > > There are such things as ESP, out-of-body, and the spiritual world. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience to learn who we are and how to control our thought processes. > > Having said that, please pass on the Bible thumping and the quoting of scientific mumbo jumbo. I will remain “ignorant” in my personal experiences and finish my life in a world of wonder, peace, and love. > > Love katt, it’s merely that this is the wrong place to discuss this. Uber-skeptiki (rational cynics) won’t listen, skeptics are obligated to require proof, so all you will get here is argument and derision. There’s lots of people on the DOPE message board who wish to share extraordinary experiences, and learn from one another. In My Humble Opinion is a much friendlier environment (but not without the uber-skeptiki dropping in to razz you from time to time). At least there is no obligation to prove anything scientifically — we all get to post our experiences, our opinions, and we can easily ignore the ignorant hecklers. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/342 "2004-05-20T03:16:17Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > I just said where the cloud came from. You are being intellectually dishonest. > > The origins of the universe are not unknowable, it’s just that YOU don’t know about them, or choose not to. Same with astral projection, or whatever woo-woo crap you’re talking about. Most people know that’s it’s a load of crap, but you choose to delude yourself. > > Whether your lack of knowledge frightens you is your own business, but please don’t come back with “The one who is truly deluding himself is the one who says that I am deluded”. If you want to post that kind of thing, go [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=256633). I like your quote. I read the quotes in the pit, didn’t have any trouble understanding them. Does that make me intelligent or ignorant? Love ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/343 "2004-05-20T03:32:40Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > It’s a [fact \*\*and \*\* a theory](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html), like evolution. What it is not is an unproven hypothesis, as you suggest. Chops, don’t tell me what I suggest, I’ll tell you. I don’t suggest it is an unproven hypothesis; don’t put words in my mouth. That’s dishonest debating. I said that the Big Bang is only a theory. It may be a fact, but this has not yet been proven. To date, it is the best theory we have, and many predicted effects based on this model have been observed, but it is still just a theory. I recommend you check a more [reputable site](http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html) than an anti-creationist website. I’ll not deal with your attempted hijack into evolution; it’s not relevent. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/344 "2004-05-20T04:26:51Z")
It was not intended to be a hijack, and I don’t want to drag another scientific theory into this mess. I merely remembered it providing a good definition of the word ‘theory’ as it used by scientists, eg “theory of evolution”, “big bang theory” (as in your cite), “quantum theory”, “theory of relavity” and so on. All of these are as close to being immutable facts as is possible in science, but they still use the phrase “theory”, as “theory” has a different meaning for scientists. When you say “still just a theory”, you’re using the general meaning of “theory”, which is close to the scientific term “hypothesis”. Talk.origins is a highly reputable site and is most decidedly on point on “theory” vs “hypothesis”, more than some random NASA page for kids. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/345 "2004-05-20T19:46:28Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > When you say “still just a theory”, you’re using the general meaning of “theory”, which is close to the scientific term “hypothesis”. Talk.origins is a highly reputable site and is most decidedly on point on “theory” vs “hypothesis”, more than some random NASA page for kids. You don’t listen too good, do you? I said, “don’t tell me what I suggest.” Now you’re telling me what I mean when I say something? > [@SnAkEsPiRiT](#): > > > [@lambchops](#): > > > > It’s a fact and a theory, like evolution. What it is not is an unproven hypothesis, as you suggest. > > Chops, don’t tell me what I suggest, I’ll tell you. > > I don’t suggest it is an unproven hypothesis; don’t put words in my mouth. That’s dishonest debating. I’m not going to argue this any more, chopper, I’ll let you even have the last word. Your posts do not deserve the dignity of a reply. I’m just being nice, but this is the last time. You alledge that “talk.origins” is a [highly reputable site](http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/links/topskep.htm), I can see why you say that. They are members of your church. They are a good source of information, but they are posting opinion. Saying the Big Bang is “fact” is a statement of biased opinion. There’s a lot of science supporting the theory; it’s the best we have to date, and I believe it myself, but the good skeptic that I am realizes that we are gathering more data daily and will likely revise this theory several more times as we get more data (as we have already done throughout the years). You say that NASA is for kids? Are you saying that NASA is doing bad science? Are you saying that their statement is inaccurate? Are you accusing them of falsehood? Or are you merely dismissing the most accomplished scientific organization in the world because their truth makes you look bad? ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/346 "2004-05-20T23:43:05Z")
No, I’m saying that that particular NASA site is a quick summary for kids and not on point on the question of “theory” vs “hypothesis”. Obviously, I’m not insulting NASA’s scientific credentials. All that’s on there that supports your argument is the word “theory”, which they being scientists, use in the scientific sense, and which you, not being a scientist, use in the average person’s sense. On the theory / hypothesis question: Theory (average person’s usage) = “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.” ([Definition 6](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)) Theory (scientific usage) = “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” ([Definition 1](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)) Hypothesis (only really used scientifically) = “A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.” ([Definition 1](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis)) You were not aiming to use the word “theory” in its scientific sense, since you obviously weren’t meaning to say “still just an extensively tested system which explains the relevant phenomena and can predict the behaviour of future phenomena.” This also wouldn’t tally with your statements about it not being proven. Your use of the word “theory” in the phrase “still just a theory” indicates that you are using the average person’s definition of the word. This average definition of the word “theory” is close to the scientific word “hypothesis”. You were saying that the Big Bang “still just a tentative explanation / set of assumptions”, and you were incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Filli](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/77aa72/32.png) [@Filli](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Filli)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/347 "2004-05-21T04:24:22Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > All that’s on there that supports your argument is the word “theory”, which they being scientists, use in the scientific sense, and which you, not being a scientist, use in the average person’s sense. **Snakespirit** already posted in this thread that he _is_ a scientist. I understand what he’s saying here, and evidently so does everyone else since you are the only one beating a dead horse. > [@lambchops](#): > > You were not aiming to use the word “theory” in its scientific sense, since you obviously weren’t meaning to say “still just an extensively tested system which explains the relevant phenomena and can predict the behaviour of future phenomena.” Once again you do just what he’s told you not to do! Don’t you get it??? > [@SnAkEsPiRiT](#): > > > [@lambchops](#): > > > > It’s a fact and a theory, like evolution. What it is not is an unproven hypothesis, as you suggest. > > Chops, don’t tell me what I suggest, I’ll tell you. > > \*\*I don’t suggest it is an unproven hypothesis; don’t put words in my mouth. \*\* That’s dishonest debating. I won’t bother to quote all the others, but **lambchops** , what part of this do you not understand?? Are you just deliberately being a stupid asshole??? He, and we, all understand the difference between theory and hypothesis, and know the various usages of ‘theory.’ He said he accepts the evidence of the Big Bang as valid, and merely says that you can’t call the Big Bang a _proven fact,_ it is a well-supported theory. > [@lambchops](#): > > Your use of the word “theory” in the phrase “still just a theory” indicates that you are using the average person’s definition of the word. This average definition of the word “theory” is close to the scientific word “hypothesis”. You were saying that the Big Bang “still just a tentative explanation / set of assumptions”, and you were incorrect. No, **lamchops** , YOU lose this one. **He’s right, you are wrong.** And you are obstinate. And you are drowning in your preconceived prejudices to the degree that you can’t even read what people are posting. I don’t blame him for not further dignifying your blather. You keep presenting the same misconceptions in different words. _ **Get a clue!** _ Repeating bullshit doesn’t turn it into caviar. I challenge you to find a reputable site that says that the Big Bang Theory is fact. By reputable, I don’t mean that anti-creationist diatribe you are so fond of (which also _ **does not say** _ that the Big Bang theory is a fact, but says that evolution is a fact), but University studies, accepted scientific papers or the like. Otherwise, shut up! ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/348 "2004-05-21T04:43:42Z")
Look, calm down. I’m not trying to offend anyone, or put words into anyone’s mouth. Snakespirit, if I understand correctly, was a social scientist, who have slightly different methods etc to the ‘hard’ sciences like physics and chemistry. I mean no offence to him / her. The fact remains that the phrase “The Big Bang is still just a theory” is wrong, in the same sense that “Relativity is still just a theory” or “Evolution is still just a theory” is wrong. In a scientific sense, all of these are theories, but they are also true and proven, so saying “still just a theory” is a misrepresentation of the situation. What’s more, it’s a common misapprension / misrepresentation, well-discussed by the Talk Origins site. I didn’t mean to bring creationism or similar nonsense theories into this discussion, so sorry if that has confused anyone. What started all this off was that Lekatt said that noone knew about the origins of the world. That is incorrect. By all means, have whatever philosophical or religious concepts you want about WHY we are here, the purpose of our existence and so on. Feel free to say that there is an unknowable entity (God or whoever you choose to believe in) behind all scientific processes. However, on the level of scientific fact, the universe was created by the Big Bang and the Earth was created by a gradual accretion of matter, and that’s the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/349 "2004-05-21T04:47:13Z")
**filli** > [@](#): > > I won’t bother to quote all the others, but lambchops, what part of this do you not understand?? Are you just deliberately being a stupid asshole??? [Moderator Hat ON] filli, directly insulting posters in GD is not allowed. If you absolutely must, take it to the Pit. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/350 "2004-05-21T04:54:58Z")
> [@Filli](#): > > I challenge you to find a reputable site that says that the Big Bang Theory is fact. By reputable, I don’t mean that anti-creationist diatribe you are so fond of (which also _ **does not say** _ that the Big Bang theory is a fact, but says that evolution is a fact), but University studies, accepted scientific papers or the like. Otherwise, shut up! Sorry, missed this bit in my last post. Are you serious about your request for reputable cites about the history of the Universe? I mean, astronomers, astrophysicists and particle physicists have been working on this stuff for years. If you want some reputable papers from a respected source about the Big Bang, the formation of the Earth and the solar system, try[the ‘astronomy’ collectiom from Science magazine.](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/astronomy) 126 pages of scientific articles and peer-reviewed papers on planetary formation, dark matter and yes, the Big Bang. They’re often suitable for laymen, too. There’s an interesting article on early galaxies (“Galactic Stripling”) on page 4, which you might enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/351 "2004-05-21T11:50:13Z")
Thanks for the reply **Aeschines** , here we go: > [@Aeschines](#): > > Here you are raising the discussion to a level rarely seen on SMDB when discussing the paranormal: you are commenting about actual studies and showing some good knowledge of them. **Aeschines** , that is standard operating procedure on these boards! That’s the whole reason why most of us are here, because you can get away from the tedious airing of unsupported opinion so common elsewhere on the Net, and actually have a discussion based on merit, logic, and evidence. > [@](#): > > Personally, I have not enjoyed the tone and overall level of reasoning I have seen coming from the media skeptics. And I have read debunkings of the debunkings and have tended to come out convinced by the parapsychologists–assuming, of course, some base data with a minimum level of respectability: the real studies, that is. The skeptics often seem to take the shortcut algorithm of, “Find the tiniest flaw and you’re done.” With all due respect, I believe this is more due to a lack of knowledge of the subject matter and procedures than sceptical methods. Without specific examples I can’t discuss this further, but rest assured that people who debate this kind of thing on these boards tend to look at the evidence before dismissing it. > [@](#): > > So, it sounds like you know more than I do, and I can either train harder and get in the ring with you, or I can just admit that my belief in psi and other things has been formed by the totality of my readings and experience–I cannot battle you fact for fact. I don’t have the facts. (Which is not to say that I have not studied certain studies thoroughly, but that I just don’t have them stored in memory, etc.) That’s fine – but here we debate the facts and their import. As I said in my first post, what someone believes is entirely subjective. But when discussing articles of science and knowledge, the discussion must necessarily be of a higher level that excludes belief and opinion from being influential factors. > [@](#): > > Now, if the skeptic community out there were really interested in convincing persons like myself who actully care enough to study the matters–and they don’t, really–then I can conceive of a method that would be really helpful, perhaps even successful. I’d like to see a database, even a nice long list on a web page, stating all the studies that have been done, and what their status is now: There are such summaries done field by field, and the link I provided to the Ganzfeld is one of them. I can tell you briefly what the summary of our present hoard of scientific knowledge is: the evidence for paranormal, psi etc. phenomena is weak in the extreme, in fact it is nonexistent until one plays with the experimental data in particular ways, such as meta-analysis – and then minute results seem to manifest only to certain people, who usually happen to be the proponents of psi in the first place. This manner of evidence is highly suspect AND wholly unable to satisfy the requirement for “extraordinary” evidence. The items proposed by parapsychologists and paranormalists simply fail to integrate with existing scientific models (which, unlike psi, have already been systematically demonstrated without recourse to statistical gimmicks). Further, no mechanisms seem to be investigated in psi research, meaning that no reliable model to challenge the _existing_ models is ever put forward. In short we have a wealth of replicable and clear evidence for most current scientific models, and highly questionable claims without replicable evidence from psi supporters. Is it any wonder that paranormalists’ chief propaganda weapons are factually inaccurate books, “studies” published in proponent “journals”, and Internet claims? > [@](#): > > Does the parapsychologist side still hold that its good research? _Some_ “parapsychologists” (using the term loosely because in this case it includes legitimate as well as questionable scientists) are honest, sceptical people who actively seek to falsify their hypotheses and experiments and do their very best to carry out good science while investigating topics that they find themselves drawn to. One such respectable person is Dr. Susan Blackmore, who spent _30 years_ researching psi at the highest possible levels. Her work is distinctly above the normally poor quality seen in paranormal research, but in 30 years she never once detected a _bona fide_ paranormal effect (she thought she came really close a few times though). You can visit her site for some pretty good insights, here is a piece where she describes why she gave up on psi work after three decades: > [@](#): > > \*from [First Person - Into the Unknown - Dr Susan Blackmore](http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html) \* > perhaps the real reason is that I am just too tired - and tired above all of working to maintain an open mind. I couldn’t dismiss all those extraordinary claims out of hand. After all, they might just be true, and if they were then swathes of science would have to be rewritten. > > Another “psychic” turns up. I must devise more experiments, take these claims seriously. They fail - again. A man explains to me how alien abductors implanted something in his mouth. Tests show it’s just a filling, but it might have been… > > No, I don’t have to think that way. And when the psychics and clairvoyants and New Agers shout at me, as they do: “The trouble with all you scientists is you don’t have an open mind”, I won’t be upset. I won’t argue. I won’t rush off and perform yet more experiments just in case. I’ll simply smile sweetly and say: “I don’t do that any more.” The problem that afflicts her is that paranormalist supporters are legion. Do trained and skilled scientists have to perform tests for every single claim advanced by the latest _kook de jour_? In an ideal world, yes, but in our world we lack sufficient numbers of scientists, patience, and resources to throw out the window in this manner. Instead of freaking out about yet another paranormal claim, we simply wait for that extraordinary psi evidence that does not have to be massaged out of the otherwise unimpressive data by questionable methods (with, frequently, bias). > [@](#): > > Is it a jewel in the crown, so to speak? Or are even parapsychologists ashamed to bring it up? There is no jewel in the crown that I am aware of, and I (along with many sceptics) have looked very hard – it’s that kind of research that defines a _position_, not some desire to fulfill a materialist philosophy. There are many claims, a lot of them fraudulent and advanced by the shadier parapsychologists and none of them considered relevant or revolutionary – and, to answer the second question, some of these people don’t know the meaning of the word shame. From the world of “archaeology” (the term must be used loosely) comes to us the brilliant example of Erich von Daniken, in my opinion one of the most shameless and dishonest men who ever put ink to paper (prehistoric astronauts, aliens creating Earth civilizations, gigantic Amazon cathedrals made of gold, etc.). > [@](#): > > Was it published in a journal? Most paranormal research is published in publications dedicated to the paranormal. Such publications are seldom scientific in the sense that they are not usually peer-reviewed, and typically publish materials that explicitly support a particular position to begin with (i.e. selective bias instead of an honest review); pseudo-journals. Some research is published in respectable scientific journals, but this is a very small minority, and such studies tend to be ripped apart pretty quickly since real scientists do concern themselves with real journals (whereas they don’t read the pseudo-journals and obviously don’t have the opportunity to criticize them). Any claim that has merit, regardless of what the claim actually is, can be published in a respectable scientific journal if it meets the quality requirements of the journal in question (NOT the opinion, position, etc. of such journals or its editors!). I am not aware of a single paranormal claim published in a real scientific journal that has not been criticized to the point of dissolution for its methods, procedures, etc. > [@](#): > > And, assuming that each and every study will be unacceptable for some reason, the reason for invalidation explained in terms that are sufficient to debunk–which can be replied to or not, as the case may be. That is already the case. If debunking weren’t done like that to begin with, it wouldn’t be scientific and would be discounted by the scientific community. > [@](#): > > Now you mentioned the 1994 study that was debunked, so you say, in 1999. First of all, I wasn’t citing that study as evidence that I personally feel is good. At that point in the debate I was simply trying to move beyond the disingenous “No evidence!” claim that gets made every time. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here: the cry of “no evidence” is in fact our present level of scientific understanding in this matter and is not meant as an over-hasty dismissal; it is conceivable that in the future replicable evidence should appear that clearly supports psi or whatever phenomena, however that day has not yet come and that evidence is not yet available (if it were, many scientists would be turning cartwheels and rushing headlong to study it). If you want to deviate from the state of current scientific knowledge and claim that there \*\*is \*\* such evidence, the burden of proof is on you to bring that material to attention. Once you cited the evidence (in this case the 1994 study), I then answered your cite, which is how a debate is supposed to progress. My point is that the evidence you cited is not actually evidence, meaning not _valid_ scientific evidence. It’s far too suspect, it is not replicable, and relies on a gimmicky method to show any deviance from chance. Please be aware that this is by no means the only incident in which meta-analysis (or poor application of such a method) has yielded what, on the surface, appears to be evidence but on closer analysis is much more dubious. > [@](#): > > Now, here’s an example of why these things don’t move forward. You say it’s been debunked. But you don’t mention what the other side has to say. Are they sagging now, ashamed of their failure? Or do they have anything to say in reply? The blithe implication, “Oh everyone knows that that study was debunked _years_ ago” just leaves me nonplussed. But what the proponents of a claim do after their claim is discredited is completely irrelevant to the validity of the claim. If they have valid objections to make in support of their original claim, they make them and the process continues. If they want to modify the original claim and carry out more work on it, they do so as well – this is in fact a valid scientific approach. If they want to whine (and a lot of them, being such sloppy scientists, do) they are free to do so and thus end up pandering to the scientifically uneducated masses with popular bestsellers or posts on message boards (we have at least one such person in our ranks). But of course, a popular bestseller is not and has never been any form of scientific evidence, it is merely entertainment (c.f. what I call the Atlantis factor: Atlantis is a modern misconception derived from a fictional didactic tale related by Plato, but try to count the number of “authoritative” books written about it as if it were real!). > [@](#): > > Even though I am on the opposite side, I can easily imagine a better way for Wolpert to start off his speech. Now, I’m just imagining the following, but wouldn’t this be better? Your example would make a very good introduction for Wolpert, with, if I may quibble, the exception of this: > [@](#): > > And you know what, ladies and gentlemen [waves packet of papers], I am prepared, right now, to explain in simple and understandble terms, why every single one of these studies is absolutely, incontrovertably, DEAD WRONG. This is a little bit too categorical and assertive for honest scientists and sceptics. He could however wave the few papers available and say “in the remaining studies we have identified numerous procedural anomalies, experimenter bias, selective bias, statistical errors, [etc., etc. as the case may be] such that we are forced yet again to discount the remaining material, which leaves us, ladies and gentlemen, with insufficient evidence in support of the existence of paranormal phenomena.” It’s already been done! This is why we accept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet another dubious claim for a barely detectable effect derived from statistical massaging and that is non replicable is simply not extraordinary enough to overwhelm the current state of scientific knowledge. > [@](#): > > You seem to think of me as some tinfoil nutter ranting about evil scientists and conspiracies. Nah, no judgement implied, however I think my question was valid – if remarkable evidence such as is claimed by paranormalists really exists, the only reason for it to remain obscure for 150 years (of scientific paranormal investigation) is that the scientists themselves must have a conspiracy to suppress this evidence and discount it unfairly. The scientific method does not permit this kind of behaviour. Anyone with a claim to make has the chance to prove that claim according to the proper procedures. That they have failed to do so thus far is _their_ problem, not the scientific community’s! > [@](#): > > I don’t like the word “extraordinary” for reasons already explained. We seem to agree that sufficient evidence is sufficent. I think that word suffices. If someone would care to provide a numerical definition for “extraordinary” in various cases, then I could accept that. Otherwise the word will, in essence, continue to mean, “Whatever doesn’t fit my worldview.” “Whatever doesn’t fit the _current scientific models_” is a more accurate definition for “extraordinary” as used in the axiom I cited. It has nothing to do with worldview, at least as far as scientists who adhere to the scientific method are concerned. > [@](#): > > For two different worldviews are at work. The skeptics see science as mostly done, the details just need to be filled in. So if someone makes a claim that challenges the basic edifice of science, then that claim is a priori almost certainly wrong. Sort of. This is what I mean by provisional agreement regarding the plethora of claims: been there, done that several times. If you want me to take yet another extraordinary claim seriously, the claim must be supported by extraordinary evidence. It is entirely unreasonable to lend an extraordinary claim credence if it 1) is not adequately supported by evidence, 2) is not replicated, 3) is mutually exclusive or contradictory with current scientific models _unless_ the evidence provided in support of the claim is sufficiently strong to invalidate the evidence in support of current scientific models (this list is not exhaustive). Ask anyone not afflicted by end-days dementia if there will be a sunrise tomorrow and the answer is typically “yes”. Obviously we don’t know that there will be a sunrise, because it is conceivable the sun won’t rise tomorrow, however we are prepared, on the basis of innumerable previous sunrises, to provide provisional agreement that the sun will rise tomorrow as well. Similarly, if you come tell me that you saw and took a photograph of a ghost, my response will be predicated not by my materialist or dualist beliefs, but on a review of the available knowledge, to wit that all (to my knowledge) ghost sightings and ghost photographs investigated to date have turned out to be either false alarms or unconfirmed – there isn’t one single confirmed ghost photograph on record, and sightings are all anecdotal. That does not mean I (or any sceptic) will dismiss the claim out of hand, but sometimes we just have to because we’ve done this so many times already; the correct process, on the other hand, is to debunk the claim. In this case I would cite the weakness of personal anecdote as evidence for your sighting, and follow that up with the reasoning that it may have been a ghost or it may have been a trick of the light, a passer-by, a joke, hallucination, indigestion, a dream, and so forth; because you couldn’t argue against these everyday and highly probable reasons – this is the fundamental weakness of anecdotal evidence – you would have to yield the point. Then your photograph – material evidence – would be examined. Based on the work done to date, it is again possible to predict that the photograph will turn out to be the result of trickery, flaws in the print plate, dirt on the lens, moisture, over- or under-exposure, and so forth. **However** if the tests on the photographs suggest no error or tampering, then things get a lot more interesting and we can proceed. So yes, when someone makes a claim _without correspondingly strong evidence_ that seems to invalidate fundamental edifices of science, then that claim is necessarily unacceptable _a priori_. But the claim is wholly acceptable if adequate evidence is provided, and scientists will happily throw out old or outdated models for newer or refined ones. This is the very essence and beauty of scientific progress: the ability to advance knowledge based on demonstrable articles. If I may cite myself, please take a look at this thread from a few years ago to see a surprising claim and how to respond to it: [Parapsychology: legitimate science or pseudoscience?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=99151&page=1&pp=50) Notice that my argument was that the prayer study’s surprising findings required replication and confirmation before it could be called “good evidence” for paranormal effects and so forth. Well, later the Mayo Clinic and others published studies that unambiguously showed no effect whatsoever for prayer, meaning the results were not replicable. And the original proponents of the study (Columbia U) seem to have withdrawn the press release from their online archives! Nonetheless, guess which findings roared through the media and made it into various nonsensical pseudoscientific books? By the way, this is why I find your take on “media sceptics” so surprising. If there is one area of humanity that currently needs sceptics, it is the media sector, which pours vast channels of unqualified and often highly erroneous information out on to the population, causing all sorts of grief. But let’s continue after my slight hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/352 "2004-05-21T12:02:12Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Personally, I see our knowledge of consciousness and psi about where chemistry was in 1570–we don’t even have a decent _wrong_ theory like phlogiston yet. I disagree, because chemistry in 1570 – alchemy – concerned itself with empirically observable phenomena. True, some of its goals (such as the transmutation of base metals into precious) were by today’s standards somewhat ridiculous, as were some of its methods. But no one, even back then, could deny that matter of different configuration not only interacts with other matter but may also be transformed into other forms of matter or even into energy; these were and are readily observable occurrences. What, on the other hand, of psi, or the paranormal in general? After a century and a half of formal investigation we still have not observed any of its phenomena. Sure, we’ve had a lot of dubious evidence thrown at us, but we have discounted pretty much all of it, OR shown how the conclusions drawn from the evidence were inappropriate. No one has ever demonstrated telepathy, or proved the Ganzfeld effect, or levitated in the air. Therefore why do we need a theory to account for what thus far is a body of speculation and belief? Do we need a theory to explain the SDMB’s pink unicorns? Of course not, they don’t exist – this is not a matter of opinion but of empirical process. Show me a pink unicorn, and we can investigate it by beginning to build scientific models about it based on the **evidence** we have of it, which we can then test. Until then pink unicorns do not exist in our system of knowledge (though we recognize that they _may_ be lurking somewhere, and we await the day they manifest themselves). > [@](#): > > The thing is, when it comes to the paranormal, the skeptics don’t take all the claims very coolly–it isn’t water off a duck’s back. It’s more like the duck is on fire and his life is threatened. If the claims aren’t debunked forcefully and immediately, tragedy will result. And you can see the venom and contumeley that results from this clash right here on SMDB. Yes, but this is due to the fact that many of us despise ignorance and the multiplication of ignorance. Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to be insulting, but a position that “good evidence exists in favour of psi” is clearly an ignorant statement because it is ignorant of the facts, or to put it another way ignorant of the present state of scientific knowledge. People often react with hostility when faced with falsehoods. Just take a look at the absolutely execrable output by believers of the “we never landed on the moon” hoax. I recall being quite angered by such people, as with bible-thumping creationists. Do you suppose I was angered because my “worldview” was threatened and I fell into a defensive panic, or because the blind acceptance and multiplication of ignorance infuriates me? > [@](#): > > But the fact remains that people like me who have a New Age worldview see the self-labeled skeptics as close-minded. I disagree. A sceptic, like a scientist, must be open-minded to function at all. Remember, a sceptic **questions** , he does not automatically refute. But I doubt we will proceed further unless you provide some examples for discussion, how am I being close-minded when I say that “there is no evidence to support the existence of psi therefore it is presently likely that it does not exist at all, and, further, it is illogical to assume its existence as fact”? > [@](#): > > skepticism is self-defined (that is, by its proponents) in this positive way but that, in fact, for various sociological reasons, most skeptics are reductionist-materialists who have a very defined worldview. To the point where you could never find a self-labeled skeptic who would say that psi has been proven (but not ghosts, etc.), since the very definition of “skeptic” at this point–for practical purposes–is someone who denies this list of things. But then–and this gets Twilight-Zoney–people will just come back and say, “No, we’re not close-minded, since skeptics are always open to good evidence.” And then you just realize that there is this gulf between the worldviews, and nothing can bridge it. I suspect errors in logic are to blame for this impression. The skeptical method, if applied properly and consistently, currently leads one to reject hypotheses such as psi, ghosts, etc. simply because they are grossly inadequate. Why is not a question of philosophy, but of simple fact: that these phenomena, despite a long history of trying, have never been reliably demonstrated. They exist only as anecdotes and faulty experiments that cannot be replicated, or that may be explained in perfectly mundane terms. **A sceptic therefore denies ghosts, psi, alien abduction, etc., because the application of sceptical methodology must necessarily result in such conclusions given the evidence available today**. The only way to change that conclusion is (very simply) to provide hale and hardy evidence to the contrary. It could happen; the existence of ghosts might be demonstrated next week, results showing ghosts might be replicated, and phantom life could be squared off with what we understand of physics etc. In that case I would have no reason to remain sceptical of ghosts, but I would still remain highly skeptical of telepathy, alien abductions, creationism, etc. until they were somehow proved. Look, being sceptical is simply the application of critical thinking skills. That is all it is. > [@](#): > > The trouble with science is that it takes one to know one–as I said, beyond a certain level in the debate I am left citing experts. I don’t have the tools to fight back myself. So I can’t always know who the “real” experts are. I understand, and we all have had to go through the same process of acquisition (would it surprise you to hear that I used to prattle about mysterious pyramid power and hidden energies? Well, it wasn’t _that_ long ago, maybe a bit over 15 years). I would like to recommend the book “Why People Believe Weird Things” by Michael Shermer. I know the title sounds iffy, but it is an excellent introduction to separating wheat from the chaff and does not require in-depth scientific knowledge (plus, it’s written by someone who at one point thought he was visited by aliens). Also pretty good was Carl Sagan’s “A Candle in the Dark”, although I found that book a bit slow. > [@](#): > > You did at first [engage in boilerplate rhetoric], but now this is turning into a real debate. Sorry if you think I provided boilerplate discussion. My posts were simply reflective of the current state of scientific knowledge, which most emphatically does not include speculative phenomena such as psi (not yet at any rate). I also sought to explain the basic reasoning behind skepticism, and why it is a method rather than a position. You didn’t give me much more than that to go on, but as soon as you cited a study and a debate I addressed both. > [@](#): > > Well, we seem both seem to feel that the “other side” started off poorly. There is a difference – I explained the logical and factual problems with some of your champion’s intro, and explained why it was poor. I don’t think you have explained why you say that Wolperton started off poorly. Although you provided a clear alternative introduction for him that is also “friendlier” than his speech, I don’t think you added much to it; as I said, as far as I can see Wolperton’s output in that debate represents the standing of modern science. > [@](#): > > Even so, if you believe in psi, then your experience is probably of feeling that the other is speciously denying results and has its mind closed to the evidence. I know that that is how I feel. What Sheldrake is doing here is not making arguments per se but just framing the overall feel of the debate–from his viewpoint. It’s just rhetoric. No, I don’t think it’s pathetic, since it meshes with my own experience. But _science_ is not about _feelings_ and _beliefs_; Sheldrake claims that _science_ supports psi and Ganzfeld, but the problem is that he argues extremely poorly (and HIGHLY unscientifically) to prove that claim, as I outlined. I could feel anything at all towards Billy Bob the telepathist or about telepathy itself, but my feelings are utterly irrelevant in the face of the facts – I could not claim, if Billy Bob reliably demonstrates telepathy, that telepathy does not exist. I might as well claim the sky is green, or that g on the surface of the Earth is -4 m/s[sup]3[/sup]! There is no place for feelings, desires, and emotions in the execution of science and logic. > [@](#): > > people of all cultures are pretty much compelled to believe in psi because of their own experiences. They _feel_ it to be true. (This doesn’t make it true, of course) Exactly, but the above are epistemically irrelevant. As an example, everyone (or almost everyone) dreams, having dreams that often feel like real experiences. This does not mean that dreams are real waking events, even though they are strong personal experiences everyone has. A dream might feel particularly real, and I assume we all had those; nonetheless, the dream is still a dream no matter how real we feel it was: it remains a figment of imagination until hard evidence suggests that dreams (or psi) are in fact real events and not our minds at work. > [@](#): > > People believe in Creationism only because of the historical accident of Xianity. It is a localised culture thing. Of course the Creationists are going to come out on top in certain subcultures/regions in America. Their whole worldview is predicated on dogma, not personal experience. Well, I was referring to the objectionable tactics employed by many creationists in live debates. They’ve been known to trounce real scientists on such events not because of audience support or the facts on their side, but because they employ a host of questionable techniques (including some of those used by Sheldrake that I pointed out). > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _originally posted by Abe_ > > Wolpert’s opening is fine and reflects current state of scientific knowledge, so let’s go to Sheldrake’s reply: > > Oh, this is rich! Let me put it this way–I don’t argue against Creationists… but were I to do so I would at least try to take into consideration what they in fact believe. The debate is **about** whether the “current state of scientific” any good when it comes to psi. I mean, all of what Wolpert said requires almost no expertise at all. With an hour or so of cramming and a decent crib shit (related to the dog study or whatnot), I could have gotten up there and faked believably that I held the same position. It doesn’t matter – either you accept what he has to say (and I don’t see anything substantially wrong with it) or you question it and challenge him on particulars as I did with Sheldrae’s arguments. Any schoolchild can tell you that E equals mc squared; the person making the delivery of an article of scientific knowledge is utterly irrelevant to the veracity of the claim. That’s the beauty of science, if you ask me. What proponents of psi believe is utterly irrelevant. In fact, what _deniers_ of psi believe is also utterly irrelevant. What is demonstrable is relevant. What is replicable is relevant. What is supported by commensurate evidence is relevant. Wolperton simply provided a digest of the current state of scientific inquiry. It is not his obligation to try understand psi proponents, he is there to debate, not to explore the psyche of believers. A scientific debate proceeds along advancement of claims and supporting evidence and reasoning, which are then challenged whenever appropriate. If you read Wolperton again, you’ll notice he does exactly that (although he could be rather more coherent). If you disagree with Wolperton’s digest of current knowledge, I suggest you challenge his claims; attacking a lengthy speech in overly general terms is not really specific enough to be of use here. > [@](#): > > Note that psi is NOT like what we think about physics, because it relates directly to what we feel, to consciousness. No, beliefs such as psi have little to do with consciousness. Psi deals with effects of the “mind” or “soul” not currently explained by the “physical” sciences, such as telepathy, telekinesis, etc. The scientific study of consciousness is, of course, psychology. Nonetheless, the same epistemological rules apply to psi as to physics or any other topic where one seeks to use the scientific method to further understanding. > [@](#): > > The fact that 90% of the world population is **wrong** in this specific way is nearly as useful as if they were correct. It is a huge clue to how consciousness works, if it nothing else. Yes, but that is a matter for psychology. It has nothing whatsoever to do with psi. Whether 90% of the world believe in God, or telepathy, the flat earth, or pink unicorns is utterly meaningless to the existence of God, telepathy, the flat earth, or pink unicorns; it is, however, an important insight into human behaviour and cognition. > [@](#): > > But the skeptics seem to say, Hey, the world is wrong–get over it. This is what they seem to say because it is, according to the evidence at hand, precisely the case! Remember, a sceptic, in order to form a position, must analyze the available evidence. Sceptics, generally speaking, have done this ad nauseam (or ought to have, in order to formulate their position; if they reached their positions without a conscientious review of the evidence, they are not sceptics). Can you say the same of psi proponents? Of course not, we’re talking here about an unsupported belief dressed up in scientific trappings. Anyone is free to believe whatever they want, but to claim it as **fact** , or to accuse sceptical observers or the scientific community of having closed minds is otherwise ridiculous. The mind that has assumed a belief prematurely is the closed one, not the mind that employs the scientific method and forms a temporary judgement based on review of the available evidence. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _originally posted by Abe_ > > Anecdotes render one excessively prone to error, confusion, dishonesty, etc. Scientists do not rely on anecdotal evidence (or testimonials, famously used to sell to the gullible everything from snake oil to penis enlargement pills). > > I think we’re back in boilerplate with this–I think “evidence” in this skeptic usage is nothing more than a pejorative that obscures how various scientific disciplines process information that skeptics would so label. I just don’t take this rhetoric seriously. Each science has its own protocols for what kind of evidence it looks for and standards for the quality thereof. Yes to a degree, but not as far as you claim; scientists do not rely on anecdotal evidence for fear of introducing error and because it is one of the tenets of the scientific method, a method that has been shown to work extremely well. When anecdotal evidence is absolutely necessary, it must be labeled clearly as an anecdote, caveats provided, and the anecdote must be withdrawn immediately if trumped by real evidence. Are you aware of any science where anecdotes are weighted as real evidence? > [@](#): > > Physics is a lab science in which “anecdotes” could not possibly pose a problem, wheres a science like sociology is based totally on information that could all easily be dismissed as “anecdotes.” Anecdotes in physics and other sciences will usually get you laughed out of the room (in fact, they are usually a signal that a joke is on its way). In some sociological exercises you are not relying on anecdotal evidence, you are **collecting** personal responses (anecdotes, if you wish) as part of your evidence. There is an important difference. Sociology does not simply describe social phenomena (that is more journalism than sociology). Sociology cranks out theses that lay out a causal argument, which involves specifying causal mechanisms. That means that even in sociology work must be based on systematic evidence that is qualitative and quantitative in support of the particular thesis involved. “I saw a UFO the other day, I’m sure of it. It whizzed by overhead and shot away at an impossible speed – it could only have been alien technology” and “The results of the survey show that XX % of respondents claim they have seen a UFO and believe it was extra-terrestrial in origin.” These two statements are obviously not the same thing. The first is clearly a personal experience (anecdotal evidence), the other is systematic evidence (i.e. not anecdotal, even if it does inquire into personal experience). One is anecdotal, personal, unsubstantiated; the other is scientific even though it makes use exclusively of anecdotal data. Obviously, only the second is acceptable as a scientific position. > [@](#): > > The chatter about “anecdotes” on the part of skeptics seems to assume that there is the demononical form of data that science has had to go out of its way to purge itself of. Such a dialectic, as far as I can see, hasn’t taken place; that is, “anecdotal evidence” is something that skeptics wring their hands over, not “real” scientists. I’m not sure where to begin here, you really have it out for sceptics! Yes indeed, in the world of science anecdotal evidence is demonical, because it renders lots of hard work null. Anecdotes are not scientific data for the reasons already provided in this and other posts. Anecdotes are particularly poor data for psi and other fictitious disciplines. Anyone can claim he is telepathic or that he has observed a Ganzfeld effect, but you would ideally want to see systematic evidence to corroborate such a claim, not anecdotal. > [@](#): > > Not all phenomena that science takes seriously are “measurable” (in psychiatry, for example, where you often simply have to take people at their word about internal mental symptoms), nor are they always repeatable (idiot savants with unique talents, etc.). This is a bit vague. In psychiatry – the non-physical aspects of it – the issue is how to minimize human error such as is inevitably introduced by anecdotal data, but that is an entirely different discussion. How is an idiot savant an example of acceptable anecdotal evidence in science? Would you believe someone who published a paper claiming that his idiot savant can crunch complex calculations faster than your AMD64 computer, yet who didn’t provide any evidence other than his say-so? Of course not, you would want to know more about the subject involved, methods used, and maybe even “borrow” him to see if the results published can be replicated. Otherwise the chilling example from Orwell’s _1984_ couldn’t be more appropriate: I can fly because I say so. Are you going to believe me, or will you be peskily sceptical? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/353 "2004-05-21T15:55:08Z")
Good responses. Most skillful argument. Do I agree? No. But a rebuttal on my part would involve going over all the little points and tapping on them with a hammer–I need more firepower. The getting of which requires further study and effort. So I thank you for showing me what I need to do to take my knowledge to the next highest level. And you are a skilled arguer, all round! Cheers. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/354 "2004-05-22T02:49:22Z")
The thing is, Aeschines, Abe doesn’t have to be a skilled debater on this topic. All he has to know is how to think logically, and then apply it to the argument presented. It’s dry, and dull, and boring, and repetitive, but it’s also unassaultably true. He may sound like he’s reading a canned speech, but it’s correct and directly relevant. It’s the rules we live by. We could make up another set of rules, but we havn’t found any that work better than the scientific method. Observe. Hypothesize. Experiment. Repeat. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/355 "2004-05-22T05:13:40Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > The thing is, Aeschines, Abe doesn’t have to be a skilled debater on this topic. All he has to know is how to think logically, and then apply it to the argument presented. And he is what I mean when I use the term skeptic. He’s not like some of the knee-jerk ‘deny, deny then think later’ cynics that pop up in droves in these threads. I can respect Abe. The pseudo-skeptics are an embarrasment. To quote our fearless leader: > [@Cecil Adams 5/21/2004](#): > > "However, we scientists don’t dismiss such phenomena antecedent to inquiry. " > "…but it’s possible there’s more going on here than we currently understand. " ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2004, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/356 "2004-05-22T12:29:46Z")
I will not repost Abe’s long rebuttal. Abe said “But science is not about feelings and beliefs;” He is right, and that is why spiritual things will never be “discovered” by science. Just as Scientific things will never be a part of religion. I wonder when we humans will understand the wholeness of ourselves and quit separating and dividing things until they have no meaning at all. When I was young an alcoholic had a behaviour problem, and depression was caused by feelings and beliefs, actually this is still true. But science invaded the realm of feelings and intuition and called it scientific. Psychology, Psychiatry, and the studies of psi, NDEs, are not the field of science. As religion failed when it tried to examine the physical world, so science has failed in trying to examine the spiritual world. The spiritual world does exist, some people do have psychic abilities, etc. One day we will get it together, ourselves I mean, and we will discover the real world. Love ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2004, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/357 "2004-05-22T12:48:40Z")
In the last research I read 83% of Americans believe in spiritual things. These include all the things skeptics say don’t exist. They believe in them because of their feelings, intuition, and experience. I don’t think a group of people 17% will convince them they are crazy, hallucinating, and ignorant. They will just go interacting with the spirit world until the 17% catches up. The real goal in life is love, unconditional love, once you feel it and understand it all the other things are just interesting. Love ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/358 "2004-05-22T16:55:28Z")
Against my better judgement, I’m going to reply to Leroy. Just to clarify a point. The scientific method is a tool. Using it allows people to accomplish tasks. The benefits of the scientific method are objective and physical. Working on a complex task without doubting, analyzing, and rechecking your work against the facts leads to issues later. Like foam falling off the space shuttle. Faith is a personal matter. It’s all right to believe in things. Even false things. For example, I hold a personal hope that somehow, a faster than light space drive will be invented, though I know that the probability of doing so is vanishingly small to nonexistant. The problem is, when an unexamined issue of faith is checked against reality and found to be false, and then acted on as if it were true, because of the faith of the individual, sometimes… it’s not so harmless. For example, the issue where our President is very much against stem cell research, because he believes the embryos they come from have souls. (Or is pandering to those who would believe so.) Speaking as someone with a grandmother with Alzheimer’s, I’m not happy about that. Heck, speaking as someone who wears glasses, has bad teeth, has asthma, I’,m not happy about that. In your, specific case, Leroy, you believe in NDEs, thanks to something that happened to you when you were, not dying from any external cause, but asleep. It’s all right to believe it, personally. It’s not right to lie, mislead, and confuse people about the results. I understand this may be a hard concept for you to understand, but it works. So let’s look at your statistic. Would I qualify as one of those 83 percent? Why, yes, I would. So what? I still can’t measure them objectively. And thus, they’re not _useful_, they’re not artifacts of science, they’re artifacts of faith. And until someone can measure them in a repeatable and quantifiable manner, they will remain faith. Which is cool, unless someone tries to act on them as objective fact. Psychic abilities, Leroy, either affect the physical world, or do not affect the physical world. If they do affect the physical world, they can be measured. Do you disagree with that? At the moment, despite thirty years of trying very hard, there is currently no study with good, solid controls, that exclude the possibility of outside variables, that show such effects. Do you disagree with that? The reason for excluding the possibility of outside variables is because it interferes with testing the original hypothesis. If the hypothesis is “Uri Geller Bends Spoons With His Mind”, and the test allows for the possibility that he may bend them with finger strength, or that his friend Shipi may gain access to the spoons and bend them, the conclusion of the study is now, “Uri Geller bends spoons with either his mind, his hand, or his friend.” This is clearly not what the original experiment sought to prove, and does not advance the study of psychic abilities one iota. Do you disagree with that? Astral Projection, or Remote Viewing, which are similar in effect, can be easily tested, by, for example, the classic “What have I got on my desk” question. The problem is, the experiment must be locked down, so the answer can not be guessed at by logic, cold reading, research, or physical investigation, because those things are not what the experiment is testing. Do you disagree with that? Until an experiment, which can be repeated, with proper controls, proves that a psychic ability exists, it is relegated to faith and not science. If, for example, a test were to prove that Abe could tell me what was on my desk with 100 percent accuracy 100 percent of the time, the next step would be to search for the method by which he is able to do so. If it happens to work out that he can see my desk, that’s an answer. Do you understand that, Leroy? Do you disagree with that? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/359 "2004-05-22T18:31:57Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Against my better judgement, I’m going to reply to Leroy. Just to clarify a point. > > The scientific method is a tool. Using it allows people to accomplish tasks. The benefits of the scientific method are objective and physical. Working on a complex task without doubting, analyzing, and rechecking your work against the facts leads to issues later. Like foam falling off the space shuttle. I would agree with most of this. Yes, but nothing is really objective, there is the element of subjectivity even in the theory being tested that it is correct. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Faith is a personal matter. It’s all right to believe in things. Even false things. For example, I hold a personal hope that somehow, a faster than light space drive will be invented, though I know that the probability of doing so is vanishingly small to nonexistant. The problem is, when an unexamined issue of faith is checked against reality and found to be false, and then acted on as if it were true, because of the faith of the individual, sometimes… it’s not so harmless. For example, the issue where our President is very much against stem cell research, because he believes the embryos they come from have souls. (Or is pandering to those who would believe so.) Speaking as someone with a grandmother with Alzheimer’s, I’m not happy about that. Heck, speaking as someone who wears glasses, has bad teeth, has asthma, I’,m not happy about that. Faith can not be checked against reality. God can not be proven. Whoever is so super intelligent that they can say for sure God doesn’t exist and prove it. That we have a spirit can not be proven, but the shadow of the spirit can be observed as in NDEs. I think science believes a lot in shadows of atoms and other micro events. Again I say science has no business even trying to debunk the spiritual, let alone calling those who believe names. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > In your, specific case, Leroy, you believe in NDEs, thanks to something that happened to you when you were, not dying from any external cause, but asleep. It’s all right to believe it, personally. It’s not right to lie, mislead, and confuse people about the results. I understand this may be a hard concept for you to understand, but it works. Again, you make more assumptions, the voice I heard and the presence I felt ask me if I wanted to go on living or not. I chose to go on living, and, by the way, I was fully awake, not asleep when this happened. Then you accuse me of lying about my experience which I had when you were nowhere around. Don’t you think that is a bit arrogant. Of course, if you have proof of what you say I will gladly appologize. Just show me the proof. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > So let’s look at your statistic. Would I qualify as one of those 83 percent? Why, yes, I would. So what? I still can’t measure them objectively. And thus, they’re not _useful_, they’re not artifacts of science, they’re artifacts of faith. And until someone can measure them in a repeatable and quantifiable manner, they will remain faith. Which is cool, unless someone tries to act on them as objective fact. People act on their faith everyday, and that is everyone including yourself. What makes you think artifacts of faith are not useful. People who believe in God live longer and have less depression and mental illness that those that don’t. Again just more assmptions and conjectures. Faith will never be measured in a repeatable and quantifiable manner, but that doesn’t prove they are false or not useful. Faith is what we are, every step you take indicates you have faith another lies ahead. Everytime you eat, or drink something, you have faith it is free from poison. Not have faith in anything soon becomes Paranoia. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Psychic abilities, Leroy, either affect the physical world, or do not affect the physical world. If they do affect the physical world, they can be measured. > > Do you disagree with that? No! They effect the spiritual world, the world of the mind or psyche. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > At the moment, despite thirty years of trying very hard, there is currently no study with good, solid controls, that exclude the possibility of outside variables, that show such effects. > > Do you disagree with that? No. There are lots of studies that show positive effects. Skeptics just say they are not good because they don’t agree with them. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > The reason for excluding the possibility of outside variables is because it interferes with testing the original hypothesis. If the hypothesis is “Uri Geller Bends Spoons With His Mind”, and the test allows for the possibility that he may bend them with finger strength, or that his friend Shipi may gain access to the spoons and bend them, the conclusion of the study is now, “Uri Geller bends spoons with either his mind, his hand, or his friend.” This is clearly not what the original experiment sought to prove, and does not advance the study of psychic abilities one iota. > > Do you disagree with that? No. There will never be a time when outside variables don’t effect experiments. Including all scientific experiements. They are not done in a vaccuum using only machines to analize and judge them. At no time is the human element excluded from any experiment . > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Astral Projection, or Remote Viewing, which are similar in effect, can be easily tested, by, for example, the classic “What have I got on my desk” question. The problem is, the experiment must be locked down, so the answer can not be guessed at by logic, cold reading, research, or physical investigation, because those things are not what the experiment is testing. > > Do you disagree with that? No. The two are entirely different. Remove viewing is not part of spiritual knowledge. And I may say that AP, OOBE, happenings have been and are fully documented. It would be impossible to repeat the same event twice because life moves on. Like you can’t step in the same river twice. There are numerous accounts of these events. Check out the Monroe Institute in Virginia, they have/had a progrom that helped people experience OOBE. The results were over 70%. Why do you keep saying that these things have never been shown when there are hundreds of cases of them. Thousands of cases of NDEs. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Until an experiment, which can be repeated, with proper controls, proves that a psychic ability exists, it is relegated to faith and not science. If, for example, a test were to prove that Abe could tell me what was on my desk with 100 percent accuracy 100 percent of the time, the next step would be to search for the method by which he is able to do so. If it happens to work out that he can see my desk, that’s an answer. > > Do you understand that, Leroy? Do you disagree with that? I understand your position, but do not agree with your conclusions. Because my experience did not fit into your scientific dogma, doesn’t mean it isn’t real. There is a mountain of evidence showing NDEs are real. There is no evidence showing they are not. Show me your proof, then I will agree with you. Follow your own rules, show the truth. Love ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/360 "2004-05-22T21:44:28Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I would agree with most of this. Yes, but nothing is really objective. Nothing is objective, Leroy? Does the universe exist in such a manner such that things only exist if agreed upon? Can we call the existance of, say, the Washington Monument an objective fact? Can we call the mathematical operation, 2 + 2 = 4 an objective fact? > [@lekatt](#): > > Faith can not be checked against reality. God can not be proven. Whoever is so super intelligent that they can say for sure God doesn’t exist and prove it. That we have a spirit can not be proven, but the shadow of the spirit can be observed as in NDEs. But in many NDEs and other psychic events, Leroy, claims are made about things that can be checked against reality. “I floated out of my body. I saw it from above.” And yet, when asked about, say, things that happened around the body, that could not be guessed, the events are in error. Odd, but true. Or, to simplify, how about psychic flight? There are people who claim they can fly by performing yoga. This is a pretty objective thing that can be seen or not seen. People have faith in it, but it certainly can be checked against reality. > [@lekatt](#): > > Again I say science has no business even trying to debunk the spiritual, let alone calling those who believe names. What, Leroy, is spiritual? Yoga flying? Astral Projection? You know, if someone claims they can project themselves astrally, it usually means they’re able to examine the real world. There are simple ways to test this. Like the “What’s on my desk” test. Is it no business of science? Why not? The objective of science is not to debunk, but to test hypothesis. A claim is something a hypothesis can be formed around. For example, the claim “I can astrally project.” is a hypothesis in and of itself. Then you experiment, and draw conclusions. Why is this no business of science? What if I decide that I am actually the president of the united states? It’s been told to me spiritually, so it’s actually true. There is no reason to test this. > [@lekatt](#): > > Again, you make more assumptions, the voice I heard and the presence I felt ask me if I wanted to go on living or not. I chose to go on living, and, by the way, I was fully awake, not asleep when this happened. Then you accuse me of lying about my experience which I had when you were nowhere around. Don’t you think that is a bit arrogant. > > Of course, if you have proof of what you say I will gladly appologize. Just show me the proof. All I have are your words, Leroy. You were in bed. You were not about to die. You simply had an experience, in which you think you were asked if you wanted to come back to life. I don’t see how that has any match with, say, someone having a heart attack, and then dying, and then being brought back by CPR. It’s not the awake or asleep bit I have issues with, Leroy, what I don’t understand is the part where you claim it was a near _death_ experience. > [@lekatt](#): > > Faith will never be measured in a repeatable and quantifiable manner, but that doesn’t prove they are false or not useful. Some objects of faith can be measured in a repeatable and quantifiable manner. “Is there a spaceship behind comet Hale-Bopp?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542.md?page=19)