Yes, it does assume a lot, assuming it is caused by the soul leaving the body.
But none of those assumptions can be proved false, starting with the assumption of “there exists a soul.” This means they are not under the purview of scientific analysis.
This doesn’t mean that they’re true, it doesn’t mean that they’re false, it means they’re articles of faith upon which it is impossible to take a stance proved by evidence.
Interestingly, if many of the traditional psychic phenomena were proved to be true, it might well be possible to make pronouncements on the existance of the soul.
Lekatt, you exhibit about as much knowledge of sceptics, scepticism and critical thinking as you do of the scientific method and epistemology, which is to say rather little.
Your extract quoted above is particularly telling. Not necessarily because of the sadly ineffective pre-emptive sally against “debunked” sceptics (how silly… it is sceptics who debunk, they have very little to be debunked of) but because of the unequivocal reference to belief after your series of tiresome and poorly supported arguments using alleged/suspect articles of science and knowledge to argue in favour of your entirely unproven supernatural beliefs.
If you believe all this stuff that you’ve failed to support for the past years (from Atlantis and up as I recall), that’s fine. Your belief is your business and nobody else’s, but when you enter the SDMB GD or GQ forums, you know you have to make use of tight and well-supported arguments if you want to support your beliefs. I’ve never seen you present such an argument, only fallacy after fallacy. What’s the point? Do these failed attempts at witnessing somehow reinforce your beliefs?
A quibble: just because an assumption is not proved false does not mean it is removed from the purview of scientific analysis. It is, in fact, logical to grant provisional agreement that improbable, unobserved, and undemonstrable claims are false until proved otherwise. Without evidence in support of an outlandish claim (be it divination, astral projection, levitation, etc.) it is completely unreasonable and impractical to treat such claims as true. If there is no reliable evidence or indication of something, then that something does not exist.
Snakespirit is correct when he objects to the chain of assumptions required to make some of these supernatural beliefs work, or if not work then just seem even remotely probable. Each assumption is a multiplication of ignorance, with successive assumptions being built on the backs of the preceding ones (e.g., the assumption that the soul exists, and the assumption that it can leave the body, which then results in the assumption that some forms of hallucination and other normal events are in fact instances of astral walking). The end result thus tends to be even more flawed than the assumptions employed to support it.
Articles of faith are simply unproven claims that some people choose to believe (for whatever reason) and, further, interpret and modify. I don’t think that, epistemically speaking, such articles deserve any other protection or special consideration. A person’s beliefs are his or her own of course and ought to be respected as such, but presenting an unsupported, unproved, and “un-Occam’ed” belief as fact is pointless and conducive to the multiplication of ignorance.
Abe, I didn’t say that the existance of the soul was not proved false. I said it can not be proved false. It is not falsifable. Popper, you know. Even if it were proved true that every thought and emotion could be chemically detected and replicated, there would still be room to say the soul exists.
Psychic phenomena can be tested, can be measured, can be analyzed. They do lie within the realm of science. Now, there is no reliable indication of them, so it can be assumed they do not exist, on a daily basis, as a rule of thumb.
The soul, which is all I am discussing, as one potential part of astral projection, is a null referent when it comes to scientific discussion. Can it be assumed the soul does not exist? Certainly. And it will make no difference one way or the other as far as daily life is concerned. But, like god, there is no meaningful evidence one way or another. (There is also no evidence we were not created thirty seconds ago with memories intact and all physical processes moving.)
On the other hand, if certain psychic powers, like speaking to the dead, were to be proved reliable and accurate, there would be direct proof of the soul’s existance, and possibly other things, depending on what the dead say. This is, in my opinion, a severe strike against their probability of existance, that they claim to interact with forces that can be measured in no other way in the world.
In short: Psychic powers: Falsifiable, no solid proof they exist. Amazing in my opinion that no person in history has made them work reliiably.
Meetaphysical basis for psychic powers, such as the existance of a god, of an afterlife, of a soul, not falsifiable, a matter of faith and not science.
BTW, is this a rule? I couldn’t find it in the rules section.
Or is this just your personal preference?
I see lots of people posting without sigs, I guess they either don’t have them or have become aware of a social convention to use them sparingly.
I guess you picked on me cause my sig stands out so much, right? Not because of your personal dislike for me. (I noticed others who also use their sig all the time didn’t get called on the carpet.)
Hey, I know you MODS are busy folk, you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. I will do my best to comply, whether it is rule, social convention, personal preference or… whatever.
Phenomena don’t require a “justification” or “basis” for their existence. If we observe them, there they are.
I argue on this board as strongly as anyone against definitions floating about without observed or experienced phenomena attached, my biggest peeve being the monotheistic “God” concept.
People are going in a wrong direction, however, if they think of ghosts, psi, etc., as being some sort of woo-ooo-ooo “metaphysical” thing requiring the sponsorship of God(s) or non-material essences.
Rather, psi, ghosts, and the afterlife are just as ordinary as anything else. They are not even rare phenomena–millions of people have experienced them.
The claim that no one has used the phenomena repeatably and reliably is incorrect (insert canard about Randi’s prize here). For example, in the Ganzfeld experiments, people have guessed about 33% of cards right when they should have gotten 25%. Skeptics are now regularly used to make sure the procedures are airtight, and the same level of results continues to be obtained.
But make no mistake–psi is like psychology. Have you ever worked on or with psychology experiments? I’m amused when people on this board demand of psi experiments the same kind of perfect results obtainable in chemistry or physics experiements. The harp is continously struck for “repeatability” “in the lab,” etc. Fair enough. And psi HAS delivered that kind of results–of course they are ignored.
But if you were to hold the same standard to psychology–heh, I can’t help but laugh. I worked as a moderator on a “real” graduate student experiment in 1992, and I was a subject for many others. All I can say is,
*The goals of the studies are usually mind-numbingly stupid.
*The procedures are flawed to the core. If psi experiments were done this way, skeptics would be hee-hawing it up all day long. For example, experiments done 100% on college students in open classrooms with questionnaires only. You’ve got a crap sample population with rock-bottom bad methods, and any form of cheating or callusion is possible.
*The results, if they are positive at all, are meaningless and get relegated to the dustbin of science history. I challenge anyone here to name a psychology experiment that has resulted in truly important change for society in the last 25 years (eg, resulted in a useful new treatment, etc.). And no, I’m not talking about ev-psy or theory, I’m talking about genuine experimental psychology.
But psychology and sociology and all the other welfare sciences (which is basically what they are: welfare for profs) are ignored by skeptics because their experimental conclusions, while meaningless, do not threaten the reductionist-materialist worldview. On the other hand, if a psi experiment done with tight controls worthy of the physical sciences produces positive results, the skeptics go off like a spark plug and claim fraud, design flaws, whatever it takes to deny, deny, deny.
This is what frustrates people whose minds are truly open. It’s a joke.
This would seem to insinuate that you think a moderator would abuse their power… To me, that is living dangerously!
Please remember: our moderators are volunteers and they work hard for our benefit. They are human, and make mistakes like all of us, but I would never insinuate that they would abuse their power!
Which is why I asked you twice instead of getting upset when you didn’t respond the first time-there was always the chance that you didn’t see the first request.
E-Sabbath, I realize what you are saying in regards to falsifiability, however I disagree somewhat with the conclusion. The soul (like god, astral projection, etc.), is an article of faith – that’s opinion, simply put. Epistemically, such concepts are indistinguishable from the fabled pink unicorns of this site and exist only in the purest speculative sense.
Yes, and that is why I said such concepts do not exist beyond the conceptual level. If there is no evidence of X, it is pointless and misleading to assume the existence of X, especially if, armed with such an assumption of “X exists”, you then tackle other questions that require further assumptions (multiplication of ignorance). That’s what I mean when I say these items are irrelevant except as speculations.
I don’t know about that, the only thing linking those two items is cultural indoctrination (that the soul exists and survives the death of a person). Ideally we would like to establish with more certitude and accuracy the link (if any) between communicating with the dead and the human soul. Given the subject matter though, I’m not holding my breath!
What I was getting at in my previous messae was that (again) epistemically speaking these hypothetical articles might as well not exist. There’s no evidence for them to speak of, just as there isn’t any in favour of the pink unicorns. I agree it’s a matter of faith, but I disagree that they are a matter removed from science except inasmuch as the sanctity of personal beliefs is concerned, and that is a purely social item of respect. As far as science is concerned, loosely speaking if there is no evidence to suggest the existence of X, does X exist? Not as far as I know.
Cite please. This claim is not exactly new, many paranormal researchers have made exactly this sort of claim at some stage of their research, which is later either debunked or explained rationally (usually as some overlooked item of flawed experimental design or statistical analysis).
No, as far as I know there haven’t been such results that have withstood scrutiny and proved replicable. If you are aware of any, please could you provide the cite rather than allude to it in passing.
Not all (not even the majority) psych experiments are of the bored student questionnaire variety, and when they are, there are techniques (statistics) to reduce the high level of error and noise that crops up under such poor controls. And psi is by no means like psychology, not even the softer side of psychology; it seems you assume that trying to isolate and define elusive and highly varied patterns of human behaviour and response is the same thing as recording a “supernatural” phenomenon? There is a world of difference!
For example, proving mind-reading or water-dowsing or aura reading or faith healing or any other paranormal claim is extremely simple. All you do is test X alleged ability in a series of subjects under conditions that preclude cheating or interference, and see if anyone performs consistently better than you’d expect simply by chance. Simple experiment, simple design, and precisely what is needed. We’re not trying to isolate the role of emotion in memory recall here, we’re simply trying to observe an effect that (according to the claims) is readily observed.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence after all. Equating the strict controls correctly required by serious paranormal investigations with looser controls in some psychology experiments – a big field with many differing methods – doesn’t seem very productive. The standards for paranormal abilities – given how they fail to fit in with the picture scientific inquiry has built up so far – must be of the highest order and beyond dispute.
What studies? At what level? And do these involve qualified professionals, or students? Are they didactic in nature or intent? You said you worked on one experiment only, and for the others were merely a subject – since subjects only participate in experiments and are not called to evaluate them, you may simply not know what was being done.
That depends entirely on what is being tested or observed by the procedures you blast so thoroughly. I’m not disputing that bad science happens regularly, however you seem to be claiming that psychology work is routinely carried out in dubious manner, which is simply not true. And there is of course a gulf of difference in required procedures between, for example, an experiment testing the problem-solving ability of lobotomized lab rats, and a survey that seeks to establish the success of a universty student population in dealing with exam stress.
I don’t think there’s such a thing as too much of the scientific method in any discipline, so I’m all for it regardless of the particular science involved. However I don’t think you’re making the best of arguments here.
Experimental psychology (which is a somewhat outdated term) is simply the approach to psychology that treats it as one of the natural sciences and renders it accountable to the scientific method. It is the “hard” side of psych groupings, which were otherwise considered generally “soft”. Experimental psychology tends to discount the case study and interview methods used in clinical and developmental psychology. This experimental approach to psych is precisely the opposite of what you are complaining about, which is an attack against the softer approaches!
Further, because experimental psychology is primarily a methodology, the subject matter covered is extremely varied: perception, cognitive psychology, comparative psychology, experimental analysis of behavior, physiological psychology. Additionally, there is significant involvement with neuroscience, which is most definitely not soft science. And lastly, because “experimental psychology” now covers such a broad range of disciplines, the term itself may be slipping out of fashion in favour of more specialized epithets, such as cognitive psychology.
I highly doubt that you regard the human language processing system, the perceptual/motor system, child development, and a myriad other fields of inquiry as meaningless. Here are some examples of what cognitive psychology has contributed and is investigating: Wikipidia entry on Cognitive Psychology. Here is the Wikipidia entry on Experimental Psychology, which as you can see is extremely generalized.
A sweeping generalization. Not worth addressing unless you’d be wiling to make a more concise and valid point, and even then it’s completely off-topic.
Ah, yet another sally against the evil sceptical reductionist-materialist view, a sally as valid as the one I addressed a couple messages ago. Well, here you make no sense at all, Aeschines. Scepticism is not a position, it is a method. Sceptics are not necessarily adherents of reductionist/materialist (or other) philosophies, they are simply those people who when confronted with incredible and/or unsupported claims say “show me”. They are the people who when presented with evidence that is in direct contrast to other, much larger and more established theories and bodies of evidence, say “let’s take a closer look at the procedures involved because there is probably a problem in here somewhere”.
Once again the hand-waving, accusations, and pre-emptive attacks on the characters and methods of sceptics. There are sceptics in all walks of science, and some of them focus on experimental psychology, just as some like to dwell on the paranormal. There were several sceptics in the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann cold fusion fiasco too, only the media didn’t really bother with them. When the addle-brained Raelians recently claimed they had taken some time out from worshipping alien beings to clone a human, there were plenty of sceptics who said “show me”. The Raelians, of course, couldn’t show anything, and instead showed off the cloning facilities they used to produce their clone. The sceptics pointed out that the rented facilities were inadequate and did not seem sufficiently sterile for cloning.
A sceptic denies when the evidence fails to support the claim, or when the claim seems based on flawed reasoning (or experimentation); the fellow who automatically denies in the fashion you rant about is not a sceptic, he’s a fanatic nay-sayer.
When a mind is “truly open”, the rain and the insects and the forest creatures get in and make a mess of everything. Pretty soon you have mildew everywhere, things rust to pieces, and the droppings of base vermin underfoot is likely to give one endemic typhus or toxoplasmosis or whatnot.
Garbage. The frustrating thing about these SMDB debates is that the skeptical side starts out disingenuously denying that any good or compelling experiment has ever been done. The fact is that very good experiments have produced statistically huge results. That’s where we are in the debate, so let’s start there. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of experiments performed to verify psi in the lab. Here’s a cite:
There are also a ton of resources at www.borderinstitute.org. Now, you can cry “bullshit” on any link, for any cite. In fact, most of the time what happens is that someone posts some cites in favor of the paranormal here, and in 5 minutes or so some bright light has debunked the article, nay, the entire cite with a few chunky phrases of jargon. You’re free to do so, anyone is, but at that point we’re not even debating.
If you don’t know what I mean by “Ganzfeld experiments,” then you really don’t know enough to be debating this.
Yeah, OK, sure. And when paranormal researchers do metaanalysis, it’s bullshit all the way, right?
Meaningless.
No shit, Sherlock. And I’m not defending any of these things, simply the proven fact that such results have been got in the lab–many, many times.
I’ve debunked the “extraordinary claims” thingie more than once on these boards. “Extraordinary” is an emotional term–it has no use in science. Sufficient proof is sufficient, and that’s that. Copernican theory might have been “extraordinary” to the bishops, but a few observations and calculations were sufficient to prove it.
Dude, I’m telling you–these studies were a frickin’ joke. The intent of the questionnaires was supposed to be “hidden,” but it was always 100% clear. I once walked out on an experiment (we got credit anyway if we were “uncomfortable,” etc.)–I think it was about attitudes toward homosexuality or whatnot–because it was so insulting to my intelligence.
Re your comments about neuroscience, etc.–yeah, there have been some results. Not really related to my point. Which is that “lab” (er, classroom) experiments for psychology are taken seriously (ie, ignored) by those same skeptics that will go bonkers over perceived flaws in parapsych experiments–despite the fact that the former are a joke.
Gawd, not this bromide again.
This is a neat bit of equivocation that works wonders for the “cause.” 95% of self-labeled skeptics are reductionist-materialist, such that those who don’t share this viewpoint really don’t feel comfortable applying this label to themselves. Yet, skepticism is, in reality, this noble doubting, this pure pursuit of truth!
Guess what, honest Abe? You and I probably agree on 90% of issues–but I don’t call myself a sketpic. Guess what else? You and I take an epistemological approach to things with about 90% overlap–but I don’t call myself a skeptic. Why? The term is so loaded with things outside that “we are searchers of the truth” spin that I could never feel comfortable using the term. Too many self-labeled “skeptics” have denied too many well-proven phenomena for too long for me to think well of that nomiker.
Then most media skeptics are fanatic naysayers.
But if that’s the price of TRUTH!?
BTW Abe, I am frustrated with your boilerplate rhetoric here, but please don’t take it personally. On most issues, I assue you, you and I will be playing on the same team. Unless you like GW Bush! :eek:
BTW, here is a rebuttle by Pin van Lommel (author of the Lancet NDE article) rebutting an article by Shermer. It will serve to rebut many of the claims in this thread.
The author of the Lancet article is still making the unsupported assumption that NDEs are occuring during brain death, when there is no possible way to tell if the NDE occured just prior to BD, during BD or immediately after BD.
I repeat-there is no objective evidence that the NDE happens during brain death. The only way you could prove that NDEs were possible during brain death were if someone were to go from a totally conscious state to brain death instantly, back to a totally conscious state instantly, and an NDE were then reported. For now, the only logical and scientifically supported theory is that NDE experience happens while the brain is functioning, otherwise, the brain wouldn’t have recorded the event in the first place!
You are wrong again. The way we know they don’t take place before brain death is that the verified events described after coming back to life happen after brain death. Pam Reynolds was brain dead for 2 hours and described accurately events that took place an hour and more after she was brain dead. This material is well documented. In fact it was this kind of material showing up after recovery that started the research.
Hi, Lekatt. I am not asking this in a challenging way, but only because I have not yet had my own experiences: Is one able to read in an NDE, or receive information visually that doesn’t waver and disappear (as happens when you try to write something down in a dream)? Can one verify through multiple ways that one really is in possession of one’s body, really, really?
