# Can the dead contact the living and other related issues **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 18, 2000, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-dead-contact-the-living-and-other-related-issues/37410 "2000-10-18T15:24:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2000, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-dead-contact-the-living-and-other-related-issues/37410/81 "2000-10-27T01:30:01Z")
In case you haven’t heard yet, a recent study came out claiming to offer evidence of life after death because of near-death experiences. Unfortunately, their evidence is, shall we say, less than spectacular. You can read about it here on Skeptic News, which gives you a few links to check out: [http://www.skepticnews.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/27/0127250](http://www.skepticnews.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/27/0127250) Oh, and Zebra, I’m still waiting for your explanation as to what you were trying to say about James Randi. I find it odd that you haven’t answered that simple question yet. ---
**Author:** ![Felice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Felice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Felice)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2000, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-dead-contact-the-living-and-other-related-issues/37410/82 "2000-10-27T04:12:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hedra \* > Felice: Forgive me, I overstated my position: A good alternate theory with scientific support (veterinary evidence that dogs lack the proper vocal structure, say) is entirely sufficient. I said proof, what I really meant was a decently supported alternate theory. Dragons myths coming from ancient finds of dinosaur bones, for example. Shed doubt, please! But let it be reasonable scientific doubt. If you just say, I have never heard my dog speak, that isn’t sufficient to suggest that dogs can’t speak. Okay… but I guess what I was saying is that when we have two theories: (1) This dog can talk or (2) There is someone pretending that this dog can talk. The first theory is quite extraordinary - therefore requires extraordinary evidence to support it. If the only evidence I offer for that theory is my word…well, nobody should accept it. Especially when there is evidence supporting the alternative thoery. > [@](#): > > heck, I do tarot… I certainly can’t track where I get my info from, or why I choose one meaning of a card over another - but that is what intuition is about. Intuition is highly studied, and proven to exist as a normal human brain process. I suspect that a lot of ‘real psychics’ are intuitively using cold-reading techniques, and just don’t know it. Yes, I am familiar with the literature on intuition. I accept the existence of intuition as, essentially, a shortcut to utilizing cumulative experience. But I am not sure what the relevance is. The firefighter mentioned in your example above is tapping into a database of experiences regarding effective solutions to firefight problems. Although the logic is paralle, I am not sure that I accept the parallel as evidence of the efficacy of tarot readings. Because, the firefighter has had the experience that proves that his actions (the database of experience) are the ‘right’ answer to the problem at hand. The nurses have evidence that their diagnosis of sepsis is appropriate to the symptoms they see. What is the evidence that a tarot card interpretation is the ‘right’ one? Just picking a nit, I know. > [@](#): > > A good scientist doesn’t decide they are right before the proof is finished. There has to be enough doubt to be able to see the unexpected solution, or even one that is a little off to the side of the one you thought was most likely. You have to be willing to be WRONG in order to find TRUTH. I don’t know of many scientists who search for TRUTH. Most of them are willing to leave that up to the philosophy departments. (Ref Indiana Jones.) > [@](#): > > I actually wish someone WOULD come up with a good study of these experiences! Comparative brain scans maybe? Me too. It’ll be a while yet before we get there, though. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2000, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-dead-contact-the-living-and-other-related-issues/37410/83 "2000-10-27T23:52:34Z")
This doesn’t directly deal with talking to the dead, and it comes from a source that would normally be flamed around here: Marilyn vos Savant. But she gave a good answer. Her column last weekend began with a question from a guy whose wife disdains TV psychics, but believes in palm reading. Marilyn said, in part: “Your wife is a good example (or maybe I should say a _bad_ example) of what can happen when people are too open-minded: It can lead them into being unable to discriminate between sense and nonsense. There’s absolutely nothing scientific about the practice of palmistry. It’s harmful (not harmless) entertainment, because followers may subconsciously cause negative predictions to come true.” That’s an interesting thought. I have obviously dealt with this effect before (see my Staff Report on the “nocebo effect”: [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnocebo.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnocebo.html) ), but hadn’t thought of it in dealing with these sorts of things. ---
**Author:** ![Felice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Felice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Felice)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2000, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-dead-contact-the-living-and-other-related-issues/37410/84 "2000-10-28T17:23:37Z")
A good point, David. I certainly did not mean to imply otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2000, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-dead-contact-the-living-and-other-related-issues/37410/85 "2000-10-28T18:20:27Z")
I think we are more likely to talk with extra-terrestrials than with dead people. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2000, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-dead-contact-the-living-and-other-related-issues/37410/86 "2000-10-29T22:56:45Z")
Felice: Sorry if you thought that was meant as a reply to your message. It wasn’t – it was just a general comment on the whole discussion. Jab: I agree. Heck, that’s why I run SETI@home! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2000, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-dead-contact-the-living-and-other-related-issues/37410/87 "2000-10-30T03:08:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\* > I mention this only to counteract the argument that goes, “If the dead could give us messages, wouldn’t they be specific?” > > - Rick \*\* This says it all. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2000, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-dead-contact-the-living-and-other-related-issues/37410/88 "2000-10-30T04:15:59Z")
😕 What does? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-dead-contact-the-living-and-other-related-issues/37410.md?page=4)