What in the world would give you the impression that this would concern Lekatt?
I think that the years of determination on Lekatt’s part should earn him the honor of having a bit of internet jargon named after him.
to lekatt something, pull a lekatt or…
this goes to the Pit
As for Psitech’s claim that remote viewing is still in its pioneering phase, and so must be given some slack, here is an exchange between a remote viewer and a skeptic from a hundred and fifty years ago:
http://www.spirithistory.com/jolcott.html
Seem familiar? Who can blame anyone for being skeptical of a “science” that has been unable to advance or demonstrate progressively better results in a century and a half of “pioneering”?
Also, one problem with establishing the reality of what is experienced in NDEs has not been mentioned here before. Proponents of NDEs offer personal experience and testimonies as evidence of their truth. Not so strange, perhaps, given the New Age tendency to believe that nothing is true except personal experience. But there is plenty of conflicting testimony, from people who have been “near the edge,” as it were, which does not agree about what one encounters there, and which appears to contradict in essential ways, the Raymond-Moody/New Age model. For example, Timothy Leary notwithstanding, the Tibetan Buddhist descriptions of the process of dying, passing into the “intermediate state,” and being reincarnated, don’t jibe with the New Age model unless you decide it’s okay to just chuck most of what the Tibetans themselves describe. Another kind of testimony that should make New Age proponents of NDEs uncomfortable is the testimony of Christians who have reported, when near death, experiences that accord with a belief in divine judgment and everlasting reward and punishment. An example of this sort of testimony, collected by a physician and Christian who had attended upon the deaths of hundreds of patients, was distributed by the American Missionary Tract Society in the mid-1840s. It’s pretty hair-raising. It was reproduced in John B. Newman, “Fascination; on the Philosophy of Charming, Illustrating the Principles of Life in Connection with Spirit and Matter.” New York: Fowlers & Wells, 1848.
We’ve discussed with Lekatt his assertions that his personal experience are all he needs as far as proof. In fact, he seems to feel that personal experience is all that matters. I said it before and I’ll say it again. Personal experience is very important. It’s crucial. It’s not, however, scientific evidence. Nor is it, as he has claimed, the ultimate proof in court. In terms of research personal experience is a good place to start. One can ask the question, “why did it seem like this to me?” and then start looking for explanations. The NDE’ers don’t go that far. They simply say “this happened to me,” and leave it at that.
photpat is right.
Actually, there’s probably no substantial objection to Lekatt’s rants that hasn’t been raised already. There are possibly a small handful of variations and subsets of objections that haven’t been mentioned explicitly. Lekatt has a great deal of lekatticity/ lekattity/ lekattness in his behavioral make up. He lekatts quite a bit.
When I joined the thread just before the dawn of time I read all of the posts from beginning to current. Then I subsequently re-read them. This feat was much easier in those days as there weren’t nearly as many. I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone else to do such a thing to themselves voluntarily. Not knowing what has and hasn’t been discussed in the course of the prosecution of this thread is just another part of the human condition.
Yes, I quite agree with you both. I was just trying to point out that most of the argument against NDEs here seems to have been construed by the NDE proponent as whether there is “enough” evidence for it or not, but another way to question NDEs is to notice that there’s too much “evidence” for it–if one counts personal testimonies. “Too much” because the accounts contradict one another, a big problem if one can offer nothing apart from personal experience capable of judging one account true and one false.
You’re right little. It seems there would be more potential for a valid NDE definition if all events were basically identical. When they differ radically, it’s much more likely that they are simply hallucinatory experiences or can be (and of course they can) explained in more mundane ways.
It seems to me that one of the hallmarks of “true believers” is their ability to disregard or flatly deny anything that doesn’t support their POV. Even events and explanations from other “true believers.”
Yes. Your comment on true believers pitted against each other reminds me of an agnostic apartment mate of mine who answered the front door once and found two earnest young men on the porch who asked if they could come in and talk to him about the Lord. Sure, said my apartment mate. So they came in and sat down and proceeded to begin telling him about Lord Jesus. Jesus? said my apartment mate, I thought you meant Lord Krishna! A real conversation stopper that.
Except if your personal experience (cf Doc Cathode, or any of our attempts to apply a cold reading to our own lives) contradicts his, in which case he will call you a liar or say you are faking or whatever.
But I see you have already commented on this
Never called anyone a liar.
Please explain to me how we can learn anything or communicate anything without personal experience?
If no one believes in the personal experience of anyone else, is that skepticism or insanity.
Remember Carl Sagan said “To be skepical of everything just because you are a skeptic is insane.” Smart man.
No you never openly call anyone a liar, Lekatt. You are too wily for that. You say that you do not trust what they say, or that they are tricking you or whatever. Which all amounts to the same thing: you consider they are telling deliberate untruths, which is to say that you consider that they are lying.
Your argument about personal experience is a straw man. No one here is saying that all personal experience is always wrong. We are only saying that it is sometimes wrong, and when one particular experience is contradicted by a vast body of other personal experience, you should discount the former, particularly when the former is in the context of illness (ie near death) or dreams (can I fly because I dream I can?) or professional entertainers using a technique known to fool many people.
I find it a little ironic that you think Carl Sagan smart for this line, yet you disregard his feelings on psychics.
Googling “Sagan, skeptical, insane” gets no hits that have this quote, which causes me to wonder whether it is even accurate. Cite, Lekatt?
In any event as I’ve said before, I don’t disagree with Sagan’s comment. To be skeptical just because you are a sceptic is insane. There is however nothing insane about being sceptical about something for which there is a total lack of reliable evidence. Lekatt it no doubt suits your prejudices to believe that we sceptics are sceptical about psychics for the former reason, but in the absence of any reliable evidence that anyone is psychic, the latter is a better explanation.
Here - I’ll call you a liar. You told a first person account of manning a radar screen in the navy. “I am sitting at the radar screen on the USS Willett, a Navy Destroyer. We are returning to base in New Orleans after a two week training cruise.” here. Your biography, posted on your website, shows no time in the navy. “Born in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA on September 14, 1937. Graduated from High School in 1955 with a Vocational Certification in Printing. Thought at this time my future was well planned. :-). . .Held several positions in the Printing Industry until I was hired, in 1959, by a typesetting company. This employment would last 31 years.” 1959+31=1990, and you would be 53, a little old to enlist. Under the circumstances, why should anyone trust any personal experience you report?
I don’t know why I bother, but anyway I couldn’t resist the temptation to dig this up.
So, like I said, you don’t call people liars, but you are quite prepared to call them fakes. I’m not sure I see a great difference between those two things.
If I prove this to you, what’s in it for me?
When is a personal experience right and when is it wrong, we all know that millions of people believing the earth was flat wouldn’t change its roundness.
There are over 10 million NDEs estimated in the US alone, and they go back thousands of years. Can’t be sure all of them believe their experience was real, but sure most of them do. many say they remember being in the spiritual before and know it is home.
Where is the line?
It doesn’t matter how many people believe that the earth is flat, we will still be able to make repeatable, objective measurements that show it is round.
Where are your repeatable objective measurements to show that NDE’s are real?
Not that I have a stake in any of this (nor do I buy what lekatt is selling), but USS Kenneth M. Willett (actually a destroyer escort, DE-354, not a destroyer per se) operated out of New Orleans for about 8 years, between 1951 and 1959. If lekatt graduated in 1955, he could have done a short stint sometime between 1955 and 1959 (the Willett was decomissioned in 1959). I don’t know what the minimum enlistment period in the Navy would have been in the '50s, but if it was less than four years, I suppose it is possible to have completed a term of service during that time, and still have been able to “[hold] several positions in the Printing Industry” between 1955 and 1959.
You spoiled my fun.
The Willett now lies at the bottom of the ocean off Puerto Rico, she was sunk in gunnery practice. Sad.
I grew up on that ship emotionally, well a little at least.
Guess I forgot to say the hurricane was very real also. Along with other very scary experiences. maybe later.