I’m having a near sleep experience right now…
Now, Prin, fair’s fair. Lekatt probably believes the stuff he posted to were controlled scientific studies etc. I’ll give him that. He just doesn’t understand what’s really required for control and that anecdote isn’t the same thing.
Just my two cents worth.
Good morning begbert2,
I have no problem with debunkers who actually do honest debunking. However I have a major problem with some of the debunkers I have met over the years on the net. They have this bizarre pack mentality and they cannot tolerate any other view of the facts except their own. They appear to take the position that unless something can be tested in a lab it must not be real. They often exhibit bad manners, and sometimes they also practice bad science. The bad manners never seems to bother them, apparently that’s now accepted as part of being on the net, but when I (rarely) call one of them on bad science they usually just drop that username, switch to another one and keep on posting as if nobody will notice.
Let’s take just one small example. There is plenty of evidence that a large mammal, that is not a bear, is walking around several areas in our country. However, since we don’t have a body (yet) to examine in a lab the default debunker position is that all other evidence will be ignored. Frankly this exhibition of denial is puzzling.
HTH
Btw, my view of debunkers does not necessarily apply to anyone here in this thread. I’m speaking generically, from roughly five years of posting and reading a variety of boards. On many things I am also skeptical, but I prefer to use the word skeptic instead of debunker because the word debunker has become associated in my mind with poor behavior and sometimes questionable science. Of course, YMMV (your mileage may very).
Go to:
register and search “near death”. There you will find the complete controlled study I offered previously in the thread.
I will post or not on my schedule and at my choosing, not yours.
This thread has been a learning tool for me and the many spiritual people who have been following it.
It shows the mind-set, and demeanor, along with the level of knowledge, evidence, and proof, or lack of it, held by the skeptics posting on this board.
It has been a valuable learning experience.
Love
Leroy
[q]They appear to take the position that unless something can be tested in a lab it must not be real.[/q]
Seems very reasonable to me.
[q]Let’s take just one small example. There is plenty of evidence that a large mammal, that is not a bear, is walking around several areas in our country. However, since we don’t have a body (yet) to examine in a lab the default debunker position is that all other evidence will be ignored. Frankly this exhibition of denial is puzzling.[/q]
I’m the first to admit I haven’t followed this thread (and at 33 pages it’s too late) but plenty of evidence it is not, sir.
I think you’re confusing “debunking” with “pooh-poohing”.
A pooh-pooher is someone who says, “The bruden of proof’s on your shoulders, Junior, not on mine. Show me something more definitive that a few eyewitness glimpses and some big footprints and then we’ll talk.”
A debunker, on the other hand, is someone who says, “I took a close look at that ‘plenty of evidence’ you presented, and frankly, it’s bunk. Those footprints could easily have been made by a hoaxer; in fact, every set of footprints is so different it looks like each set belongs to a different species, as though each hoaxer has his own idea of what the footprints “should” look like. The shaky film of that brownish walking thing shows what looks remarkably like a zipper on its body in 1 or 2 frames. That tape recording of a low voice has the exact soundwave-shape we’d expect from a slowed-down recording of a normal human growling into a microphone. Not only has no body of this creature ever come to light, not even a skeleton has been found. Your evidence just doesn’t hold up, Junior.”
Ahh, I see you’re back at it, Leroy. Well, let me clue you into something. People are skeptics because of the lack of proof for these topics, not the (non-existant) abundance of it. Since anecdotal evidence has been repeatedly and verifiably demonstrated to be unreliable (Such as when a dozen eye-witnesses to a crime describe a scene that is significantly different in some major areas), it is foolish to rely on anecdotal evidence. It is also foolish to rule out any possibility without good reason to; solid evidence that the possibility is false, or solid evidence that another possibility is true. Just because you can think up one excuse with a good deal of anecdotal backing does not change that there are several other possibilities with anecdotal and more solid evidence backing them up, and that these other explanations, with the evidence presented for them, seem much more likely to be true than yours does.
When there is a lack of solid evidence for a possition, or an abundunce of solid evidence for an opposing possition, skepticism toward that claim is the logical and reasonable responce.[/Spock]
And since you avoided answering it the first time: Do you believe that it is impossible for someone to dream of being lifted out of their body by another character in the dream seeing their body below them, and carrying on a conversation with that character?
That sounds very nice, Lekatt, but what happens when two people have two different interpretations of the same event? Ultimately, there has to be something out there that is the truth. If one interpretation can be verified with scientific evidence, the verifiable interpretation seems to be the one that is the most likely.
I’ve now checked the two articles that seem to be relevant from The Lancet.
Both studies conclude that there are aspects of NDE’s that are not physiologically understood. Big deal. There is lots that we do not understand.
Nowhere do the studies conclude that what people experience during an NDE is objectively true. For example, people have out of body experiences during NDE’s. Yes, the studies confirm that people report that. No, the studies do not conclude in any way that those people actually went out of their body.
The studies certainly do not conclude that there is life after death, or that James van Praagh can talk to dead people, which is what we are talking about here.
Do you have any cites that support your conclusions, Lekatt? And you have not answered my previous question, namely do you believe that someone can ever misinterpret their own personal experience?
Well. Good.
That’s not easy to accomplish on a message board.
Btw Lekatt,
Here’s something from a scientist you might find interesting:
**
The Sense of Being Stared At
**
In his latest book, biologist Rupert Sheldrake explores the intricacies of the mind and discovers that our perceptive abilities are stronger than many of us could have imagined.
Most of us know it well - the almost physical sensation that we are the object of someone’s attention. Is the feeling all in our head? And what about related phenomena, such as telepathy and premonitions? Are they merely subjective beliefs?
Basing his conclusions on years of intense research, Sheldrake argues persuasively in this compelling, innovative book that such phenomena are real.
http://www.sheldrake.org/
"Staring Experiment
The feeling of being looked at from behind is remarkably common. So is the experience of looking at someone from behind and finding that they turn round. Surveys show that about 90% of the population have personally experienced these phenomena."
Also for Lekatt,
Here’s a scientist who is trying to merge science with religion. I’m not positive he used the word religion last night, but it was something similar. He was commenting on science attempting to understand consciousness.
http://www.angelfire.com/on2/daviddarling/
Apparently he has one of the more popular webites on the net. I just heard about him recently.
Whoo, long thread. 
GOM re Sheldrake’s staring experiment:
CSICOP article describing two attempts to corroborate Sheldrake’s findings. It calls into question his randomization methods (meaning subjects may have been learning the stare-no stare pattern).
and another I read a while ago at csicop : Can We Tell When Someone Is Staring at Us? by Robert Blake which takes a more “common sense” approach(in his words).
Has Sheldrake published any of his “years of intense research” in a peer reviewed journal where other scientists can examine his methods and findings?
Or is he a straight to the media scientist?
Yes, I am familiar with David Darling. Read one of his books. While I am always glad to see someone attempt to integrate knowledge of science and spirit, he is more concerned with gathering knowledge from science methods than he is from spiritual methods. This makes me believe he lacks spirit knowledge. The one thing about spirit is you can’t fake it. It works from the emotions and emotions can’t be faked.
I know this will be challenged: actors can fake emotions. Yes, actors can fool others, but can not fool themselves. Real emotions open the channels to spirit, if they are not real then nothing happens.
Unfortunately, we are taught life in small boxes. There is the box of science, religion, nature, politics, etc., in reality there are no boxes only integration. When we give up the limitations we impose on ourselves learning turns quickly to wisdom.
Love
Leroy
I’m still looking for your response to my last post, Lekatt.
Me too.
Lekatt, do you believe that it is impossible for someone to dream of being lifted out of their body by another character in the dream seeing their body below them, and carrying on a conversation with that character?
Ah, yes, Rupert Sheldrake – who also, apparently, believes in psychic pets.
As CarnalK pointed out while I was composing this message (grumble grumble), Skeptical Inquirer has a few articles related to Sheldrake’s claim that people can tell when they’re being stared at:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/stare.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html
Rupert Sheldrake’s response:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/stare.html
Robert Baker’s reply to Rupert Sheldrake’s response:
As to emotions, Lekatt when I see Jon Edward on TV I get a very strong feeling that he is a conman and a liar. I feel like I have touched something covered in rancid grease. I want to wash my hands. I feel sad that someone would treat those that clearly trust him (the audience) so badly, and it sickens me the way he plays on those people (most of whom are recently bereaved) so callously, while smarming like the worst kind of used car salesman/funeral director.
Do you think I should trust my emotions in this respect, or is it only some people (yourself, for example) whose emotions are trustworthy?