I want to be this for Halloween:
Anybody know if there are any stores that haven’t sold out of the costumes yet?
Well, sure — depending on what null hypothesis you have constructed. Every null hypothesis implies an alternate hypothesis anyway, and either one can be called the other.
It’s an interesting question, but I have no trouble, as I say, “living with the ambiguity” and not resolving it right this second with my limited knowledge.
There have been hundreds of psi experiments that have gotten statistically significant results. The ol’ guess one of four things (Ganzfeld, etc.) have, on average, gotten results in the 30+ percent range when chance would dicate only 25%. Yes, there are plenty of arguments to be made that it is all BS, but it involves going deep into the statistics involved. Simply saying, Well Susan didn’t get positive results, so doesn’t that invalidate all the rest? doesn’t have much oomph to it.
[quote]
Again, the alternatives are that she made some tiny flaw (and I mean absolutely miniscule, such that if it really did prevent these things appearing then it’s a wonder they exist at all) or that those others made pretty basic mistakes such as unconsciously applying achance baseline shift.Can’t comment; don’t know.
Here’s a piece by Sheldrake. The skeptics replicate his experiment on psychic pets and then invalidate the results through a cheap, self-serving interpretation of the results. I read this kind of article and find it convincing. I read articles by both sides. Again and again I find the “debunkings” not to hold water. Of course, I’m talking about the phenomena I believe in (owing to being convinced thus). I’ve read about other phenomena, say UFOs and homeopathy, and have come to the conclusion that there is nothing there.
Of course NDEs are pyschological. To me the term “paranormal” does not convey information. NDEs only add weight to what every culture in human history has asserted: that there is a spirit and an afterlife. I honestly don’t see where the mystery is.
The thing I find compelling about NDEs is that every damn person who has one says that it was real (I have seen only one half-counter example). We’re talking about hard-core atheists, too, coming back convinced that they’re real. Heck, I would expect a good percentage of people to claim that NDEs were just dreams even supposing that they were real. But they don’t.
Another thing: Why do the vast majority of NDEs deal with the issue of death, process it, so to speak? Why not just random dreams? These two factors, among other hard-core evidence such as veridical NDEs, lead me to believe that they are proof of the afterlife.
Nope, too many big hits and mediums doing otherwise impossible things with ectoplasm and the like. On the other hand, I am sure there are many frauds.
Some are, yes.
The Blackmore NDE article would seem to be from 1990, as she cites Moody from 1975 as “15 years ago” and the latest cite in the bib is from 1989. Her anoxia theory isn’t really taken seriously any more.
That is still essentially an answer of “because they’re so convincing” - I was just asking whether there was another reason.
Well, perhaps it’s because those people are usually )but not always) close to death, just as I might dream about my wedding day near it. Indeed, death is such a deeply important subject to humans any time that it is perhaps not surprising that an incredibly profound experience features it. In any case, I am not suggesting that the human mind is (like the weather) anything like fully explicable, merely that (like the weather) there is no need to appeal to the non-physical or supernatural.
Careful also of that word “veridical” (“truthful”). Those experiencing one may well not be lying, but they may well be mistaken. I don’t believe it’s ever a useful word to apply.
You do realise that even lekatt accepted that ectoplasm was a fraudulent invention by 19th century spiritualists?
Other than that you find them convoncong, is there any reason that they cannot all be?
You’re quite right: V. S. Ramachandran is the current leader in the field, which is why I referenced synchronicity in the temporal lobe.
Of course they’re “real”. Even pilots who have gone through G-LOC say it’s “real”. A rational person would say that it happens because of a lack of blood and oxygen to the brain. An ignorant person would say…oh, wait - you’ve already pointed that out.
No, stupid, the other ones.
Like Dr. Edgar Mitchell at the Institute for Noetic Sciences, for one.
We come to the conclusion of your ignorance because of things like this. You evidently think ridicule is a valid debating technique, and even in that you are quite limited.
Same old, same old.
Argumentum ad Nauseam: “Have you thought of applying for the JREF Challenge?”
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: “Psychic phenomena do not exist. No one has demonstrated that they are real.”
Exactly, Meat, “It proves precisely nothing.”
Actually, I wasn’t ridiculing her, I was ridiculing you.
“how many people must have similar careers before we accept the null hypothesis?”
Who cares? What are you, the moral imperator of acceptable research? If I wanted to waste my time studying “2nd Millenium Style Nucular Alien Ninja Sea Sponge Rays,” what’s it to you?
I already got a mother. If you want to keep wasting your career applying for the position, that’s up to you, but I’m putting your résumé in the circular file.
My recommendation would be: Get a life!
I’m sure *some * of them can be explained away, but that doesn’t mean all of them can be explained away in that manner.
You’re trapped in a logical fallacy here.
As a skeptic, I admit to the possibility of these, and many other explanations. This dioes not mean that any one explanation necessarily must apply to all instances.
Yeah, INS is very reliable, skeptical, and scientific.
Oh, wait, they aren’t.
They have published no peer-reviewed papers, they have no independently confirmed results, and they are at their core victims of a begged question.
Sheesh. It’s like my consulting Oliver Stone for the real inside scoop on what happened during the Vietnam war.
You admit you don’t know what they are doing.
Yet you’re ready to judge them.
What do you call that? Research?
I said nothing of the sort, sparky.
This logic is circular. Of course every person who believes they had an NDE believes it was real. If they didn’t believe it was real, they wouldn’t believe they had an NDE. If they didn’t believe they had an NDE, how can they believe that what they didn’t have was real? Do you see the problem here?
The vast majority of people having what you call “NDEs” write them off as dreams.
Based on what I’ve seen of your posting style, I stand by my answer.
You will notice that I have not ridiculed you anywhere in this thread nor in any other, though I cannot guarantee for how long this will remain true.
You admit tht some NDE’s can be explained by reference to temporal lobe activity? If so, and assuming that you understand that a plurality ought not be proposed without necessity, my question was “why not all of them?”. Why is it necessary to propose a different explanation for some of them?
Did she ever explain that dreams weren’t real?
Aw, c’mon back, SnakeSpirit. Don’t be shy. You were going to show me all the peer-reviewed, replicated research that the INS has done.
He won’t do that. The only point of his joining this thread was to drown it in feculent nonsense and “I am the true sceptic for I am willing to believe anything!” bullshit. He brought nothing of worth , either entertainment or substance, to the table.