# lekatt's recent hijacks (removed from original threads) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2008, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686 "2008-03-29T02:00:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/421 "2008-04-25T16:32:16Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] There are other explanations to every event in the world, so what. [/quote] “So what”, you ask? So what makes yours the correct explanation? That’s what. Your explanation is an interesting hypothesis, but you’ve shown no evidence that would convince any objective user of the scientific method that your hypothesis should rise to the level of a theory. > [@](#): > > I don’t have time now but will be back with evidence. Good. I like evidence. I was trained as a scientist, and still do some science research at times. I also try to practice evidence-based medicine, where the treatment I provide has been shown, by the scientific method, to be safe and effective. I try to revise my practice when better evidence comes in, too. Sometimes what seemed to be true at first is later shown to be false. As a result, I feel it’s best to keep an open mind about things. Perhaps one day there will be enough evidence to show your hypothesis is likely the correct one. But that’s not the case so far. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/422 "2008-04-25T16:40:08Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Heh. The post does show the signs of sloppy editing, doesn’t it? [/quote] Pfffffffft. Compared to me, you are just a rank amateur in the dark arts of post self-mutilation and cut-and-paste insanity. Bask. Bask in my glory. [QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Originally it said “I provided you,” but then I remembered who’d provided it to him first. (I know someone else provided it even earlier, but I was too lazy to go back and find out who). [/quote] I figured as much. I also, for the life of me, can’t pull away from this thread. It’s like driving past an 18 car pileup or something, I’m powerless to resist, it’s maddening! 😃 So I figured I’d chuck a cheap joke in the mix, while I was at it. Oh, and: > [@Qadgop](#): > > Sadly, the film strayed far from Sybly Whyte’s original outline (the novel never got written). > > Also it didn’t have enough neutronium-eating in it. > > But the decision to use Charlize Theron as Cynthia was inspired. I am outdone. That was awesome. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/423 "2008-04-25T16:52:48Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] You get tripped up on the word anecdotal which does not mean false, but then veridical does mean verified, so the evidence has been verified. The dictionary defines anecdote as meaning "a short account of an incident, or a report. Nothing in the meaning that says the word anecdote is used for something not true. It is a personal experience, first-hand account of an event. It is permitted as evidence in a court of law, it has been used to send people to their death by execution. It is only science that says personal experiences are not valid, something not agreed to by the general population of the world. It is only science doctrine and nothing else. In other words science is wrong, but right if it wants to keep all its theories in place. Real life shows those theories to be wrong. [/QUOTE] I do know what anecdotal means, thank you very much. The problem is that you are the one who gets tripped up, time after time, by what science means (and does). I am aware that in every day anecdotes and personal accounts have their uses. It’s just that when it comes to scientific evidence, the standards are a bit more rigorous. And they have to be. But, for some reason, you’d like for science to relax its standards to accept “stuff that everyone accepts”. And that would be a really bad idea. Why? Because people are fallible in their senses and their beliefs. People, for instance, believed the world was flat. They believed the sun circled around the earth. They believed that an infection could be cured by leeching blood out of their bodies. All of these beliefs had a majority of “common sense” people behind them. Still, science tested these notions and came up with ideas which weren’t popular at the time and yet fitted the facts better. What I’m saying is this: you are trying to mix up your feelings and thoughts and experiences with science. And that’s a bad fit. The site I linked to at least knows the difference. And at least it’s trying to produce science that explains NDE’s. Your links and experiences are interesting. But they just aren’t science. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/424 "2008-04-25T17:50:30Z")
What **lekatt** needs to understand that his beliefs are _faith_, not scientifically proven. Let’s say I claim to hear Elvis speaking to me from my toaster. I really heard that. Does that mean it really happened? I have no doubt that you had an experience as you described. But I do doubt that it was necessarily a NDE. Even supposing it was, that doesn’t mean you can prove it. You just have to call it _faith_, as I said. The Catholic Church does not demand that science prove Transubstantiation. They take it on faith. And to be perfectly blunt, you don’t know jackshit about science. (I hope this doesn’t count as an insult, Mods.) ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/425 "2008-04-25T18:31:04Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] I am outdone. That was awesome. [/QUOTE] 😃 ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/426 "2008-04-25T20:03:22Z")
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara] I do know what anecdotal means, thank you very much. The problem is that you are the one who gets tripped up, time after time, by what science means (and does). I am aware that in every day anecdotes and personal accounts have their uses. It’s just that when it comes to scientific evidence, the standards are a bit more rigorous. And they have to be. But, for some reason, you’d like for science to relax its standards to accept “stuff that everyone accepts”. And that would be a really bad idea. Why? Because people are fallible in their senses and their beliefs. People, for instance, believed the world was flat. They believed the sun circled around the earth. They believed that an infection could be cured by leeching blood out of their bodies. All of these beliefs had a majority of “common sense” people behind them. Still, science tested these notions and came up with ideas which weren’t popular at the time and yet fitted the facts better. What I’m saying is this: you are trying to mix up your feelings and thoughts and experiences with science. And that’s a bad fit. The site I linked to at least knows the difference. And at least it’s trying to produce science that explains NDE’s. Your links and experiences are interesting. But they just aren’t science. [/QUOTE] You are right they aren’t science because science is dishonest. Think what would happen to science if real life personal experiences were not filtered through the scientific “method”. All of science’s sacred theories would be shown to be wrong. Evolution, big bang, neuroscience, and the list goes on and on. So science can’t allow personal experiences that contradict its sacred cows, so it turns to using the word anecdote to explain real life happenings that it labels non-scientific and therefor not believable. In the study it talked about NDEs having no medical source. Then it talked about how completely changed the experiencers become. So changed they need support groups and help from others to ingrate back into the physical. It took me three years to do this. Now tell me how false or fake intrepretations can cause such a change. No other thing, not hallucinations, not dreams, mistakes or any thing else can produced this. If you say nah then show cites. Many researchers have begun their research on this factor or change alone knowing it has to be the experience of truth, because only truth can change people in that manner. I don’t care if you say it is not science, that is ok with me. Saying so does not make it false. Science is not God, at least not my God, but it appears to be God for many. Science makes an arbitrary decision not to allow these experiences to be considered. Science is dishonest. Just like religion when it says there is only one way. our way. I am going to post a full NDE a veridicle NDE, one that is verified by the staff present. I can supple 10, 50, 100 or these experiences. They are real and they are truth. I just don’t care if science approves of them of not. The general public does. > [@](#): > > Question: Just wanted to relate a personal experience. I used to be a 100% skeptic, but this happened to me and now I am more open and I am looking for the truth. Please let me know your thoughts. > I am an emergency room nurse. About a year ago we received a patient by ambulance in full cardiorespiratory arrest. No pulse, no effective cardiac rhythm ( refractory ventricular fibrillation ). Patient had been in arrest for at least 15 minutes prior to arival. CPR/ACLS in progress on arrival. > > To make a long story short, we worked him for about 25 minutes without positive response. The physician in charge stated that we would defibrillate one more time and if no response we would stop. One last shock, and his heart converted to a beating rhythm, and continued to impove from there, later being admitted to intensive care. > > AT NO POINT DURING HIS STAY IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WAS HE CONSCIOUS. Most of the time he was technically dead. > > The next day, one of the ICU nurses called down and told us the patient wanted to see several of the ER staff. He named several of us by name, and described us to the ICU nurses. He said he wanted to see us in person “to make sure he wasn’t going crazy”. > > During a slow time later that night we went upstairs and he called us by name without introductions. He told a story of floating out of his body, just below the ceiling, watching us attempt resuscitation. He said he knew our names from when we called out to each other while working on him. One thing I found especially fascinating was that he said when we defibrillated ( shocked ) him, he would be pulled back into his body for a few seconds, then end up back floating by the ceiling a few seconds after. The last time we defibbed him he was pulled back in and became unconscious. At this point he had a pulse and improved. > > We have talked quite a bit about it here. Some of the staff think maybe he was actually semi-conscious the whole time, his brain remaining oxegenated and at least partly functional due to effective CPR. Something akin to anesthetized surgical patients retaining the sense of hearing and being able to relate the conversations of the operating team after they have been awakened. > > Others in the group here believe it was a NDE. We reason that this would explain the out-of-body viewpoint and the retention of sight and cognitive abilities by the patient even though he was to all intents and purposes dead when we were together in the ER. There is no other way he could have known our names, either, as his family was not allowed in the room during the resuscitation. > > None of us have any experience in this matter and when I stumbled on this newsgroup I thought I’d post and see what you all thought. > > Answer: He learned that this kind of experience has been seen many times in this group. For those who may think the patient was semi-conscious and listening, please note the author states: “He named several of us by name, and described us to the ICU nurses.” This question is quoted from the alt.consciousness.near-death-exp newsgroup with the permission of the author. He was directed to NDE accounts for further reading. How many more do you want, how much truth can you handle? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/427 "2008-04-25T20:18:59Z")
[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan] 😃 [/QUOTE] You remind me, by the way, that I absolutely have to re-read the Lensman series one of these days. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/428 "2008-04-25T20:57:34Z")
More anonymous tales from **lekatt** presented as evidence. Presenting and decrying science at the same time. Totally useless. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/429 "2008-04-25T21:16:59Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] More anonymous tales from **lekatt** presented as evidence. Presenting and decrying science at the same time. Totally useless. [/QUOTE] Total truth, my friend, and I have much, much more verified experiences. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/430 "2008-04-25T21:17:45Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] We have talked quite a bit about it here. Some of the staff think maybe he was actually semi-conscious the whole time, his brain remaining oxegenated and at least partly functional due to effective CPR. Something akin to anesthetized surgical patients retaining the sense of hearing and being able to relate the conversations of the operating team after they have been awakened. Others in the group here believe it was a NDE. [/quote] Notice that some of the staff were batshit insane, while others would be the kind of medical personnel that I would allow to operate on me. > [@lekatt](#): > > How many more do you want, how much truth can you handle? I really, really don’t want anymore of these anecdotal stories. Truth, on the other hand, we can always use. Ain’t seen much yet. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/431 "2008-04-25T21:24:32Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] You are right they aren’t science because science is dishonest. Think what would happen to science if real life personal experiences were not filtered through the scientific “method”. All of science’s sacred theories would be shown to be wrong. Evolution, big bang, neuroscience, and the list goes on and on. So science can’t allow personal experiences that contradict its sacred cows, so it turns to using the word anecdote to explain real life happenings that it labels non-scientific and therefor not believable. In the study it talked about NDEs having no medical source. Then it talked about how completely changed the experiencers become. So changed they need support groups and help from others to ingrate back into the physical. It took me three years to do this. Now tell me how false or fake intrepretations can cause such a change. No other thing, not hallucinations, not dreams, mistakes or any thing else can produced this. (snip) [/QUOTE] 1. Dishonest? Well… it would be, if Science was an institution, if you could point to a number of people and say: they embody Science. As it stands, however, it’s a way of looking at the Universe, trying to understand it. And it has developed criteria that help it to understand it better or rather to try to come close to understanding it. 2. Have you even looked at the site I linked to? It’s managed by a bunch of NDE supporters, for Og’s sake! That’s why I was so surprised that they talked about the Pam Reynold’s incident as an anecdote! The surprising thing about this whole thread is that you stubbornly insist on trying to convince us of the absolute truth that your multiple reports of NDE’s, time and time again. In the mean time we show you, time and time again, why your anecdotes, albeit interesting and amusing, do not constitute scientific proof. Not because we disbelieve them (necessarily). Not because we dislike the protagonists. But because the scientific method demands certain standards of proof. _And your posts don’t fit that standard_. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/432 "2008-04-25T21:31:14Z")
> [@](#): > > In the study it talked about NDEs having no medical source. Then it talked about how completely changed the experiencers become. So changed they need support groups and help from others to ingrate back into the physical. It took me three years to do this. Now tell me how false or fake intrepretations can cause such a change. **No other thing, not hallucinations, not dreams, mistakes or any thing else can produced this.** - _Emphasis added._ So now you’re a doctor or neurological researcher? You _know_ that nothing else can cause people to have similar experiences which require subsequent counsel in order to function normally? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/433 "2008-04-25T21:55:01Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] . . . how much truth can you handle? [/QUOTE] You have been told to rtefrain from this sort of condescending insult. This is an official Warning to stop behaving in this way. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/434 "2008-04-25T22:01:12Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] You are right they aren’t science because science is dishonest. (snip) [/QUOTE] Allow me to clarify my last post: Science can’t be dishonest. You could as well accuse Mathematics to be dishonest. Or Medicine. They are concepts. They can’t be dishonest. Science is structured the way it is because it’s the best way we have figured out to find out how the Universe works. Maybe it’s not perfect, but that’s because human nature isn’t perfect. Science is not trying to cheat you (it can’t). Science is not trying to lie to you (it can’t). And you can’t force it to work the way you would like it to work. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/435 "2008-04-25T22:06:58Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] I am going to post a full NDE a veridicle NDE, one that is verified by the staff present. I can supple 10, 50, 100 or these experiences. They are real and they are truth. I just don’t care if science approves of them of not. The general public does. [/QUOTE] We have been over this anecdote on several previous occasions. It is not a lie, but an anecdote: one person’s memories told in story form–memories that are contradicted by the memories of other persons who were also involved in the same incident. From the quoted text: > [@](#): > > Most of the time he was technically dead. So, much of the time he was not dead, technically or otherwise. There is no evidence given that the times he was not “technically dead” he was unable to hear what was going on and associate the voices he heard with the speakers of those voices. > [@](#): > > Some of the staff think maybe he was actually semi-conscious the whole time, his brain remaining oxegenated and at least partly functional due to effective CPR. Something akin to anesthetized surgical patients retaining the sense of hearing and being able to relate the conversations of the operating team after they have been awakened. So, even the staff that worked on him have different opinions of what happened. Memory vs memory simply means that we have conflicting accounts. That is what the rigor of the scientific method, (where events are documented as they happen with actual recording of monitors), is supposed to overcome. Unless the author of the narrative was shirking her job and not performing any of her duties, there is no way that she could know that he was never (semi-)conscious. It remains an interesting narrative that simply lets you pretend that there was something “real” happening that you deeply wish to believe–even without actual evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/436 "2008-04-25T23:06:01Z")
Again, what about the mentally ill, hallucinations? (Oh, and anecdotes aren’t necessarily accepted in court-ever hear if “hearsay?”) Without science, we wouldn’t have the amazing advances in medicine-no vaccinations, no antibiotics, or other such drugs. How many people would be dead, nowadays, without some of the things that _science_ has accomplished. Hell, you wouldn’t be on your computer, communicating to us right now, if not for science. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/437 "2008-04-25T23:08:58Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] All of science’s sacred theories would be shown to be wrong. Evolution, big bang, neuroscience, and the list goes on and on. [/QUOTE] Really? Like gravity? How about transistors? Or the scientifically proven deliciousness of fudgsicles? Don’t take my fudgsicles away, man! ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2008, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/438 "2008-04-25T23:12:11Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] Really? Like gravity? How about transistors? Or the scientifically proven deliciousness of fudgsicles? Don’t take my fudgsicles away, man! [/QUOTE] I’m more interested in the anecdotes which, if admitted by scientists, would erase the Big Bang theory. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2008, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/439 "2008-04-26T00:06:19Z")
Just want to check: We _have been exactly here before_, haven’t we? I mean: - **lekatt** begins by claiming science proves him right, and that NDEs are scientifically supported, - supported by real, lovely, solid SCIENCE! -Various attempts are made to demonstrate this, they all fail dismally. - **lekatt** then declares that it doesn’t matter, because _science is stupid anyway_. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2008, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686/440 "2008-04-26T00:32:47Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Just want to check: We _have been exactly here before_, haven’t we? [/QUOTE] Dude, you’re a Cylon, aren’t you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-recent-hijacks-removed-from-original-threads/444686.md?page=23)