"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

I'm not saying that information collected after the event is useless. Its more about how and when that information is documented. A recording of someone's initial statement is reliable, while somebody's recollection about what somebody else told them they recalled the patient saying is not. A statement recorded in the absence of feedback is reliable in a way that statements made after feedback are not. 

Linda

You said it was 'essentially useless' - make your mind up.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. None of the things you mentioned depend upon stories documented after the fact for their existence. For example, the idea of dinosaurs comes from fossils and other physical findings, not stories about what someone said about their dreams. 

Linda

The fossils were not under any control for millions of years. You have no idea of their source or how long there were there or how they got there. But that aside...

Any forensic investigation involves a story which took place in an uncontrolled and unwitnessed environment and which were documented after the fact. All archelogical sites are the same: evidence of events that were unwitnessed and must be reassembled after the fact.

Now you are adding dreams to the equation? Why is that? Is that the particular type of non-evidence you are concerned about? 

If so, I have a documented lucid dream in my dream journal, complete with drawings, that 2 years later appeared in a book. and a year after that it appeared in a movie. 

You apparently are calling that inconclusive because it didn't take place in a laboratory. Don't you see how arbitrary that is? And how it mostly is just serves as a convenient way to avoid the real issue?

They're pleased by it because it reflects that all those things that are "set in stone" by dogmatic scientists are not founded in nearly as much certainty as they'd have you believe. Like I said, evidence of something not being the case is just as important of evidence of something being the case.

The idea that the products of science are set in stone by dogmatic scientists  is a fiction. Regardless, surely this supposed concern would also apply to the judgements of proponent scientists. 

Linda

The fossils were not under any control for millions of years. You have no idea of their source or how long there were there or how they got there. But that aside...

Any forensic investigation involves a story which took place in an uncontrolled and unwitnessed environment and which were documented after the fact. All archelogical sites are the same: evidence of events that were unwitnessed and must be reassembled after the fact.

Now you are adding dreams to the equation? Why is that? Is that the particular type of non-evidence you are concerned about? 

If so, I have a documented lucid dream in my dream journal, complete with drawings, that 2 years later appeared in a book. and a year after that it appeared in a movie. 

You apparently are calling that inconclusive because it didn't take place in a laboratory. Don't you see how arbitrary that is? And how it mostly is just serves as a convenient way to avoid the real issue?

Sorry, I should have been clearer about what I meant. I discussed it on both old forums, ad nauseum, I thought.

Documenting stories after the fact means that what was said and what happened is based on recall, rather than a true record of what was said or what happened. It also can mean that the documentation was made after feedback was given as to whether any of it could represent a compelling correspondence. 

So your mention of a record in your lucid dream journal, plus drawings, is not an example of what I meant. It clearly was documented long before the fact of the seemingly compelling correspondence.

I never said anything about things having to take place in a laboratory (they don't). Also, careful records are made at archeological sites as objects are found. Testimony during forensic investigation is recorded at the time it is given. Heresay tends to have little evidentiary value. 

Linda

I think people are confusing selective reporting with publication bias. The link I provided earlier explains what selective reporting is (page 8.37). There were multiple examples of it taking place within the ganzfeld studies as well as other parapsychology research.

Linda

I think people are confusing selective reporting with publication bias. The link I provided earlier explains what selective reporting is (page 8.37). There were multiple examples of it taking place within the ganzfeld studies as well as other parapsychology research.

Linda

So you're saying not reporting certain results within studies etc is the issue. Any actual evidence of this being an issue in the Ganzfeld and other areas?

I think people are confusing selective reporting with publication bias. The link I provided earlier explains what selective reporting is (page 8.37). There were multiple examples of it taking place within the ganzfeld studies as well as other parapsychology research.

To be honest, if the details of this evaluation have been deleted, I'm not sure whether it's worth trying to discuss it from memory - particularly as we're so easily confused. 

Sorry, I should have been clearer about what I meant. I discussed it on both old forums, ad nauseum, I thought.

Documenting stories after the fact means that what was said and what happened is based on recall, rather than a true record of what was said or what happened. It also can mean that the documentation was made after feedback was given as to whether any of it could represent a compelling correspondence. 

So your mention of a record in your lucid dream journal, plus drawings, is not an example of what I meant. It clearly was documented long before the fact of the seemingly compelling correspondence.

I never said anything about things having to take place in a laboratory (they don't). Also, careful records are made at archeological sites as objects are found. Testimony during forensic investigation is recorded at the time it is given. Heresay tends to have little evidentiary value. 

Linda

I don't get the differentiation between "recall", vs "a true record of what as said or what happened". Isn't ANY human testimony at it's core, a product of one's memory? e.g if I sit and write something down, it is from my memory.

So if 100 people saw a UFO fly overhead, and described it in separate testimony, in the same way, that would have "little evidentiary value"?

I don't get the differentiation between "recall", vs "a true record of what as said or what happened". Isn't ANY human testimony at it's core, a product of one's memory? e.g if I sit and write something down, it is from my memory.

So if 100 people saw a UFO fly overhead, and described it in separate testimony, in the same way, that would have "little evidentiary value"?

@jkmac, my advice, FWIW, is to avoid getting into semantic tennis with Linda. She will play it out until the cows come home. When she uses a term like ad nauseum, she is really not joking. It is one of her many ways of stifling the conversation.

@jkmac, my advice, FWIW, is to avoid getting into semantic tennis with Linda. She will play it out until the cows come home. When she uses a term like ad nauseum, she is really not joking. It is one of her many ways of stifling the conversation.

Thanks...