(2017-09-14, 05:56 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]I believe reincarnation happens. But proving something is something else entirely.
I assume scientists have a way to prove that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know. But I assume you can go to a lab and "prove" this beyond the shadow of any doubt.
It is in this sense that I use the word prove. No such thing can be done for reincarnation. It can't be proven. That is the very nature of this reality.
And this strikes at the heart of what I was saying to Arouet - it's an entirely different thing we're talking about here. Certainly, as you've already pointed out chuck, because the evidence is not of the "scientific" or "proving" nature, that does not at all indicate that something significant can't be drawn from it, and further, because evidence doesn't fall under the umbrella of empirical or "scientific" does not mean that a reasonable conclusion can't be drawn from it.
Measuring the evidence against scientific norms doesn't make sense when we're trying to understand something for which we have absolutely no idea, at least right now, how we could possibly detect its validity. The "that is the very nature of this reality" comment is particularly poignant.
The key for me is that there isn't some objective notion, as has been suggested, of what the implications the evidence can be relied on for. It involves an appreciation for the type of thing being discussed. And, as Kam pointed out, we've avoided actual discussion of the evidence itself here, instead speaking in extremely broad terms, which is hardly useful for a conversation like this one.
(2017-09-14, 05:56 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]It is in this sense that I use the word prove. No such thing can be done for reincarnation. It can't be proven. That is the very nature of this reality.
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs.
However you happen to be mistaken on this.
I don't like to have to be so blunt, But you have repeated your mistaken beliefs more than once. It should not pass without the error being pointed out.
(2017-09-14, 07:25 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]We were talking about persuading scientists who don't currently believe in psi. I mentioned that good/strong evidence would be needed to persuade someone who is disinclined to be persuaded, and that psi research currently falls short in that regard. The Ganzfeld was mentioned as probably the best of the bunch and formal assessments of its strength put it, at best, at 'fair'.
Then several people proceeded to throw some stories at me, and I pointed out that when it comes to grades of evidence, stories don't even show up on the list - that is, they are essentially useless as far as evidence goes.
I agree that I am using the term in a formal sense, so it may be better to say "scientific evidence".
I'm not suggesting in any way, shape, or form that we should only talk about things for which there is evidence, here.
Linda
I almost made it through in agreeing with this one... but the last sentence is not fair. There is evidence for what we're talking about. It might not be evidence that is going to garner the research a spot in a prime time journal, or broad scientific acceptance, but it's evidence nonetheless and can't be dismissed as unreliable wholly based on one set of analysis (empirical, scientific analysis).
(2017-09-14, 09:52 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]And this strikes at the heart of what I was saying to Arouet - it's an entirely different thing we're talking about here. Certainly, as you've already pointed out chuck, because the evidence is not of the "scientific" or "proving" nature, that does not at all indicate that something significant can't be drawn from it, and further, because evidence doesn't fall under the umbrella of empirical or "scientific" does not mean that a reasonable conclusion can't be drawn from it.
Measuring the evidence against scientific norms doesn't make sense when we're trying to understand something for which we have absolutely no idea, at least right now, how we could possibly detect its validity. The "that is the very nature of this reality" comment is particularly poignant.
The key for me is that there isn't some objective notion, as has been suggested, of what the implications the evidence can be relied on for. It involves an appreciation for the type of thing being discussed. And, as Kam pointed out, we've avoided actual discussion of the evidence itself here, instead speaking in extremely broad terms, which is hardly useful for a conversation like this one.
Yeah. It's called materialism for a reason. It's all about matter. That is what it explains.
I think sometimes what we fail to account for in these threads is that people actually think differently than other people. Some of us are square pegs and some of us are round ones.
But I'm still glad that these discussions happen. I always come away with something.
(2017-09-14, 10:00 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah. It's called materialism for a reason. It's all about matter. That is what it explains.
I think sometimes what we fail to account for in these threads is that people actually think differently than other people. Some of us are square pegs and some of us are round ones.
But I'm still glad that these discussions happen. I always come away with something.
Right, but that's just what I'm saying, is that I think when Arouet speaks as if he is dealing with an objective standard of analysis, it's unreasonable to suggest that those who are more inclined to think the Stevenson research is meaningful are just accepting objectively unreliable evidence.
There's opinion and predisposition, and of course subjectivity, involved in analyzing that evidence. For this topic, it's not some objective standard.
(2017-09-14, 10:02 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]Right, but that's just what I'm saying, is that I think when Arouet speaks as if he is dealing with an objective standard of analysis, it's unreasonable to suggest that those who are more inclined to think the Stevenson research is meaningful are just accepting objectively unreliable evidence.
There's opinion and predisposition, and of course subjectivity, involved in analyzing that evidence. For this topic, it's not some objective standard.
I wonder how many sceptics blind themselves to the results of parapsychology papers before criticising their methods. Or how many of their post hoc statistical analyses are preregistered.
(2017-09-14, 10:02 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]Right, but that's just what I'm saying, is that I think when Arouet speaks as if he is dealing with an objective standard of analysis, it's unreasonable to suggest that those who are more inclined to think the Stevenson research is meaningful are just accepting objectively unreliable evidence.
There's opinion and predisposition, and of course subjectivity, involved in analyzing that evidence. For this topic, it's not some objective standard.
Right. But Arouet is a lawyer so everything is about semantics. He wants to push every single thing into that damn link he posts every time. It ain't gonna happen. I mean I understand the point about threads getting misdirected because of people arguing what the meaning of is is.
But this thread is in SvP D. In theory you could set up ground rules for a thread. And start with definitions that last for the duration of the thread. I think in the past we have had thread discussing one case and the nitpicking gets drawn into the infinite. So I'm not sure. Other than Steve001, I never really get a vibe like "you are an idiot for thinking that." That's just his personality. Not much you can do. I don't mean him any disrespect for that. I don't care.
I think you and I agree that it is apples and oranges, but I'm not sure these guys do. They want everything to be apples.
(2017-09-14, 07:41 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, the exact opposite is the reason things like scientism exist, because there's a narrative (that some scientists with a platform certainly promote) that science is god and is an infallible beast. Those people are also misinformed about the practice of science. Those people act like they have heightened or enlightened understanding of the world that the unscientific plebs don't. It absolutely goes both ways. What a narrow minded comment.
Can you give some examples? I don't know what you're talking about.
Linda
(2017-09-14, 09:01 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Listen- sorry but this back and forth stuff can go on forever. And I'm really not interested enough to keep at it until I die, which I'm pretty sure is how long this conversation will go on.
I thought were making progress - and the conversation has barely gotten started - but I understand. These are the kinds of discussions that interest me (and that I consider crucial to critically analyzing research) but I recognize that many people feel differently.
Quote:So you stick with your definition of evidence, and consequently reject all the obviously amazing things that are happening. You can label it as fake, or anomalous, or whatever you want. But that won't make it all go away.
Best...
It's fine if you don't want to continue the discussion but please don't put words in my mouth.
(2017-09-14, 09:57 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]You are certainly entitled to your beliefs.
However you happen to be mistaken on this.
I don't like to have to be so blunt, But you have repeated your mistaken beliefs more than once. It should not pass without the error being pointed out.
Can you point out a case of reincarnation that also can't be explained by access to the Akashic records?