(2017-09-19, 12:57 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]None of these cases were documented prior to feedback being offered. And they also, by and large, do not involve sense data obtained when this was impossible.
For example, Denture man was undergoing CPR when some sensory data seemed to be obtained. Research with BIS shows that CPR can be sufficient to provide some awareness. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1...5815623293 - Figures 2 and 3, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...#t=article - Figure 2).
I remember that I tested the idea that Anita Moorjani couldn't hear the conversation over the distance she described in her book (I read the book) and I could hear it. (Through an open door, around a corner, and about 60 feet away, I could hear a TV at low/normal volume, IIRC.)
I'm not sure that we want to start on Pam Reynolds, but Rudolph Smit underwent a test of whether a statement could be heard under the conditions for Pam's Auditory Evoked Potentials (moulded earpieces - one playing loud clicks and one playing white noise) and he could hear it. She was reportedly under burst suppression at the time (we do not have a record of the specifics). The BIS shows that awareness does not begin to decrease due to burst suppression until the suppression ration is greater than 50% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12580235). Spetzler (the surgeon) gives his opinion that she wouldn't have been able to hear due to being under burst suppression, but does not provide the suppression ratio.
The Maria story is just too poorly documented to say anything with it.
Does documentation matter? It seems to. In Sartori's NDE research where she actually records everything carefully, it can be seen that she provides information to many of the patients she interviews about the details of their resuscitation. And in one case, in her research paper, the statements that she found remarkable from her subject came from her or were not recorded (the most remarkable statement turned out to have come from a third-hand report).
Linda
Looked at the research with BIS you linked, not sure if it tells us what you think it does. It's talking about BIS levels vs survival rates, and the BIS levels are all over the place, with no significant differences between those who survive or not. (There's also the issue that BIS has it's criticisms in it's reliability to measure awareness, with many saying it's better at measuring the effects of anaesthetic drugs rather than anything else). Basically, this research doesn't tell us anything other then people receiving CPR can have BIS levels all over the place.
(2017-09-19, 06:01 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]More here http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/qu...tudy.3723/
The link in the OP also leads to a little more back ground.
Thanks Max, did anyone manage to ask Penny about the discrepancies? Regardless she seems to include a lot if data which is good.
Regardless, it seems patient 10 at least was forthcoming to Penny about his/her experience, and didn't repeat statements Penny had made back at her.
(2017-09-19, 05:46 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]1) There has, and Parapsychology has progressed too. I would say Parapsychological research is of a higher standard generally then mainstream psychology(some of it strays more into Physics anyway).
2) Examples please.
3) Kennedy believes in psi, does he not? The rest are pretty much all the skeptical Parapsychologists, so there are definitely more proponents then skeptics.
4) I think you need to be more honest about the issues in medicine research, it can be of a very high standard, but it has many issues, such as funding, and how that affects the results. There's also many prescribed medicines with low effect sizes out there.
5) Thanks for your view, goes against the grain of most informed skeptics here . It's interesting that as Parapsychology research has got better, the effect hasn't gone away, yet you're more skeptical. Intriguing!
6) I don't know them all, I don't consider myself that well informed, but on this forum etc nearly everybody is a proponent. And in my experience most skeptics are not well informed, I've debated these guys and been on their forums - part of the issue is how they take each others word for granted etc. I've seen you say you're not part of the skeptical community, I can see why.
1) I haven't looked into it in detail, although I think there is some good quality psychology research.
2) Some of the research in to alt med therapies. Testing drugs against each other (esp. trying to debunk the idea that the expensive new drug is better than the cheap standard, or my new drug is better than your new drug). Comparing expensive screening tests with the standard (e.g. colonoscopy vs. occult blood tests for colon cancer). We'd rather discover that the cheap stuff is just as good as the new, expensive stuff or the difficult to implement stuff (e.g. anti-coagulants in atrial fibrillation).
3) Kennedy seems to believe in psi and be skeptical of the research to the same degree as me.
4) I know there are issues in medical research. But you've heard about them because of the work in evaluating the level of evidence.
5) Probably that varies by mood - the more proponents berate me about how great the evidence is, the more it gets my back up.
6) I've noticed that the people who get the most attention are those who don't tend to be well-informed - they're more familiar with the talking points than with the actual research. I came across a lot of well-informed skeptics on the JREF forum, but they tended to get drowned out. There isn't really anywhere for them to gather, and I suspect a lot of them just move on.
Linda
(2017-09-19, 06:04 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]Looked at the research with BIS you linked, not sure if it tells us what you think it does. It's talking about BIS levels vs survival rates, and the BIS levels are all over the place, with no significant differences between those who survive or not. (There's also the issue that BIS has it's criticisms in it's reliability to measure awareness, with many saying it's better at measuring the effects of anaesthetic drugs rather than anything else). Basically, this research doesn't tell us anything other then people receiving CPR can have BIS levels all over the place.
That was the point - BIS levels were all over the place, rather than universally low as some have tried to lead us to believe. So some sensory registration will be possible in some cases during CPR.
Linda
(2017-09-19, 06:15 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]If you read the thread you can probably piece things together for yourself. And if you then work carefully backwards from the link in the OP you can get more background, I'd prefer you to try and take apart the issue, and understand it for yourself, it's complicated.
I'll try haha, only got so much time!
(2017-09-19, 06:25 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]That was the point - BIS levels were all over the place, rather than universally low as some have tried to lead us to believe. So some sensory registration will be possible in some cases during CPR.
Linda
Well it's only two studies, we still have the issue with the reliability of BIS (the BIS score doesn't necessarily mean a person has good awareness/sensory registration, and usually NDEr's report an elevated level of consciousness), we don't know the BIS of each NDE'r, and plenty of people who have had veridical NDE's weren't receiving CPR at the time.
(2017-09-19, 06:23 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]1) I haven't looked into it in detail, although I think there is some good quality psychology research.
2) Some of the research in to alt med therapies. Testing drugs against each other (esp. trying to debunk the idea that the expensive new drug is better than the cheap standard, or my new drug is better than your new drug). Comparing expensive screening tests with the standard (e.g. colonoscopy vs. occult blood tests for colon cancer). We'd rather discover that the cheap stuff is just as good as the new, expensive stuff or the difficult to implement stuff (e.g. anti-coagulants in atrial fibrillation).
3) Kennedy seems to believe in psi and be skeptical of the research to the same degree as me.
4) I know there are issues in medical research. But you've heard about them because of the work in evaluating the level of evidence.
5) Probably that varies by mood - the more proponents berate me about how great the evidence is, the more it gets my back up.
6) I've noticed that the people who get the most attention are those who don't tend to be well-informed - they're more familiar with the talking points than with the actual research. I came across a lot of well-informed skeptics on the JREF forum, but they tended to get drowned out. There isn't really anywhere for them to gather, and I suspect a lot of them just move on.
Linda
1) Yeah there is some out there I'm sure, but Parapsychology has more studies with blinding etc.
2) Thanks for the examples, I wouldn't call it debunking in the same way but I take your point.
3) Hasn't Kennedy had several personal psi experiences?
4) Every area has people evaluating the quality of research, I only made that comment as you use medicine as a gold standard comparison to Parapsychology.
5) I don't think it's 'THAT' great (I suspect people would be surprised if we spent this time looking in mainstream research and the issues that revealed though), but I think based on the evidence (and other factors I'm happy to elaborate on) the rational position to take is that psi is real. I was surprised by the standard personally, and am more of a proponent then I was a few years ago. I wouldn't say the same for afterlife research.
6) Usually the charismatic and/or confident ones get the attention, but I'd wager you have better knowledge then nearly every skeptic around the world.
I'd also add to go back a little, that you overstate the evidence level as being the reason for psi not being accepted, and that it's pretty clear the 'taboo' etc play a large part. I think Parapsychologists need to do more to 'market' their research though.
(2017-09-19, 06:30 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]Well it's only two studies, we still have the issue with the reliability of BIS (the BIS score doesn't necessarily mean a person has good awareness/sensory registration, and usually NDEr's report an elevated level of consciousness), we don't know the BIS of each NDE'r, and plenty of people who have had veridical NDE's weren't receiving CPR at the time.
The perception of an elevated level of consciousness is quite different from the awareness that the BIS would be attempting to measure. I'm not saying that the BIS is the last word. It just means that it's reasonable to question the assumptions people are making.
Can you some examples of people having veridical NDE's who weren't receiving CPR? Or do you just mean the people who have NDE's who aren't actually dead or near dead?
Linda
(2017-09-19, 06:37 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]1) Yeah there is some out there I'm sure, but Parapsychology has more studies with blinding etc.
2) Thanks for the examples, I wouldn't call it debunking in the same way but I take your point.
3) Hasn't Kennedy had several personal psi experiences?
4) Every area has people evaluating the quality of research, I only made that comment as you use medicine as a gold standard comparison to Parapsychology.
5) I don't think it's 'THAT' great (I suspect people would be surprised if we spent this time looking in mainstream research and the issues that revealed though), but I think based on the evidence (and other factors I'm happy to elaborate on) the rational position to take is that psi is real. I was surprised by the standard personally, and am more of a proponent then I was a few years ago. I wouldn't say the same for afterlife research.
6) Usually the charismatic and/or confident ones get the attention, but I'd wager you have better knowledge then nearly every skeptic around the world.
I'd also add to go back a little, that you overstate the evidence level as being the reason for psi not being accepted, and that it's pretty clear the 'taboo' etc play a large part. I think Parapsychologists need to do more to 'market' their research though.
3) I believe that's what he says (I have as well, FWIW).
4) I know it's counter-intuitive, but I suspect that the areas you are used to regarding as trouble-prone are probably better off than the areas you are used to regarding as somewhat trouble-free.
Well, to come full circle, I agree that parapsychology does not have a good reputation. I don't know if 'taboo' is the right word, since clearly scientists are participating in the field. The same claim could be made about alt med, yet millions have been spent by the US government for research into the therapies. Research goes on in all sorts of areas that other scientists make fun of. What gets people to shut up, what garners respect for an idea, is research which offers decent evidence for the idea. Barry Marshall likes to play up the fact that people made fun of his idea that H. pylori causes gastric ulcers. But once his good quality studies backed up the idea, it took off and he ended up with a Noble prize. I've seen lots of ideas which are just as unacceptable as psi become acceptable in the face of evidence. I think parapsychologists are on the right track with the recommendations which have been made by those I mentioned in my original post. It's a matter of having the patience to follow through on them. I noticed that the study Guerrer did on the double-slit experiment didn't seem to be pre-registered.
Linda