(2017-09-14, 02:53 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]I would not expect the "scientist" to simply note that "100 people saw something they were unable to identity". I find it silly to even conceive that this would be appropriate behavior as an investigator. Having spent 40 years in science and engineering I would go so far as to say that I would fire someone on the spot for such shoddy work.
What else would they be able to say? What would the sightings be evidence of?
(2017-09-14, 12:56 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Screw legal vs scientific:
I'm saying people have been put to death with non recorded testimony. I'm just saying it is THAT compelling.
Dismissing it with a wave of the hand is ridiculous.
There are times and things that are not possible to record. That doesn't make this evidence meaningless.
Are we still talking about factors that make evidence more or less reliable?
You brought up people being convicted based on eyewitness evidence. That is a legal example. Judges are very familiar with how unreliable such evidence can be and write about it all the time, warn juries about it, etc. The fact that people get convicted does not change the concerns over such evidence. Not to mention the number of people falsely convicted.
Do you disagree with this?
(2017-09-14, 02:53 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]I think you are being WAY to casual (glib really) about what is, and is not appropriate, as "scientific" evidence.
If for example those 100 witnesses were individually interviewed and described an object 200-300 feet across, black in color, moving NW to SE, and with red and green lights,,, a responsible and objective researcher would certainly consider this as evidence to be considered and weighted appropriately. Not to do so would be negligent and unprofessional.
I would not expect the "scientist" to simply note that "100 people saw something they were unable to identity". I find it silly to even conceive that this would be appropriate behavior as an investigator. Having spent 40 years in science and engineering I would go so far as to say that I would fire someone on the spot for such shoddy work.
But anyway- that's just how I see it.
So I would amend my report to say that it's evidence that 100 witnesses saw an object which appeared to them to be 200-300 feet across, black in color, moving NW to SE with red and green lights.
Where are you going with this?
Linda
(2017-09-14, 03:09 PM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]Are we still talking about factors that make evidence more or less reliable?
You brought up people being convicted based on eyewitness evidence. That is a legal example. Judges are very familiar with how unreliable such evidence can be and write about it all the time, warn juries about it, etc. The fact that people get convicted does not change the concerns over such evidence. Not to mention the number of people falsely convicted.
Do you disagree with this?
This doesn't make Linda's blanket dismissal any less invalid. She has spoken in this thread in largely black and white terms, which is inappropriate. I think what jkmac is getting at is that just because some research doesn't achieve the "scientific" evidentiary standard Linda has referenced, does not mean it's able to be brushed to the side and ignored.
The predominant issue here, as has always been, is that because of the nature of the topic, it is extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible, to get anything other than subjective testimony. For some, that may forever bar it from consideration as legitimate evidence. I would suggest that that is naive and an incorrect application of an evidentiary standard that is lacking appreciation for the nature of the thing being dealt with. For the Stevenson studies, there can be no "objectivity" in the sense that Linda has referenced. It's all going to come from some person - and given that the vast, and I mean vast, majority of cases are very young children, it's never really going to satisfy the standard that Linda has set. If she or others want to ignore the evidence on those grounds, so be it. But it's blatantly unreasonable to suggest that it isn't "evidence" if it doesn't conform to that specific standard. You can always raise the bar; that doesn't make the bar raising reasonable.
As I'm sure you're familiar with, given your background, context and circumstances always matter in determining what is reasonable. I would think that it's obvious, or ought to be, that the nature of the topic being investigated requires an understanding that purely empirical objectivity, which is always the goal if possible, may be outside the realm of reason for something like the Stevenson studies. It is different by its very nature. At the core of this is subjectivity - it comes, then, as no surprise that a good portion of evidence for non-reductive phenomena would come from a subjective source, or even be subjective in and of itself. That's what makes this stuff so hard. Again, if someone is going to dismiss a phenomena based on that it's fine by me, I just wouldn't think that a person is really interested in pursuing the truth if that's the case. Taking things with a grain of salt is advisable; ignoring or dismissing things on that same basis is excessive and unjustified.
Can someone link to the exact post where Linda does a blanket dismissal so I don't have to read the entire thread?
(2017-09-14, 03:49 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Can someone link to the exact post where Linda does a blanket dismissal so I don't have to read the entire thread?
There may be more than one such post, but I think this is what kicked the argument off:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-28...ml#pid5136
(2017-09-13, 12:12 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]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
Black and white Linda. It's not fiction, there are examples of this; living in an ideal world where dogma doesn't exist in science is ridiculous.
Regardless, my point was in essence that it brings the hallowed "science" down a peg, and lets people who aren't familiar with its inner workings in on the fact that it isn't about proof, or that any time a study comes out in support of something, it isn't creed. Yes, this applies to proponent research as well - but that isn't the point. It's that the issues that are allegedly plaguing "paranormal" research don't just disappear with more empirical research in the hard sciences (and certainly not in fields like psychology, which has the respect of being an empirical science when in many ways it isn't one at all).
Certainly you'd acknowledge that while most scientists wouldn't subscribe to that view, there are plenty of lay people who do it to the detriment of science (when they really think they're supporting it).
(2017-09-14, 03:49 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Can someone link to the exact post where Linda does a blanket dismissal so I don't have to read the entire thread?
Only have to go back a few pages to see the beginning.
I'm not really sure that Linda meant to utterly dismiss the research Stevenson did, but then that post Chris just linked to was poorly worded if that's the case.
(2017-09-14, 03:52 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]There may be more than one such post, but I think this is what kicked the argument off:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-28...ml#pid5136
I just kind of put it into the apples and oranges category. Is Jung's work scientific evidence? Can you have scientific evidence of the ego? How can you have scientific evidence of reincarnation?
(2017-09-14, 04:07 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]I just kind of put it into the apples and oranges category. Is Jung's work scientific evidence? Can you have scientific evidence of the ego? How can you have scientific evidence of reincarnation?
Exactly my point. I agree wholly.