Debate: That veridical NDEs are a myth [split: A splendid video about evolution]

The 'feeling the future' line of research no longer supports the conclusion that precognitive abilities exist.

I don't agree with that statement...

[Laird]

[The denture man case --Laird] was, in fact, merely "reported" while the pilot phase was underway, but had occurred years earlier

You seem to be correct here. In that case, I agree that this is a retrospective case that should not be counted in the prospective studies. I've updated the spreadsheet (I haven't updated the numbers in my previous post though, because that would be a bit too tedious; anyone interested can simply reduce the relevant counts/percentages by 33.3%).

I do not agree, though, with @sbu that its merely having occurred during the pilot phase of a prospective study would somehow have made it retrospective. A prospective study remains prospective regardless of which phase it's in.

I also agree that its reporting in the Pim van Lommel paper was misleading in this respect (as is plain, I was misled by it).

I disagree though that the case has "virtually no evidential substance". That the patient died before being able to be interviewed by any researcher does of course reduce the evidential value of the case, but I don't think it reduces it to "virtually none". The nurse who reported it was interviewed multiple times over the years, and his story remained basically intact, and, as you point out, his desire to remain anonymous militates against the "looking for fame" interpretation.

[Laird]

It’s not me who are cherry picking.

Unfortunately (especially for you), it seems that the only reason this could be true is because you are:

not well-versed in psi.

That is, you are not well-versed enough to know what to cherry pick from, and that there is a mountain of quality, reproducible studies into psi aside from the Feeling the Future series.

The problem is that you’re often mixing low-quality and high-quality evidence together in your argumentation

There is nothing wrong with considering the evidence base as a whole. Yes, some of it is of higher quality, and some of lower quality, but lower quality evidence, when of high enough quality, should not be summarily dismissed, as you contend it should. That's simply unscientific. I've agreed though after @InterestedinPsi's observation that the denture man case does not belong among the prospective studies. Happy?

Denture man probably never existed - it was just the nurse who made the entire history up to bring attention to himself

This comment speaks more to your prejudicial hopes than to what's likely.

If you’re going to count something like Jeffrey Long’s NDERF site

I haven't referred to nor counted Jeffrey Long's NDERF site at all. Why pointlessly raise a conditional with a false condition?

One of the reasons I would be wary of counting it in discussions like this is because unethical and unscrupulous vandals such as yourself submit (as you freely admit):

fake or frivolous accounts [...] just for fun

I won't add anything to @InterestedinPsi's response to your comments on the purported methodological issues with the Feeling the Future replication, mostly because I haven't looked closely into that replication, and (s)he seems to be more knowledgeable about it.

[Laird]

That is, you are not well-versed enough to know what to cherry pick from, and that there is a mountain of quality, reproducible studies into psi aside from the Feeling the Future series.

For more on which, see this new post.

You seem to be correct here. In that case, I agree that this is a retrospective case that should not be counted in the prospective studies. I've updated the spreadsheet (I haven't updated the numbers in my previous post though, because that would be a bit too tedious; anyone interested can simply reduce the relevant counts/percentages by 33.3%).

I do not agree, though, with @sbu that its merely having occurred during the pilot phase of a prospective study would somehow have made it retrospective. A prospective study remains prospective regardless of which phase it's in.

I also agree that its reporting in the Pim van Lommel paper was misleading in this respect (as is plain, I was misled by it).

I disagree though that the case has "virtually no evidential substance". That the patient died before being able to be interviewed by any researcher does of course reduce the evidential value of the case, but I don't think it reduces it to "virtually none". The nurse who reported it was interviewed multiple times over the years, and his story remained basically intact, and, as you point out, his desire to remain anonymous militates against the "looking for fame" interpretation.

"I also agree that its reporting in the Pim van Lommel paper was misleading in this respect (as is plain, I was misled by it)."

I was misled too, which is why I gave it as an example of a prospectively discovered NDE in an earlier post of mine in this thread.

[Laird]

I was misled too, which is why I gave it as an example of a prospectively discovered NDE in an earlier post of mine in this thread.

You did? I don't remember that, and can't find it with a search.