How far is too far?

This thread is fine. However, so people know, there was an agreement made early on that Linda is not allowed in the ECP forum, so specific criticism of her is not welcomed here and should be reserved for the forum where she is able to defend herself.

And I'd just like to add, the purpose of this thread was NOT to attack anyone. I just used my conversation as an example to kick off the thread.

Sometimes I think walking to the fridge to get another beer is too far. Btw, I only read the title.

And I'd just like to add, the purpose of this thread was NOT to attack anyone. I just used my conversation as an example to kick off the thread.

How far is too far ? On a forum (which is surely not supposed to be an endurance test) simply when you're fed up.

Anyone here who thinks they don't have a precious world view they are protecting is pretty silly. 

Does bewilderment count as a world view?

I have been posting a lot with Linda and others about evidence (You may have noticed ), and decided to take a break because it felt like we were getting nowhere, at a very slow rate of speed.

It got me thinking though: I wonder how far people will go to twist themselves into keeping a consistent view on a matter.

For example- In the conversation about evidence, I pointed out that on more than one occasion a very young child (under 5 yrs old) has identified multiple family members from a past life, out of  a group that included non-family members as well mind you. The child knew their names, relationships, personal information, nick names, and in one case of a girl's husband, she even stood beside the man who was her past husband out of respect, and wouldn't  speak his name until coerced to do so (these self deprecating behaviors of a wife, are required in her Indian culture). Yes, there is always data that are misses too. But in teh most convincing cases, the hit rate is extremely high.

The response I got was that the results of the research may not valid because they didn't employ a control group where (I guess) a second young girl should have been asked these same questions of this group of people whom she had never met, to see if she could provide the same information. 

Huh?

When I asked for clarification I was told that it is possible that the girl could have guessed this stuff.

After I lifted my jaw from the floor over hearing such a preposterous statement, I got to wondering how far people will go to maintain their illusion of understanding of how things work. How important to the psyche is it, to maintain control by making such statements?

Or maybe it is me that doesn't get it?

Yes, of course I know, that the more data you collect, the better your results.

But to claim that these research results are suspect, over such a remote possibility seems extremely far fetched to me. 

Could we do a better job determining what data to collect, and how to do it? Yes of course, but also we need to keep in mind that we are dealing with MANY people's lives here. People with homes and jobs and generally, other things to do. That means we don't have the luxury of unlimited time and access to these folk. That'e the reality we must deal with. These are not rats in a cage.

Further- would we next claim that perhaps the girl might have a brain implant which contains this information, and without imaging of the girl's cranium we can't be sure? (don't laugh, I thought the prior statement was laughable too but,,,) And perhaps if we had that, could we next claim that the implant might be in her foot, so without a full body scan we would pronounce the research suspect?

Where does it stop? What is reasonable?

Seems that this topic is less about rules of evidence, and more about people's need to maintain control over their precious world-view.

Was wondering what others think?

I suspect the best answer was tim's: stop when you're fed up. 

It seems to me that unless one is in a position to demonstrate something as an incontrovertible fact then there will always be someone else who takes a different view. Their motive for taking a counter view can range from the reasonable to the plain daft in my experience. It could be that they genuinely take the opposing view, or just like to be contrary, or are playing devil's advocate, or are testing their own opinion on the subject. Unless they tell you, it's hard to know why and even if they do, it's hard to know whether they are being truthful. 

Some people seem to find endless reasons to oppose what we might think of as a logical conclusion. If you've got the time and energy to knock down each argument categorically then have at it. If you suspect that the person is not genuinely interested in seeking the truth of the matter then, although it might look like a waste of energy, you may expose the faults in their argument for other, silent, observers. 

I guess when I suspect that a person genuinely isn't interested in looking at a topic with an open mind, it's time to move on for me. I am always happy to discuss subjects of interest to me on the basis of shared research or understanding, or even genuine ignorance but from time to time I encounter someone who just doesnt think about things in the same way I do and there's not much point in spending a lot of time battling it out. If I can, I try to look at it from their perspective which is sometimes a good way to test one's own position.

Much of what we discuss here, particularly with regard to psi effects of any practical interest (and not lots of statistical analysis or meta-analysis looking at small variations in the generation of random numbers, or guessing pictures etc), lies in the region of testimony it seems to me. As far as I am concerned testimony is a form of evidence, and observation is a basic scientific practice, but the kind of phenomena we discuss are not easily replicable, let alone on demand. I don't think they ever have been. So we're firmly in the area of probability and the assessment of testimonial evidence - unless we can go and see it for ourselves (in which case, although we may be convinced categorically, the reason for our conviction will become someone else's testimonial evidence and then as far as I can see we're back to square one). 

So we're probably talking about common sense. If, given the example of reincarnation evidence you cite, someone looks at it and says it could be coincidence, I'd say it's pointless continuing the conversation. Just my two pen'orth.

I guess when I suspect that a person genuinely isn't interested in looking at a topic with an open mind, it's time to move on for me. I am always happy to discuss subjects of interest to me on the basis of shared research or understanding, or even genuine ignorance but from time to time I encounter someone who just doesnt think about things in the same way I do and there's not much point in spending a lot of time battling it out. If I can, I try to look at it from their perspective which is sometimes a good way to test one's own position.

Yes, arguing a case with someone can be a good way of testing one's position, and can lead to new insights, even if the person you're arguing with is unreasonable. However, if the person is being slippery and trying to avoid the issues rather than argue them, it can be more frustrating than productive.

Yes, arguing a case with someone can be a good way of testing one's position, and can lead to new insights, even if the person you're arguing with is unreasonable. However, if the person is being slippery and trying to avoid the issues rather than argue them, it can be more frustrating than productive.

Agreed. When I've had enough I try to follow Tim's strategy

I suspect the best answer was tim's: stop when you're fed up. 

It seems to me that unless one is in a position to demonstrate something as an incontrovertible fact then there will always be someone else who takes a different view. Their motive for taking a counter view can range from the reasonable to the plain daft in my experience. It could be that they genuinely take the opposing view, or just like to be contrary, or are playing devil's advocate, or are testing their own opinion on the subject. Unless they tell you, it's hard to know why and even if they do, it's hard to know whether they are being truthful. 

Some people seem to find endless reasons to oppose what we might think of as a logical conclusion. If you've got the time and energy to knock down each argument categorically then have at it. If you suspect that the person is not genuinely interested in seeking the truth of the matter then, although it might look like a waste of energy, you may expose the faults in their argument for other, silent, observers. 

I guess when I suspect that a person genuinely isn't interested in looking at a topic with an open mind, it's time to move on for me. I am always happy to discuss subjects of interest to me on the basis of shared research or understanding, or even genuine ignorance but from time to time I encounter someone who just doesnt think about things in the same way I do and there's not much point in spending a lot of time battling it out. If I can, I try to look at it from their perspective which is sometimes a good way to test one's own position.

Much of what we discuss here, particularly with regard to psi effects of any practical interest (and not lots of statistical analysis or meta-analysis looking at small variations in the generation of random numbers, or guessing pictures etc), lies in the region of testimony it seems to me. As far as I am concerned testimony is a form of evidence, and observation is a basic scientific practice, but the kind of phenomena we discuss are not easily replicable, let alone on demand. I don't think they ever have been. So we're firmly in the area of probability and the assessment of testimonial evidence - unless we can go and see it for ourselves (in which case, although we may be convinced categorically, the reason for our conviction will become someone else's testimonial evidence and then as far as I can see we're back to square one). 

So we're probably talking about common sense. If, given the example of reincarnation evidence you cite, someone looks at it and says it could be coincidence, I'd say it's pointless continuing the conversation. Just my two pen'orth.

Wow. Well said! 

Now go have a cold beverage. You deserve it.