Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

Despite the mental deficit or abnormality, this man still can perform mental arithmetic and other mathematical operations, still can apparently maintain the abstract mental concept of various numbers. It's just that he can't associate these with the visual shapes of the numerical symbols.

This must have some implications as to how perception must be fundamentally different when consciousness, mind, is detached from the physical brain as in a veridical NDE OBE where the physical surroundings of the body are perceived from a spacially displaced location like the corner of the ceiling of the room. Under these conditions there is presumably no perception by the detached entity of light reflections off of surfaces in the room (and no involvement of the brain in interpreting these signals), but instead some other form of perception presumably related to what we know of as clairvoyance, that is interpreted later by the physically embodied entity as the well-known visual sense impressions of recalled human forms, objects, etc.

My first thought is this relates to the argument, as per Aquinas, that intellect in its apprehension works through imagination but is apart from it.

We might learn about graphs (as in Graph Theory) and geometric shapes with the aid of visuals, but the proofs can be done even for shapes that would beggar the imagination.

For myself, I think there is something important about how the intellect can apprehend the Univerals of Logic and Math, and is determinate in a way physical things are not. For example "8" can stand for a number or a mask or even another numerical value, but the concept of the number in my thought is only of the particular value and nothing else.

Not sure I'm seeing the connection to NDEs/OOBEs, at least not directly. I do think that the intellect, if immaterial, could be eternal in the way the Universals are. So this would be a case where philosophy and scientific investigation can buttress the case for the Survival Hypothesis. I guess such an intellect might always need to be clothed in form, whether a body of flesh or soul stuff?

I've started working on a refutational response to blogger Emil Karlsson's attempt at debunking, refuting and responding to the criticisms of skeptics made by Winston Wu

Anyways, has anyone here heard of these mathematical arguments before? Would you also say there's a certain degree of subjectivity here as well?

Isn't your time better spent on confirming for yourself that, at minimum, Psi is real? I mean that post is from 2014...

As for probability measurements, this is a complex topic for even mundane event modeling. I can't really see this as a serious endeavor but as a marketing tactic it has great appeal.

Isn't your time better spent on confirming for yourself that, at minimum, Psi is real? I mean that post is from 2014...

As for probability measurements, this is a complex topic for even mundane event modeling. I can't really see this as a serious endeavor but as a marketing tactic it has great appeal.

I suppose you could say I find it somewhat satisfying and therapeutic to demonstrate why these people are wrong. And yes, his last post refuting Wu was from 2015, so some of the claims he makes are rather outdated. I have been reading the Psi Encyclopedia entries as well though, particularly when they bring up cases that skeptics seem to ignore. My favourite is the Edgar Vandy cross-correspondences. 

Anyways, I do find that doing these essay things helps silence my inner doubtful pseudo-skeptic and explain to myself why this guy, who legitimately said at one point that the ability for NDEs to be life changing is basically just because they're a brush with death (showing he hasn't actually read any), isn't credible or as smart as he thinks he is. 

As for the probability models, I've pointed out that the subjectivity is still relevant when one has to decide what qualifies as the 'skeptical scientific explanation'. Why should Karlsson assume they're always going to be more rational? Science and skepticism of phenomena like NDEs and terminal lucidity don't often go hand in hand. And why is it that this is the first time in the many months I've encountered skeptical arguments that this is the first and only time I've seen mathematical arguments try to be used? I think Karlsson ignores the problems of the mathematical models myself.

Anyways, I do find that doing these essay things helps silence my inner doubtful pseudo-skeptic

Really this is a waste of time compared to, say, meditating and learning how to lucid dream so you can see if you have any Psi ability in dreaming.

Even if you never have a paranormal experience you'll have disciplined your mind.

My first thought is this relates to the argument, as per Aquinas, that intellect in its apprehension works through imagination but is apart from it.

We might learn about graphs (as in Graph Theory) and geometric shapes with the aid of visuals, but the proofs can be done even for shapes that would beggar the imagination.

For myself, I think there is something important about how the intellect can apprehend the Univerals of Logic and Math, and is determinate in a way physical things are not. For example "8" can stand for a number or a mask or even another numerical value, but the concept of the number in my thought is only of the particular value and nothing else.

Not sure I'm seeing the connection to NDEs/OOBEs, at least not directly. I do think that the intellect, if immaterial, could be eternal in the way the Universals are. So this would be a case where philosophy and scientific investigation can buttress the case for the Survival Hypothesis. I guess such an intellect might always need to be clothed in form, whether a body of flesh or soul stuff?

I think the implication of this case that there are specialized areas of the brain that interpret visual shapes as numbers and vice versa (and presumably something similar for letters), might go a little ways toward explaining the extreme difficulty some formerly living discarnates have seemed to have in clearly communicating through mediums. These discarnates have given the impression of slowly getting better at it as the communications progressed, as if they as soul minds were going through a learning process. 

This would be an information processing function that in physical humans appears to have been implemented in neural structures rather than in the soul mind. For instance having great difficulty getting names right (this depends on spelling, being able to associate certain sounds with certain letter sequences), accurately describing events in correctly spelled and enunciated words, etc. The discarnate human entity, not having these brain structures, perhaps would be expected to have a lot of trouble getting spelling right (knowing kind of how the name sounds but not being able to visualize the letters), etc. Of course this would be complicated by having to work mostly through the medium's subconscious and being somewhat limited by the medium's preexisting knowledge base.

Really this is a waste of time compared to, say, meditating and learning how to lucid dream so you can see if you have any Psi ability in dreaming.

Even if you never have a paranormal experience you'll have disciplined your mind.

First I suppose I'd have to improve my sleep schedule. I tend to overreact to these kinds of blogs (especially when they're then on social media sites like Twitter and Reddit) so by debunking their arguments I feel satisfied. 

I've finished my refutation of him and boy, would you guys be stunned by the sheer stupidity of this guy. At first I was worried when he noted he was going to mention NDEs and neuroscience in his refutations, but then when it only amassed into about 8 or so sentences that were very vague and ill-informed on the topics, I was relieved.    Wu's arguments may not be that great by themselves, but they're sure a lot better than most of what Emil claims. It's just embarrassing. 

To summarise my conclusion, Emil Karlsson's arguments all involved: unproven assertions lacking sufficient, up-to-date or even any evidence/citations whatsoever (he barely cited anything throughout the series of posts, tossing around the word 'probably' constantly); generalisations/stereotyping of proponents (accused David Bohm of promoting 'quantum woo'); materialist and skeptical fallacies; hypocrisy/double-standards (only mentions 'experts' like Steven Novella when addressing with things like acupuncture, ignoring/not citing the actual experts on things like NDEs); a complete lack of self-skepticism or self-awareness; dismissive cynicism; cherry-picking/ignorance of context; blatant confirmation bias/the Dunning-Kruger Effect; vagueness or reductionism (he claims psi and non-local consciousness would violate the laws of physics in a Sean Carroll-esque argument); defending/endorsing the gaslighting of experiencers/false accusations of lying (says the skeptics are justified in mocking proponents as guilty of primitive thinking and accuses the NDErs who had veridical/verified supernatural experiences of lying) and misinterpretations of arguments or examples (when Wu discusses his experience with a medium, Karlsson apparently couldn't even proofread his own refutation and got key facts about the experience wrong only a sentence after quoting Wu). 

All that aside, he did mention Robert Todd Carroll and his Skeptic's Dictionary. IIRC, he passed away a while ago, but people still cite his dictionary as though it's credible and up-to-date. Though from what I've heard, it's as reliable as RationalWiki, and sometimes just as mean-spirited. What are your thoughts on him and the Skeptic's Dictionary? Have any of you had any interactions with him prior to his passing?

All that aside, he did mention Robert Todd Carroll and his Skeptic's Dictionary. IIRC, he passed away a while ago, but people still cite his dictionary as though it's credible and up-to-date. Though from what I've heard, it's as reliable as RationalWiki, and sometimes just as mean-spirited. What are your thoughts on him and the Skeptic's Dictionary? Have any of you had any interactions with him prior to his passing?

Never heard of it.

You seem quite well versed on all sorts of skeptic resources, but never seem to have much knowledge about proponent arguments & resources...

Never heard of it.

You seem quite well versed on all sorts of skeptic resources, but never seem to have much knowledge about proponent arguments & resources...

Of course I have knowledge of the proponent arguements and resources Sci. I'm saying that that's what he mentioned on his blog posts and I've heard skeptics bring it up before. I've never visited it myself, but I do think that the Skeptiko forums might have mentioned it before. Either way, I am familiar with proponent cites. I mention several in my refutation. Those I know of include:

• Michael Tymn's blog White Crow Books
  
• Psi Encyclopedia
  
• Michael Prescott's blog
  
• IANDs
  
• Near-Death.com
  
• Mark Mahin's blogs Head Truth and Future and Cosmos
  
• Victor Zammit's website
  
• AwareofAWARE
  
• Kenneth Ring's Blog (this is relatively new, I suggest checking it out if you haven't already)
  

Of course I have knowledge of the proponent arguements and resources Sci. I'm saying that that's what he mentioned on his blog posts and I've heard skeptics bring it up before. I've never visited it myself, but I do think that the Skeptiko forums might have mentioned it before. Either way, I am familiar with proponent cites.

It's not the websites, it's their content. Anyway I'm sure we'll continue to see posts in this fashion:

U GUISE THERE IS A SKEPTIC SITE IT MAKES ME SO SCARED I NEED HELP HERE IS THE ARGUMENT

I AM A PROPONENT LIKE U GUISE BUT WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THESE ARGUMENTS PLEASE HELP ME

And then:

AH OK I GUESS THIS SITE THAT NO ONE TOOK THE BAIT ON IS {NOT} A BIG DEAL I HAVE REFUTED IT MYSELF

OH BY THE WAY HERE IS ANOTHER SKEPTIC SITE HAVE YOU GUISE HEARD OF IT? I DON'T KNOW MAYBE IT INVALIDATES EVERY PROPONENT ARGUMENT EVER MADE I AM SO SCARED....

It's not the websites, it's their content. Anyway I'm sure we'll continue to see posts in this fashion:

U GUISE THERE IS A SKEPTIC SITE IT MAKES ME SO SCARED I NEED HELP HERE IS THE ARGUMENT

I AM A PROPONENT LIKE U GUISE BUT WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THESE ARGUMENTS PLEASE HELP ME

And then:

AH OK I GUESS THIS SITE THAT NO ONE TOOK THE BAIT ON IS {NOT} A BIG DEAL I HAVE REFUTED IT MYSELF

OH BY THE WAY HERE IS ANOTHER SKEPTIC SITE HAVE YOU GUISE HEARD OF IT? I DON'T KNOW MAYBE IT INVALIDATES EVERY PROPONENT ARGUMENT EVER MADE I AM SO SCARED....

I recognise that it's a cyclical fashion frustrating people, but like I've said, I tend to worry about these people getting attention and spreading misinformation on the web, which then discourages further interest in these topics and the evidence. I found the blog after looking up examples of poor scientific journalism and why it's flawed. Emil's blog was recommended because he would post about it. I will take your advice however to familiarise myself with the content more. The point of this thread was to help counter skeptical and pseudo-skeptical arguments and that's what I'm trying to do. The thing is, for example, is that his mathematical model was something we've never discussed on here before to my knowledge. As a result, I assumed other members he did not have knowledge of it. The rest I was largely able to handle myself. But now that we've discussed and acknowledged a tactic not seen before, we are showing that we aren't at all like they say we are.

I don't understand what's wrong with challenging these arguments? Surely by challenging them, we can show that we are aware of their claims and have debunked/refuted them. As a result, we are showing that we are well-aware of them and can confidently explain why they are wrong, especially for lurkers and newcomers. Perhaps I'm thinking of this too much like some kind of war?