Neurodiversity, Part 1: Two Souls in One Body with Annika and Tristan

The problem is, virtually everything in print and on the media is ultimately anecdotal ("not necessarily true or reliable, because of being based on personal accounts rather than facts or research"), because ultimately all research results and research descriptions and scientific conclusions written in papers and books and textbooks are in fact mere claims written by potentially fallable human beings as personal accounts of encountering certain experiences or having certain thoughts and understandings. All of this or part of this could possibly be lies. As witness the current apparent flood of retractions of scientific papers for false statements, invented or changed data, and plagiarism.

This is true and is also addressed in the recent book Threshold by Alexander Batthyány. The aspects of consciousness that are a major point of interest on the forum cannot be studied using 'measurements' from any measurement apparatus. Ultimately, the accounts that capture our interest are verbal and subjectively evaluated by others. Alexander ranks the levels of evidence as follows: individual anecdotal accounts < retrospective studies < prospective studies. However, even the highest level of evidence, the prospective study, can mistakenly reject the null hypothesis. That's why replication studies are incredibly important.

This is true and is also addressed in the recent book Threshold by Alexander Batthyány. The aspects of consciousness that are a major point of interest on the forum cannot be studied using 'measurements' from any measurement apparatus. Ultimately, the accounts that capture our interest are verbal and subjectively evaluated by others. Alexander ranks the levels of evidence as follows: individual anecdotal accounts < retrospective studies < prospective studies. However, even the highest level of evidence, the prospective study, can mistakenly reject the null hypothesis. That's why replication studies are incredibly important.

I think this is fine if we're talking about any singular anecdote, though even then I think since there are no good a priori reasons for doubting the basic ideas of Survival/Psi it would depend on how believable the individual seemed. This case isn't necessarily a good case, but it seems to be good enough for further study.

Regarding replication studies as the standard...Witness testimony is a huge part of legal frameworks, the birth of religions, journalism, etc. Some of these claims by witnesses are undoubtedly false, and some are errors, but again it seems to me we can take the amount of anecdotes along with metaphysical priors about the Materialist faith being a lie to give us a good reason to take Survival/Psi seriously.

I could see the argument that replication is necessary before we factor Survival and Psi into our policy making, but I don't think this is a required standard for the individual to admit Survival/Psi accounts are of enough interest to merit further research at minimum.