Vaccines

Linda, I repeat, the whole point of our disagreement was who we were defining as experts. I don't lend a ton of credence to those who haven't done any research, reading, or studying at all (again, I generally read that broadly). The vast, vast majority of those who have conducted psi research or reading or studying in some capacity have tended to believe the legitimacy of the phenomena, as has been said to you and others before. Your usual nonsense response is that that's only because we wouldn't know about the people who disagree. The point is, the heavy majority of those who actually do studies on the stuff think there's more to it than reductive, ordinary explanations that current science can or will certainly account for. With that being the case, and your heavy deference to such experts, why are their opinions not more persuasive to you?

Probably because I involve more scientists than those who inhabit the parapsychology echo chamber. For example, if you listen only to proponent parapsychologists, you might be unaware of the large amount of research out there done on NDE's by mainstream scientists, who come to different conclusions from proponent parapsychologists.
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-a-...4#pid11484

You can continue to say "rant", it lends no more validity to what you're saying. We disagree because you blatantly have discussed opinions of neuroscientists at large who say the phenomena are "impossible", which is complete nonsense and isn't backed up by anything remotely conclusive in current science, and who have not seriously considered or conducted any research themselves

I haven't done this. Hence my difficulty understanding what it is you are disagreeing with me about.

No one is going to play a game where you post a paper, they analyze it, and then you essentially rate their performance in analysis. Amazing that you'd say that you've brought up many of them without acknowledging the necessity to challenge mainstream scientific "authority", including those who incessantly criticize paranormal research without giving it the time of day or much more than that. Your thinly veiled attempt at saying people here don't challenge authority is just hilarious.

I'm happy to challenge mainstream scientific "authority", especially those who would criticize research without giving it the time of day. 

Linda

Linda said >"For example, if you listen only to proponent parapsychologists, you might be unaware of the large amount of research out there done on NDE's by mainstream scientists, who come to different conclusions from proponent parapsychologists."

Just for the record this is a ridiculous statement that ranks with some of Linda's finest.

Linda said >"For example, if you listen only to proponent parapsychologists, you might be unaware of the large amount of research out there done on NDE's by mainstream scientists, who come to different conclusions from proponent parapsychologists."

Just for the record this is a ridiculous statement that ranks with some of Linda's finest.

I think this may be another:

I'm happy to challenge mainstream scientific "authority", especially those who would criticize research without giving it the time of day. 

Linda

Except that I wonder what the scare quotes mean? I'm guessing it means that she is talking about those she doesn't really regard as authorities which leaves the statement meaningless.

Except that I wonder what the scare quotes mean? I'm guessing it means that she is talking about those she doesn't really regard as authorities which leaves the statement meaningless.

Ask Dante. I was quoting her/him and they were the one who put the quotes around "authority". 

Linda

Probably because I involve more scientists than those who inhabit the parapsychology echo chamber. For example, if you listen only to proponent parapsychologists, you might be unaware of the large amount of research out there done on NDE's by mainstream scientists, who come to different conclusions from proponent parapsychologists.

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-a-...4#pid11484

Linda

That same thread included a post of mine which linked to this: 

Near-death experiences between science and prejudice

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399124/

I know that it is far from the subject of this thread which has already been derailed to a certain extent by Linda defending her assertions of her own authority or the authority of those she selects. However, it illustrates her bias.

As already discussed, the idea that NDEs are the mere results of a brain function gone awry looks to rely more on speculation than facts (Mobbs and Watt, 2011) and suffers from bias in skipping both the facts and hypotheses that challenge the reductionist approach (e.g., see van Lommel, 2004, 2011; Facco, 2010; Greyson, 2010b; Agrillo, 2011). Simple advocated physical causes, such as anoxia/ischemia, explain very well the common experience of fainting, but are far from explaining the nature of NDEs or why NDEs occur in only a minority of cases, as already emphasized by van Lommel et al. (2001). Furthermore, complete brain anoxia with absent electrical activity in cardiac arrest is incompatible with any form of consciousness, according to present scientific knowledge, making the finding of an explanation for NDEs a challenging task for the ruling physicalist and reductionist view of biomedicine (Kelly et al., 2007; Greyson, 2010b; van Lommel, 2010). In order to safeguard the accepted axioms, odd comments have sometimes also been reported. For instance, in order to justify the occurrence of NDEs, Bardy (2002) questioned whether in cardiac arrest with flat EEG brain electrical activity is really silent; however, it is well known that this is not the case (Parnia and Fenwick, 2002).

Again, I'd like to repeat that when it comes to vaccines, I'm not literate in the science but I am more inclined towards the view that they have, historically, helped towards eradicating diseases. I have more serious problems with the continual "Trust me, I'm a doctor" approach which would prefer to keep the layman in the dark and the hegemony of scientism unchallenged. The profit motive of Big Pharma raises legitimate concerns and this reliance on citing research can and should be challenged. Research is only as good as the assumptions behind it will allow. There are two strong reasons to question research:

1. The profit motive including research funding.

2. The assumptions behind the research which are considered to be axioms rather than assumptions. For example: materialism.

https://www.livescience.com/8365-dark-si...sions.html

"You can't say this is an isolated problem," said Beate Wieseler, deputy head of IQWiG's Drug Assessment Department. "It's widespread, and it affects drug companies, universities and regulatory authorities."

Much of that problem arises from financial conflicts of interest when pharmaceutical or medical device companies fund the studies, according to Wieseler and her colleagues. They pointed to past research showing an association between industry sponsorship and positive outcomes or conclusions in studies.

 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-prue...48321.html

To come clean, my purpose in this series of posts is simple, namely to offer a cautionary tale: Science, be careful what you assume, for in addition to limiting your vision, assumptions carry unintended consequences, some of which are deleterious.

To date, previous posts have discussed the abandonment of four of science’s once-cherished notions: absolute space and time, determinism, dualism, and locality. Two additional posts addressed other assumptions that may be on their last legs: realism and reductionism. This brings us to the last — and most intransigent — of science’s sacred cows: materialism. Materialism is the presumption that all attributes of the cosmos, including human consciousness, derive from the properties of matter. To put it bluntly: matter — or its alter ego, energy — is all there is.

Materialism, I believe, harbors a multitude of sins. Today I’ll argue that the materialistic paradigm is detrimental both to science and to the human condition. And in the final post of the series, we’ll examine some evidence that the paradigm, at long last, is collapsing.

Probably because I involve more scientists than those who inhabit the parapsychology echo chamber. 

Linda

Finally, I'd like to know why, when scientists who devote their time and energies to researching parapsychology and happen to agree on some conclusions, they are inhabiting an echo chamber but when mainstream scientists do the same thing they have that most powerful of arguments: a consensus?

Probably because I involve more scientists than those who inhabit the parapsychology echo chamber. For example, if you listen only to proponent parapsychologists, you might be unaware of the large amount of research out there done on NDE's by mainstream scientists, who come to different conclusions from proponent parapsychologists.

Are you serious? Why is it an echo chamber? Because they study something that is outside the bounds of what modern science considers to be permissible? You involve scientists who haven't done the work and haven't considered it seriously. Clear as day, point blank. Your bias is absolutely, unequivocally clear. 

And, as the cherry on top, that last sentence is absolute garbage and if you're going to honestly try to defend it then you're blatantly not well read on the topic or are being intentionally ignorant. There are certainly not a large number of any such people - and by the way, what makes them mainstream? Because they agree with you? And those who disagree with you are in the aforementioned parapsychology "echo chamber"? You're doing an incredibly poor job of being intellectually honest in attempting to say that those in the mainstream agree with you and those outside it don't and are wrong, in addition to the fact that even where some scientists who have done such research and come to the conclusion that psi isn't real, they are absolutely in the minority. But, apparently, that matters not to you, because they're "mainstream" and the ones who find it legitimate are in that darned echo chamber. What shameful tactics. 

I haven't done this. Hence my difficulty understanding what it is you are disagreeing with me about.

Should be pretty clear at this point. All the while you're saying you agree with me, you do not. You continue to make statements that are backing up exactly my point - you think there are some large number of "mainstream" scientists who have done the research (not accurate), and you draw some imaginary line in defining who is mainstream. We do not agree on who the experts are, we do not agree on what is reasonable to take away from the research. We do not agree on much of anything surrounding this issue. That's pretty clear. 

I'm happy to challenge mainstream scientific "authority", especially those who would criticize research without giving it the time of day.

When I said authority in said scare quotes, I meant to reference what you're defining as authority, which I do not agree with at large. If you're happy to do that, I've yet to see it.

Finally, I'd like to know why, when scientists who devote their time and energies to researching parapsychology and happen to agree on some conclusions, they are inhabiting an echo chamber but when mainstream scientists do the same thing they have that most powerful of arguments: a consensus?

Although Kamar won't see this since I'm on his poo-poo list this video will answer his question.
Is Most Published Research Wrong?
https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q

Finally, I'd like to know why, when scientists who devote their time and energies to researching parapsychology and happen to agree on some conclusions, they are inhabiting an echo chamber but when mainstream scientists do the same thing they have that most powerful of arguments: a consensus?

Lol. That's a good question. I think the difference is that other ideas have spread throughout all the related fields as other scientists pick up on their validity. Belief in psi isn't complete within the field of parapsychology and hasn't spread throughout the related fields, so it has stayed fairly insulated. For example, neuroscience research would be following a distinctively different path if the research that the mind was not dependent on the brain was seen as valid and subsequently spread through the field.

I responded to your post about NDE research in the original thread, so as not to hijack this one any further.

Linda

Are you serious? Why is it an echo chamber?

Because it seems to be a fairly insulated, rather than spreading into related areas, like psychology, neuroscience, physics, medicine, etc.

You involve scientists who haven't done the work and haven't considered it seriously.

I involve scientists who are studying the same phenomena, but from a different perspective.

And, as the cherry on top, that last sentence is absolute garbage and if you're going to honestly try to defend it then you're blatantly not well read on the topic or are being intentionally ignorant.

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion, given that you, by your own admission, are unaware of this research and the conclusions which have been drawn from it.

There are certainly not a large number of any such people - and by the way, what makes them mainstream? Because they agree with you? And those who disagree with you are in the aforementioned parapsychology "echo chamber"?

No. I'm just using a term that proponents here use to refer to scientists in fields outside of parapsychology, like medicine. I mean no disrespect. I thought it was acceptable given that others here use it. As I mentioned before, there are quite a few parapsychologists I agree with including at least one proponent parapsychologist I completely agree with, with respect to psi.

Should be pretty clear at this point.

It still isn't. You grossly mischaracterized my position. So I'm still not clear what it is we're supposed to be disagreeing about, given that it isn't about what you just said.

When I said authority in said scare quotes, I meant to reference what you're defining as authority, which I do not agree with at large.

I've never defined "authority". I said earlier that I don't like or agree with the idea of arguments from authority. I don't understand what it is you think we disagreee about.

Linda