"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

Lol. I can't win, can I. If there is a misunderstanding, I'm obfuscatory. If I attempt to clarify, I rub people the wrong way. 

Linda

Nah its the pretending that I was trolling and suddenly saying we were having a misunderstanding because I supplied the cases you asked for.

Nah its the pretending that I was trolling and suddenly saying we were having a misunderstanding incense I supplied the cases you asked for.

Please don't think that I thought you were trolling, or was pretending that you were by asking. I meant no offense. I thought it was unlikely that you were trolling, but I felt I should rule out the (small) possibility that you were, by asking.

I'm sorry that there was a mix-up in the kind of cases I thought you were providing and the kind of cases you thought I was asking for.

Linda

Yes, if you could find the case you are thinking of, that would be helpful.

 
Will do, give me a bit - sorry for the delay.

What are you referring to as facts in the case - the things the children say before an identification or their responses to questions after identification?

It's case dependent, since some (like the one you linked) have pre-interview recorded statements, and others don't.

I'm not sure why you think mainstream research does not like subjective information. A lot of medical research is about subjective information, for example. The softer sciences, like medicine, psychology, sociology, etc. have found ways to deal with these issues that could be useful here.

Well, those social science studies are in a lot of ways flawed or not replicatable, and are maybe plagued by the same issues you're saying are there with the reincarnation research, but mainstream science accepts them. I don't think medicine (unless you mean psychiatry) has the same level of subjectivity as the others. Further, just because the subjective info is used in those fields you referenced, doesn't mean they're preferred or liked. It's substantially more difficult to collect information where subjectivity is involved, and as we've discussed, there's more risk in it - it's less straightforward and much more difficult. Just because it's used doesn't mean it's well liked.

I also think you have a naively rosy view (as you and Roberta discussed) of why some paranormal phenomena aren't taken more seriously by mainstream science. I don't disagree that much of it falls below what would be required for for evidence for a hard science phenomena to achieve broader scientific acceptance, partially because I feel it's of a fundamentally different nature (as we've discussed in this thread). However, I think you're incorrect to say that it ends there - paranormal phenomena are blatantly not accepted a priori, and unlike you, I, and those who have actually looked into studies, there are many (most likely a strong majority of) scientists who don't pay any sort of attention to the studies, haven't read them at all, and dismiss them outright. That could be for a variety of reasons - too busy with their own research to pay attention to it; just don't really care enough to look into it; or assume a priori that it's wrong because of their belief system. I think there are a lot of people in that last group. There are also those who don't like the link to spirituality or even religion that some of the phenomena might permit inference from.

Essentially, while I don't disagree that the current evidence isn't going to meet a typical scientific standard for majority, or even significant, acceptance, I think it's pretty unreasonable to act as if there is not severe bias against paranormal phenomena that would just disappear if that standard was met. That bias certainly exists and certainly plays a large role in the ignorance of the studies and research that do exist. 

We could talk about this case as an example, although I would also be interested in cases using what you or Tucker regard as the best methodology.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a34d/0a...33c21f.pdf

I'll try to review this case this weekend and get back. Also I may email Tucker to get his two cents. Thanks for the link.

 
Will do, give me a bit - sorry for the delay.


It's case dependent, since some (like the one you linked) have pre-interview recorded statements, and others don't.

Can you clarify this a bit? In what way are these pre-recorded statements "facts about someone", given that they are statements which someone attempts to find a match for post hoc?

If I give you a set of statements that is created artificially and ask you to find a match for them, sometimes you will be able to and sometimes you won't. In what way are those matches facts?

Well, those social science studies are in a lot of ways flawed or not replicatable, and are maybe plagued by the same issues you're saying are there with the reincarnation research, but mainstream science accepts them. I don't think medicine (unless you mean psychiatry) has the same level of subjectivity as the others. Further, just because the subjective info is used in those fields you referenced, doesn't mean they're preferred or liked. It's substantially more difficult to collect information where subjectivity is involved, and as we've discussed, there's more risk in it - it's less straightforward and much more difficult. Just because it's used doesn't mean it's well liked.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The medical history (the story that a patient tells about their health and illness) is the most important information a physician uses. And we heavily depend upon symptoms, which are almost entirely subjective. Some conditions are entirely subjective (e.g. chronic fatigue syndrome). The S in the SOAP form which many physicians use in clinical records, is "subjective" and consists of the story the patient tells about what is going on plus all potentially relevant symptoms (Objective is the result of physical exam, Assessment is a list of all the possible conditions to be considered, and Plan is the approach taken to figuring out what is going on (e.g. tests) and treating/helping the patient.)

I also think you have a naively rosy view (as you and Roberta discussed) of why some paranormal phenomena aren't taken more seriously by mainstream science. I don't disagree that much of it falls below what would be required for for evidence for a hard science phenomena to achieve broader scientific acceptance, partially because I feel it's of a fundamentally different nature (as we've discussed in this thread). However, I think you're incorrect to say that it ends there - paranormal phenomena are blatantly not accepted a priori, and unlike you, I, and those who have actually looked into studies, there are many (most likely a strong majority of) scientists who don't pay any sort of attention to the studies, haven't read them at all, and dismiss them outright. That could be for a variety of reasons - too busy with their own research to pay attention to it; just don't really care enough to look into it; or assume a priori that it's wrong because of their belief system. I think there are a lot of people in that last group. There are also those who don't like the link to spirituality or even religion that some of the phenomena might permit inference from.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'm just pointing out that this isn't unique to parapsychology. That's partly what makes science work - scientists are generally biased against ideas they don't believe and tend to ignore the research. But there are often one or a few proponents scattered throughout various departments who bring research to the attention of some of their colleagues. And if that research is strong enough, their colleagues bring it up to other scientists in their area, and then it starts to spread - it gets presented and talked about at weekly meetings and then national and international conferences. Other scientists get interested and perform research of their own. But at that first step, if you ask a colleague to look at weak research, they will probably ignore it once they recognize the weaknesses, and it stops there.

There are too many research articles out there to read them all. I realize this sounds harsh, but the first step is to decide whether a paper is even worth your time. If you read the abstract and it describes a weak methodology, and you don't believe the idea to begin with, then it's a waste of time to read any further and you move on to the next paper.

I've struggled with this myself. Sometimes I am given a hard time about my interest in parapsychology, and I have looked for a paper that I could ask that person to read to justify my interest. I haven't been able to find one that holds their attention beyond the abstract. Because as soon as the abstract is read, I hear "give me a break, the assessment wasn't blinded" or "there are no controls" or "this experimental sounds highly contrived, how was it validated?" And there isn't an answer for that because they're right.

while I don't disagree that the current evidence isn't going to meet a typical scientific standard for majority, or even significant, acceptance, I think it's pretty unreasonable to act as if there is not severe bias against paranormal phenomena that would just disappear if that standard was met. That bias certainly exists and certainly plays a large role in the ignorance of the studies and research that do exist.

I guess we wouldn't know until it was tried. Roberta did have a good point earlier about the promises which were made with the Honorton/Hyman collaboration with respect to the Ganzfeld protocol. I don't think a good enough job was done on it, and that's why it failed to have the desired response. But I also think it justifies your skepticism about a wider acceptance.

Linda

Why I'm Not a Skeptic | Michael Prescott

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/w...eptic.html

That's the theory. In practice, things are different. Far from being a state of habitual open-mindedness, today's skepticism is characterized by resistance to any new ideas or new evidence, and unwillingness to critically examine its own biases. These tendencies, in turn, rest on a very definite agenda, promoted by a clear and comprehensive worldview, a philosophy of life. This philosophy is rationalism.

In a 1995 essay, Gene E. Veith ably summarizes rationalism's basic tenets. Coming of age in the eighteenth century, rationalism "excluded on principle everything that could not be seen, measured, and empirically analyzed. Revelation was ruled out as a means of knowledge, and belief in a supernatural realm that transcended the visible universe was dismissed as primitive superstition. Not only did modernists [i.e., rationalists] believe in the inerrancy of science, they also had a devout faith in progress. The 'modern,' almost by definition, was superior to the past. The future would be even better. Modernists genuinely believed that science would answer all questions and that the application of scientific principles would solve all social problems. Through rational planning, applied technology, and social manipulation, experts could engineer the perfect society (Veith, 1995)."

Here we have not innocent open-mindedness, but a narrow and intolerant creed, which is today often recognized as such. The word "skeptic" is, in fact, increasingly conjoined with "dogmatic," "zealous," and "militant." Some people accuse skeptics of being nothing but cynics in disguise. A few wags have dubbed them "septics." Admittedly, that's not very nice – but, truth be told, skeptics have brought such attacks on themselves by repeatedly characterizing their opponents as credulous, gullible, simpleminded, ignorant, irrational, and foolish. 

Addendum: See also his criticisms of the Randi Prize

None of these cases were documented prior to feedback being offered. And they also, by and large, do not involve sense data obtained when this was impossible.

For example, Denture man was undergoing CPR when some sensory data seemed to be obtained. Research with BIS shows that CPR can be sufficient to provide some awareness. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1...5815623293 - Figures 2 and 3, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...#t=article - Figure 2). 

I remember that I tested the idea that Anita Moorjani couldn't hear the conversation over the distance she described in her book (I read the book) and I could hear it. (Through an open door, around a corner, and about 60 feet away, I could hear a TV at low/normal volume, IIRC.)

I'm not sure that we want to start on Pam Reynolds, but Rudolph Smit underwent a test of whether a statement could be heard under the conditions for Pam's Auditory Evoked Potentials (moulded earpieces - one playing loud clicks and one playing white noise) and he could hear it. She was reportedly under burst suppression at the time (we do not have a record of the specifics). The BIS shows that awareness does not begin to decrease due to burst suppression until the suppression ration is greater than 50% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12580235). Spetzler (the surgeon) gives his opinion that she wouldn't have been able to hear due to being under burst suppression, but does not provide the suppression ratio.

The Maria story is just too poorly documented to say anything with it.

Does documentation matter? It seems to. In Sartori's NDE research where she actually records everything carefully, it can be seen that she provides information to many of the patients she interviews about the details of their resuscitation. And in one case, in her research paper, the statements that she found remarkable from her subject came from her or were not recorded (the most remarkable statement turned out to have come from a third-hand report).

Linda

Shenanigans from Madam Linda.

Linda said> For example, Denture man was undergoing CPR when some sensory data seemed to be obtained.

He was not undergoing any CPR when his denture was removed, he was stone dead and that's a fact.

Linda said>Research with BIS shows that CPR can be sufficient to provide some awareness. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1...5815623293 - Figures 2 and 3, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...#t=article - Figure 2). 

Neither of those two papers shows anything of the sort. The first paper only demonstrates that BIS (EEG monitoring on the forehead) is not effective at determining patient outcomes. The second is concerned with surgery under general anaesthesia and is irrelevant.

Linda said >She was reportedly under burst suppression at the time (we do not have a record of the specifics).

She was absolutely under burst suppression and we do know the specifics. The surgeons provided them.

Linda said > Spetzler (the surgeon) gives his opinion that she wouldn't have been able to hear due to being under burst suppression, but does not provide the suppression ratio.

Total nonsense. There is no level of burst suppression that allows a patient to be conscious let alone to hear anything.

The Maria story is just too poorly documented to say anything with it.

More nonsense. Kimberley Clark recorded it as it happened.  The doctors in the hospital that day all knew about the case and none of them has ever come out and accused her of making it up.

Shenanigans from Madam Linda.

Linda said> For example, Denture man was undergoing CPR when some sensory data seemed to be obtained.

He was not undergoing any CPR when his denture was removed, he was stone dead and that's a fact.

Linda said>Research with BIS shows that CPR can be sufficient to provide some awareness. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1...5815623293 - Figures 2 and 3, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...#t=article - Figure 2). 

Neither of those two papers shows anything of the sort. The first paper only demonstrates that BIS (EEG monitoring on the forehead) is not effective at determining patient outcomes. The second is concerned with surgery under general anaesthesia and is irrelevant.

Linda said >She was reportedly under burst suppression at the time (we do not have a record of the specifics).

She was absolutely under burst suppression and we do know the specifics. The surgeons provided them.

Linda said > Spetzler (the surgeon) gives his opinion that she wouldn't have been able to hear due to being under burst suppression, but does not provide the suppression ratio.

Total nonsense. There is no level of burst suppression that allows a patient to be conscious let alone to hear anything.

The Maria story is just too poorly documented to say anything with it.

More nonsense. Kimberley Clark recorded it as it happened.  The doctors in the hospital that day all knew about the case and none of them has ever come out and accused her of making it up.

Thanks for the work on this Tim. I know Linda can simply wear you down and eventually it's hard to differentiate between fact and fiction in her posts. And eventually you just loose the will to even do so.

I look forward to her response to your post.

Thanks for the work on this Tim. I know Linda can simply wear you down and eventually it's hard to differentiate between fact and fiction in her posts. And eventually you just loose the will to even do so.

I look forward to her response to your post.

Just so you know, I do my best to be factual and representative in my posts, so if you think something is wrong or misleading, it is likely that you just need to ask me for clarification.

Tim and I have been over this many times before, so discussion with him will not resolve his issues. 

Denture man - The emergency staff had initiated the reanimation process in the field (which includes CPR). The staff took over the reanimation process when the patient was brought to the room and the dentures were removed at that time.
http://netwerknde.nl/wp-content/uploads/...ureman.pdf

I was not pointing to the studies with respect to their hypotheses and conclusions. I referred to them because they included the data that we need - what levels of awareness may be present during CPR. I referred specifically to the figures in the papers showing 1) BIS scores in people who demonstrated some level of (anesthesia) awareness and 2) BIS scores obtained during CPR, to show that BIS scores obtained during CPR met or exceeded the scores associated with awareness.

Of course, we do not know what the situation was with the Denture man, and my point was only that this case would not satisfy what you had asked me about - evidence (in the scientific sense we had discussed) from an NDE/OBE - because do not have enough information to confirm that sense data would be impossible. I get that many proponents feel (quite vehemently) that we do have enough. But the question was about my perspective, which includes different knowledge and experience.

Pam Reynolds - I haven't seen any mention of a suppression ration from the surgeons' recollections or mention of EEG strips from the operation that were made available to provide this ratio. Pam Reynolds did not need to be conscious/awake (and I have stated many times that I agree that she would not be conscious under burst suppression) in order to register some words and include them in her NDE. Research into memory under anesthesia demonstrates that memories can be present without the subject becoming awake. In fact, this is fairly common (I can provide you with some references if you are interested in this).

No mention has been made of a record, recorded as Maria spoke to Kimberley Clark and prior to any investigation by Ms. Clark (and therefore blinded). Nor is there any mention of photographs which document the shoe or its location and visibility. This is the kind of information which might satisfy what you had asked me about (examples of scientific evidence pointing to impossible sense data), although we still have the problem that Maria had been in the hospital for several days prior to her NDE and we don't know what she may have been told or overhead (i.e. we don't have access to all the sense data available to her).

Part of why I said that the sighting of hidden targets would supply decent evidence was because of the situation above. Proponents will argue that sense data has been rendered impossible under conditions where we have inadequate information to determine this one way or the other. So all we end up with is one side accusing the other of credulity or unreasoning close-mindedness. The hiding of the targets can get us past that aspect. The problem which I think we all agree on, though, is that targets haven't been sighted and it doesn't seem likely they ever will - we're not sure that psi will work like that. 

Linda

Thanks for the work on this Tim. I know Linda can simply wear you down and eventually it's hard to differentiate between fact and fiction in her posts. And eventually you just loose the will to even do so.

I look forward to her response to your post.

No worries, jkmac. I don't think she'll respond because she has me on ignore, we've got history.   (That mischievous brown dog might possibly give her the heads up, don't know)  

Linda consistently criticises NDE research from her armchair.... but she never undertakes any of the hard work herself. Every persuasive veridical case is given the "FLS treatment"  (depending on what is required to try to spoil it).... tiny details that don't even matter are highlighted (the groove on a bone saw for instance) as if that in itself negates the 99% of the rest of it.

The straightforward, honest statements of attending surgeons/doctors/nurses  are re-presented with little added nuances and ambiguity as if there's some kind of problem that only she can see. There's always a problem.   
 
Some of her admirers (Arouet is a stalwart)  profess to find her sincere, sophisticated and correctly cautiously scientific but secretly they know perfectly well that it's just all a big game of charades and they love it.

For me she is the most annoying poster I have ever come across, bar none.