"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

Source that denture man was undergoing CPR when he received some sensory data ? We also lack an explanation of how he'd be able to recall in such detail and have such a high level of consciousness in such a state. 'Some awareness' is a world away from the detail he called and the type of experience he had. 

You were at full waking consciousness and purposefully trying to see if you could hear (also how can you guarantee the acoustics, background noise etc were the same? You can't). You wouldn't accept this level of person research in the proponent direction, so why should we accept the test of yours having any baring on Anita's case? And remember her brain was in an impaired state at the time.

Source for your claim about Santori? Her telling a patient everything then finding the statements read back to her remarkable seems very sloppy to me, would like a credible source that that actually happened. And what statement came from what third-hand report? More details please.

http://netwerknde.nl/wp-content/uploads/...ureman.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Near-Death-Experi...077345103X
http://iands.es/bibliografia/Sartori_Fenwick.pdf

The advantage of the hidden target is that we get to forego these kinds of arguments, where proponents want to restrict our sensory capacity and skeptics don't. None of the cases jkmac mentioned would be remarkable with some sensory function, whereas spotting a hidden target would be remarkable even with full sensory function.

Linda

One issue with your theory is that skeptics themselves have stated the evidence is at least at a reasonable level - Wiseman's infamous quote comes to mind. Is he wrong? If so, why?

He's not talking about the level of evidence that I brought up earlier. He only said that it was on par with some psychology research, which I'd agree with. As has been discovered, some psychology research also suffers from low quality.

You also state that it's not down to pigheadedness, isn't psychologists doing research attempting to debunk it 'pigheadedness'?

Not really. Lots of research is done with the expectation that the results will be negative. The question is whether someone will change their mind if it's not. 

Then you also should explain why the vast majority of people who conduct Parapsychology research or who are familiar with the literature are proponents or lean that way, if the evidence is as bad as you say it is?

Don't you think there must be a very strong selection bias there? By and large, people who conduct parapsychology research who become skeptical about that research probably leave the field, leaving behind mostly just those who believe. 

You also haven't mentioned the taboo of psi/Parapsychology, Max stated himself that Guerrer might be screwing over his career by attempting Radin's work (and succeeding, if he'd got a negative result his career would be fine). I also asked somebody to do an interview for this website, and they said only if it could be anonymous.

I agree it's not popular. I'm suggesting that there are good ways to make it more popular. 

I get the impression that you have already decided psi is impossible,

Really? Even though I very specifically said otherwise?

so you do whatever it takes to make sure you don't change your mind. If nearly everybody else as well informed as you is at least 50/50 or not a proponent of psi, why are they wrong but you're right?

Where are you getting that from? Among people who seem well-informed there seems to be a wide range of acceptance, from full acceptance to skepticism or even cynicism.

Linda

http://netwerknde.nl/wp-content/uploads/...ureman.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Near-Death-Experi...077345103X
http://iands.es/bibliografia/Sartori_Fenwick.pdf

The advantage of the hidden target is that we get to forego these kinds of arguments, where proponents want to restrict our sensory capacity and skeptics don't. None of the cases jkmac mentioned would be remarkable with some sensory function, whereas spotting a hidden target would be remarkable even with full sensory function.

Linda

Sure,,,, if it ever happens. 

But also you don't think there will be some other improbable argument like: hey, wait a minute, maybe the person overheard someone else who had just checked the system and knows the secret code? That COULD have happened right? You know, extraordinary claims, and all that,,,

No it will not be accepted by all, if it ever occurs.

Also this assumes the hidden code is readable from the astral. Evidence I've mentioned here says that it is usually not, according to Jurgen Ziewe.

I don't want you to get the impression that I think no scientists accept this stuff. I've tried to say otherwise multiple times.

What I have said is the same thing that most people say, including proponents - there hasn't been general acceptance by scientists. That is, we don't see the idea spreading and gaining acceptance through closely related fields and then further abroad, in the way that other ideas have spread. We don't see psychiatrists as a group generally picking up on Tucker's reincarnation research. We don't see physicists in general picking up on Radin's double-slit experiment. We don't see psychologists in general picking up on Bem's presentiment research (except in the expectation of getting negative results to debunk it). Etc.

Proponents attribute this to pig-headedness. I'm suggesting it's due to the level of evidence (the lack thereof) needed to change minds.

Linda

I get your point. If that works for you that's fine. And I don't mean that as a snub or a wise-crack.

I guess I feel better knowing that my position is also held by more than a handful of PhD level physicists. Which of course your's is too I realize.

Reminds me of the early days of rocketry when mythical American's said to the USSR: our Germans are smarter than your Germans... 

http://netwerknde.nl/wp-content/uploads/...ureman.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Near-Death-Experi...077345103X
http://iands.es/bibliografia/Sartori_Fenwick.pdf

The advantage of the hidden target is that we get to forego these kinds of arguments, where proponents want to restrict our sensory capacity and skeptics don't. None of the cases jkmac mentioned would be remarkable with some sensory function, whereas spotting a hidden target would be remarkable even with full sensory function.

Linda

Which link is for which claim Linda?

Haha not sure what you're talking about with the last paragraph, a man receiving CPR wouldn't have the same sensory function as a fully functioning conscious human, same as the lady who heard a conversation in a different room, they are in an impaired state, not a normal one. This is just the way things are, you want to grant people at least normal sensory function in an impaired state, a higher state of conscious awareness with what should be an impaired brain state, and the ability to recall these events in great detail.

He's not talking about the level of evidence that I brought up earlier. He only said that it was on par with some psychology research, which I'd agree with. As has been discovered, some psychology research also suffers from low quality.


Not really. Lots of research is done with the expectation that the results will be negative. The question is whether someone will change their mind if it's not. 


Don't you think there must be a very strong selection bias there? By and large, people who conduct parapsychology research who become skeptical about that research probably leave the field, leaving behind mostly just those who believe. 


I agree it's not popular. I'm suggesting that there are good ways to make it more popular. 


Really? Even though I very specifically said otherwise?


Where are you getting that from? Among people who seem well-informed there seems to be a wide range of acceptance, from full acceptance to skepticism or even cynicism.

Linda

 
1) He said according to the normal standards of science, regardless other claims of a similar level of evidence are accepted without question, but psi isn't - this is because of the subject. We've had improvements in research before where skeptics said they'd change their mind, but they didn't. The Honorton, Hyman autoganzfeld research comes to mind. 

2) Do other fields have people specifically trying to debunk when conducting an experiment? Rarely if at all. 

3) Not really, the field has always been small. I'm just stating that if the evidence was as bad as you claimed, I doubt Radin et al would carry on wasting their time. You know that the majority of Parapsychologists historically, and those who are informed today, are proponents. Most skeptics do not conduct experiments and/or are not familiar with the literature. 

4) I agree things could be done to make it popular, and that the evidence could be improved. Hardly anybody as informed as you states that the research is of a low quality, infact many people who read the literature are surprised by the high quality of the research. 

5) If you said otherwise I apologise if I missed it, I'll ask actually, what is your view on the existence of psi?

6) I didn't say that they weren't any skeptics/cynics who are well informed, just that most well informed people at least lean towards psi. Many skeptics, such as Blackmore, aren't even up to date with the research anymore.

OK. Although I disagree with just about every assertion you are making, it is nice to at least hear the details. 

Thank-you for that Linda. 

The reason I have been asking this sort of case specific question is to get to these sorts of nitty-gritty details explained in a nice simple format.

I would guess that it is unlikely that a case will come along that will comply with the level of proof you seek. But at least now I have a better idea of what that is. It's helpful for me to envision why someone would not be convinced of what I see as obvious and overwhelming evidence at this point. 

Yes, there are ways in these cases that it is just barely POSSIBLE to justify not accepting the story. It just comes down to how thin the story is that you will allow yourself to grasp on to, to support the denial. Is see these arguments as extremely thin, especially because there are literally a thousand other stories waiting that I could bring up. However I am quite sure now, based on the types of arguments I am seeing, that most, if not all of these, would allow similar and equally improbable scenarios that one could bring to bare. 

I want to be really clear though and say that I don't think you are being disingenuous at all about this in the least. Seems like you are being very genuine and reasonable in your desire to discuss this and explain your position.

Well, this problem is so pervasive that it is difficult to overcome it even when you try (let alone when you don't). Even Sartori, who was a careful researcher, fed her subjects information about their resuscitation in multiple cases, despite being on guard against this. So it seems a bit silly to me to regard this as "barely possible". At best, it seems like it's barely possible that there is a case or two out there where it hasn't happened.

Linda

Sure,,,, if it ever happens. 

But also you don't think there will be some other improbable argument like: hey, wait a minute, maybe the person overheard someone else who had just checked the system and knows the secret code? That COULD have happened right? You know, extraordinary claims, and all that,,,

No it will not be accepted by all, if it ever occurs.

Also this assumes the hidden code is readable from the astral. Evidence I've mentioned here says that it is usually not, according to Jurgen Ziewe.

I am also doubtful that it could happen (just because the descriptions of what people remember wouldn't compel it), but it is at least an example of what you asked for. I can imagine some untidiness in the circumstances which would cast doubt on the process, but let's say that the experiment was running as planned for the sake of our hypothetical.

Linda

Which link is for which claim Linda?

Haha not sure what you're talking about with the last paragraph, a man receiving CPR wouldn't have the same sensory function as a fully functioning conscious human, same as the lady who heard a conversation in a different room, they are in an impaired state, not a normal one. This is just the way things are, you want to grant people at least normal sensory function in an impaired state, a higher state of conscious awareness with what should be an impaired brain state, and the ability to recall these events in great detail.

The links should be in order.

I wasn't claiming anything about anybody's sensory state, because we don't know anybody's sensory state in those cases. I just wanted to make the point that whether or not the cases are remarkable depends upon the individual's sensory state, and we don't know what that is. Whereas a hidden target is remarkable regardless of anybody's (unknown) sensory states.

However, research looking, for example, at learning while under anesthesia, shows us that we shouldn't be making assumptions about what people can't do while unconsciousness.

Linda

The links should be in order.

I wasn't claiming anything about anybody's sensory state, because we don't know anybody's sensory state in those cases. I just wanted to make the point that whether or not the cases are remarkable depends upon the individual's sensory state, and we don't know what that is. Whereas a hidden target is remarkable regardless of anybody's (unknown) sensory states.

However, research looking, for example, at learning while under anesthesia, shows us that we shouldn't be making assumptions about what people can't do while unconsciousness.

Linda

Thanks I'll check them out!

We don't know for sure, but we have a good idea based on the fact they were receiving CPR etc, so their sensory state according to our current knowledge should be non existent, if not at least hugely impaired.

We shouldn't make assumptions, so why did you tell me you could hear 60 feet away as if that means Anita (sorry if wrong name) could? It has no bearing because as you said - we don't truly know their sensory states.