"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

If you read the thread you can probably piece things together for yourself. And if you then work carefully backwards from the link in the OP you can get more background, I'd prefer you to try and take apart the issue, and understand it for yourself, it's complicated.

I'll try haha, only got so much time!

That was the point - BIS levels were all over the place, rather than universally low as some have tried to lead us to believe. So some sensory registration will be possible in some cases during CPR.

Linda

Well it's only two studies, we still have the issue with the reliability of BIS (the BIS score doesn't necessarily mean a person has good awareness/sensory registration, and usually NDEr's report an elevated level of consciousness), we don't know the BIS of each NDE'r, and plenty of people who have had veridical NDE's weren't receiving CPR at the time.

1) I haven't looked into it in detail, although I think there is some good quality psychology research.

2) Some of the research in to alt med therapies. Testing drugs against each other (esp. trying to debunk the idea that the expensive new drug is better than the cheap standard, or my new drug is better than your new drug). Comparing expensive screening tests with the standard (e.g. colonoscopy vs. occult blood tests for colon cancer). We'd rather discover that the cheap stuff is just as good as the new, expensive stuff or the difficult to implement stuff (e.g. anti-coagulants in atrial fibrillation).

3) Kennedy seems to believe in psi and be skeptical of the research to the same degree as me.

4) I know there are issues in medical research. But you've heard about them because of the work in evaluating the level of evidence. 

5) Probably that varies by mood - the more proponents berate me about how great the evidence is, the more it gets my back up.

6) I've noticed that the people who get the most attention are those who don't tend to be well-informed - they're more familiar with the talking points than with the actual research. I came across a lot of well-informed skeptics on the JREF forum, but they tended to get drowned out. There isn't really anywhere for them to gather, and I suspect a lot of them just move on.

Linda

1) Yeah there is some out there I'm sure, but Parapsychology has more studies with blinding etc. 

2) Thanks for the examples, I wouldn't call it debunking in the same way but I take your point. 

3) Hasn't Kennedy had several personal psi experiences?

4) Every area has people evaluating the quality of research, I only made that comment as you use medicine as a gold standard comparison to Parapsychology. 

5) I don't think it's 'THAT' great (I suspect people would be surprised if we spent this time looking in mainstream research and the issues that revealed though), but I think based on the evidence (and other factors I'm happy to elaborate on) the rational position to take is that psi is real. I was surprised by the standard personally, and am more of a proponent then I was a few years ago. I wouldn't say the same for afterlife research. 

6) Usually the charismatic and/or confident ones get the attention, but I'd wager you have better knowledge then nearly every skeptic around the world.

I'd also add to go back a little, that you overstate the evidence level as being the reason for psi not being accepted, and that it's pretty clear the 'taboo' etc play a large part. I think Parapsychologists need to do more to 'market' their research though.

Well it's only two studies, we still have the issue with the reliability of BIS (the BIS score doesn't necessarily mean a person has good awareness/sensory registration, and usually NDEr's report an elevated level of consciousness), we don't know the BIS of each NDE'r, and plenty of people who have had veridical NDE's weren't receiving CPR at the time.

The perception of an elevated level of consciousness is quite different from the awareness that the BIS would be attempting to measure. I'm not saying that the BIS is the last word. It just means that it's reasonable to question the assumptions people are making.

Can you some examples of people having veridical NDE's who weren't receiving CPR? Or do you just mean the people who have NDE's who aren't actually dead or near dead?

Linda

1) Yeah there is some out there I'm sure, but Parapsychology has more studies with blinding etc. 

2) Thanks for the examples, I wouldn't call it debunking in the same way but I take your point. 

3) Hasn't Kennedy had several personal psi experiences?

4) Every area has people evaluating the quality of research, I only made that comment as you use medicine as a gold standard comparison to Parapsychology. 

5) I don't think it's 'THAT' great (I suspect people would be surprised if we spent this time looking in mainstream research and the issues that revealed though), but I think based on the evidence (and other factors I'm happy to elaborate on) the rational position to take is that psi is real. I was surprised by the standard personally, and am more of a proponent then I was a few years ago. I wouldn't say the same for afterlife research. 

6) Usually the charismatic and/or confident ones get the attention, but I'd wager you have better knowledge then nearly every skeptic around the world.

I'd also add to go back a little, that you overstate the evidence level as being the reason for psi not being accepted, and that it's pretty clear the 'taboo' etc play a large part. I think Parapsychologists need to do more to 'market' their research though.

3) I believe that's what he says (I have as well, FWIW).

4) I know it's counter-intuitive, but I suspect that the areas you are used to regarding as trouble-prone are probably better off than the areas you are used to regarding as somewhat trouble-free.

Well, to come full circle, I agree that parapsychology does not have a good reputation. I don't know if 'taboo' is the right word, since clearly scientists are participating in the field. The same claim could be made about alt med, yet millions have been spent by the US government for research into the therapies. Research goes on in all sorts of areas that other scientists make fun of. What gets people to shut up, what garners respect for an idea, is research which offers decent evidence for the idea. Barry Marshall likes to play up the fact that people made fun of his idea that H. pylori causes gastric ulcers. But once his good quality studies backed up the idea, it took off and he ended up with a Noble prize. I've seen lots of ideas which are just as unacceptable as psi become acceptable in the face of evidence. I think parapsychologists are on the right track with the recommendations which have been made by those I mentioned in my original post. It's a matter of having the patience to follow through on them. I noticed that the study Guerrer did on the double-slit experiment didn't seem to be pre-registered.

Linda

The perception of an elevated level of consciousness is quite different from the awareness that the BIS would be attempting to measure. I'm not saying that the BIS is the last word. It just means that it's reasonable to question the assumptions people are making.

Can you some examples of people having veridical NDE's who weren't receiving CPR? Or do you just mean the people who have NDE's who aren't actually dead or near dead?

Linda

Right, so if the perception of an elevated level of consciousness is different then what the BIS is measuring, then we agree it's not that relevant. And NDE's already question assumptions on their own!

The case of Lloyd's Rudy patient (Case 3.11 in 'the self does not die). The CPR had been stopped and he was declared dead. Another example is the case of Tom Aufderheide's patient (Case 3.13) "Aufderheide pointed out that the patient’s paranormal impressions started at a time when the patient’s resuscitation had not even been started yet." Apparently there is more but I haven't bought the book yet, will give you more examples when i do!

Sorry for the bad format above - just asked an NDE researcher and got a quick reply which I cope pasted. He has sent me many more as well.

3) I believe that's what he says (I have as well, FWIW).

4) I know it's counter-intuitive, but I suspect that the areas you are used to regarding as trouble-prone are probably better off than the areas you are used to regarding as somewhat trouble-free.

Well, to come full circle, I agree that parapsychology does not have a good reputation. I don't know if 'taboo' is the right word, since clearly scientists are participating in the field. The same claim could be made about alt med, yet millions have been spent by the US government for research into the therapies. Research goes on in all sorts of areas that other scientists make fun of. What gets people to shut up, what garners respect for an idea, is research which offers decent evidence for the idea. Barry Marshall likes to play up the fact that people made fun of his idea that H. pylori causes gastric ulcers. But once his good quality studies backed up the idea, it took off and he ended up with a Noble prize. I've seen lots of ideas which are just as unacceptable as psi become acceptable in the face of evidence. I think parapsychologists are on the right track with the recommendations which have been made by those I mentioned in my original post. It's a matter of having the patience to follow through on them. I noticed that the study Guerrer did on the double-slit experiment didn't seem to be pre-registered.

Linda

3) Interesting, care to share? No worries if not.

4) You don't know what areas of medicine I have suspicions about!

Some scientists are participating, and I think you are being overly kind about the effect of evidence and it's abilities to change peoples minds. Usually it takes time, and it some cases tens to hundreds of years, for minds to change. I would also argue that due to it's links to spirituality etc, the fraud of psychics/mediums psi is a more difficult idea to get acceptance for then H.pylori causing gastric ulcers. (There's also organisations literally dedicated to 'debunking' Parapsychology and related topics). I agree, but Parapsychologists have been accepting recommendations for years, the evidence is still coming, I want them to keep improving but I don't think implementing the newer recommendations will magically gain acceptance). Guerrer probably wasn't pre-registered because he's not a Parapsychologist, it's hard enough to get independent attempts at replications as it is, though every Parapsychologist has no excuse not to pre-register. (I don't think this is an issue though, due to Parapsychologists publishing null results and the file drawer effect effectively being ruled out at this stage).

Some scientists are participating, and I think you are being overly kind about the effect of evidence and it's abilities to change peoples minds. Usually it takes time, and it some cases tens to hundreds of years, for minds to change. I would also argue that due to it's links to spirituality etc, the fraud of psychics/mediums psi is a more difficult idea to get acceptance for then H.pylori causing gastric ulcers. (There's also organisations literally dedicated to 'debunking' Parapsychology and related topics). I agree, but Parapsychologists have been accepting recommendations for years, the evidence is still coming, I want them to keep improving but I don't think implementing the newer recommendations will magically gain acceptance).

That's a good point.

Guerrer probably wasn't pre-registered because he's not a Parapsychologist, it's hard enough to get independent attempts at replications as it is, though every Parapsychologist has no excuse not to pre-register. (I don't think this is an issue though, due to Parapsychologists publishing null results and the file drawer effect effectively being ruled out at this stage).

He did contact Radin though, who I would hope would be in the habit of encouraging pre-registration.

I suspect pre-registration will be more useful with respect to flexibility in outcomes and selective reporting, than with the failure to report.

Linda

Roberta

Right, so if the perception of an elevated level of consciousness is different then what the BIS is measuring, then we agree it's not that relevant. And NDE's already question assumptions on their own!

We were talking about sensory awareness, not the perception of an elevated level of consciousness, which is why I brought up the BIS (relevant to the former, not to the latter).

The case of Lloyd's Rudy patient (Case 3.11 in 'the self does not die). The CPR had been stopped and he was declared dead.

That would have been an excellent case to write up as a case report. Although, I guess not remembering the patient's name or when it happened would make that difficult.

Another example is the case of Tom Aufderheide's patient (Case 3.13) "Aufderheide pointed out that the patient’s paranormal impressions started at a time when the patient’s resuscitation had not even been started yet." 

Apparently there is more but I haven't bought the book yet, will give you more examples when i do!

This is the story I saw:
http://www.allaboutheaven.org/observatio...ent-011248

Sorry, but nobody's sitting there eating lunch if a patient is in cardiac arrest and no CPR is being performed.

Linda