- Forum Info
- Additional Info
- Signature
- Contact
Forum Info
Joined:
2023-01-10
2023-01-10
Status:
Offline
Last Visit:
2023-07-16, 01:20 AM
Time Spent Online:
2 Days, 11 Hours, 58 Minutes
Additional Info
Total Posts:
88 (0.12 posts per day | 0.16 percent of total posts)
[Find All Posts]
Total Threads:
1 (0 threads per day | 0.02 percent of total threads)
[Find All Threads]
Members Referred:
0
0
| quirkybrainmeat's Most Liked Post | ||
| Post Subject | Post Date/Time | Numbers of Likes |
| RE: Is the Filter Theory committing the ad hoc fallacy and is it unfalsifiable? | 2023-06-25, 01:51 PM | 5 |
| Thread Subject | Forum Name | |
| Is the Filter Theory committing the ad hoc fallacy and is it unfalsifiable? |
Related Topics
Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions
|
|
| Post Message | ||
| Merle Wrote: (2023-06-25, 01:40 PM) -- This is a story of somebody who had been revived, followed by four days in a coma, and then spent 2 days awake before talking about the experience. During that time there was plenty of time to overhear details of what happened. When later asked about it, she could repeat these details as something remembered. How would this have stood up in cross-examination and careful investigation? Is this something she vividly remembered, or was she repeating what she had overheard? What did she also say about the experience that was wrong? Did she say these things after leading questions had been asked? Did the questioners misunderstand her replies? Were they driven by a desire to interpret things the way they wanted? This type of anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable. Many, for instance, have been wrongly sentenced based on anecdotal evidence. Others have been wrongly convicted after children were lead to give false evidence by repeatedly asking them leading questions. The hard physical evidence later showed those convicted were innocent. You can also hear stories of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, but neither can be confirmed with physical evidence. People hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. Anecdotes are not reliable evidence. Science looks to controlled studies, not occasional anecdotes, to establish scientific truths. Claims of survival have been studied many times in controlled studies. These consistently fail to confirm soul survival. See How not to Do Survival Research (https://philpapers.org/rec/AUGH_T-2) and When Will Survival Researchers Move Past Defending the Indefensible? (https://philpapers.org/rec/AUGWWS) -- Interestingly, a user of this forum did contact Keith Augustine about the Pam Reynolds case about her being in burst suppression given the testimony of one of the medical professionals, and Keith simply decided to deny and prefered to believe in Woerlee's claims. | ||
| quirkybrainmeat's Received and Given Likes | ||
| Likes Received | Likes Given | |
| Last week | 0 | 0 |
| Last month | 0 | 0 |
| Last 3 months | 0 | 0 |
| Last 6 months | 0 | 0 |
| Last 12 months | 0 | 0 |
| All Time | 69 | 2 |
| Most liked by | ||
| Sciborg_S_Patel | 22 | 32% |
| Ninshub | 15 | 22% |
| tim | 10 | 14% |
| Typoz | 5 | 7% |
| Brian | 3 | 4% |
| Most liked | ||
| tim | 1 | 50% |
| Kamarling | 1 | 50% |