Afterlife Exists says Top Scientist

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yeah, I think George was trying to imply that "narrow science" was closed-minded science that isn't interested in paranormal explanations because they automatically dismiss them because they're closed-minded. As opposed to "broad science" which is open to every and any idea under the sun, because that's the only way to be open-minded.

That's kinda how it struck me, but I didn't want to presume.

Sometimes a Creationist will complain about narrow-minded science which will not allow the Intelligent Designer into science class. But if you ask them whether the Incan Creation Story should be taught alongside the Biblical Creation Story... well, you generally get a silent answer.

So I conclude that those who argue for broader-minded science are not always truly arguing for broader-minded science. I'm still curious whether George will vote to include the testimonial evidence of born-again Christians in the same way as that of meditators.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm still curious whether George will vote to include the testimonial evidence of born-again Christians in the same way as that of meditators.

I won't be ambiguous, guy . Let me satisfy that curiosity with a hardy "NO" vote

The statement that got you on this wrong track was a sentence from the Wikipedia description of Broad Science:
Ultimately and ideally, broad science would include the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners.

By 'spiritual practioners' they're referring to people 'practicing' their religions and in deep prayer and meditative states where ther brain can then be studied.

Ken Wilber, with his doctorates, books and his own institution, has no interest in studying biblical scriptures or dogma in the name of science.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I won't be ambiguous, guy . Let me satisfy that curiosity with a hardy "NO" vote

The statement that got you on this wrong track was a sentence from the Wikipedia description of Broad Science:
Ultimately and ideally, broad science would include the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners.

By 'spiritual practioners' they're referring to people 'practicing' their religions and in deep prayer and meditative states where ther brain can then be studied.

Thanks for the straightforward answer, George. We ambiguousguys secretly crave that kind of stuff -- just like everyone else -- but we're way too cool to admit it.

Anyway, I think the scientists could haul their lab equipment down to the local Assembly of God church and study born-again Christians in the act of being born again. That would seem to me as productive as any other brain-state study. Seriously. Would you still disagree with that?

Of course the AoG scientists would have to be more agile than the Zen scientists -- what with all the literal holy-rolling that goes on with some Christian worshippers.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Anyway, I think the scientists could haul their lab equipment down to the local Assembly of God church and study born-again Christians in the act of being born again. That would seem to me as productive as any other brain-state study.

I think you are absolutely right. Some have done precisely that, and the results aren't always pretty.
[youtube]q7BQKu0YP8Y[/youtube]
James Randi Debunks Peter Popoff Faith Healer - YouTube

 

[Alceste]

I think you are absolutely right. Some have done precisely that, and the results aren't always pretty.
[youtube]q7BQKu0YP8Y[/youtube]
James Randi Debunks Peter Popoff Faith Healer - YouTube

In all fairness, I wouldn't call James Randi a "scientist".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In all fairness, I wouldn't call James Randi a "scientist".

I would. I understand why you wouldn't, but I think you're mistaken. And I'm a scientist, so whatever I say goes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would.

I'm curious as to why.

 

[Alceste]

I would. I understand why you wouldn't, but I think you're mistaken. And I'm a scientist, so whatever I say goes.

I think you're falling into the trap of calling people "scientists" for no reason other than that they agree with your world view. Just like the OP describing a medical doctor as a "top scientist" because he had a strange dream. Randi is a magician by profession, has no academic credentials, has never published a paper in a reputable journal, or any other qualification we would ordinarily use to determine who is a scientist and who isn't.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think you're falling into the trap of calling people "scientists" for no reason other than that they agree with your world view. Just like the OP describing a medical doctor as a "top scientist" because he had a strange dream. Randi is a magician by profession, has no academic credentials, has never published a paper in a reputable journal, or any other qualification we would ordinarily use to determine who is a scientist and who isn't.

For what it's worth, I don't know whether Randi is a scientist, but I would claim that he behaves like a scientist. Did you see the Tonight Show business? Uri Geller was invited onto the show, but the producers let Randi set up the experiment. He didn't let Geller use his own props. He took away the various possible ways for Geller to cheat, and Geller flopped flat on his face. I think that Randi set up the experiment in the same way as a typical scientist would do.

 

[Alceste]

For what it's worth, I don't know whether Randi is a scientist, but I would claim that he behaves like a scientist. Did you see the Tonight Show business? Uri Geller was invited onto the show, but the producers let Randi set up the experiment. He didn't let Geller use his own props. He took away the various possible ways for Geller to cheat, and Geller flopped flat on his face. I think that Randi set up the experiment in the same way as a typical scientist would do.

Really? You don't know whether Randi is a scientist? What does wikipedia have to say on the subject?

Personally, I've never seen actual science done on the tonight show.

 

[fantome profane]

I think you're falling into the trap of calling people "scientists" for no reason other than that they agree with your world view. Just like the OP describing a medical doctor as a "top scientist" because he had a strange dream. Randi is a magician by profession, has no academic credentials, has never published a paper in a reputable journal, or any other qualification we would ordinarily use to determine who is a scientist and who isn't.

I agree, but does it really matter? If James Randi makes logical arguments backed up by solid scientific evidence then his conclusions should be considered valid. I have more respect for James Randi then I do for some "scientists".

 

[George-ananda]

Anyway, I think the scientists could haul their lab equipment down to the local Assembly of God church and study born-again Christians in the act of being born again. That would seem to me as productive as any other brain-state study. Seriously. Would you still disagree with that?

Yes, i would still disgree with that. What they were referring to was people, for example, in mystical states where they transcend the experience of physical consciousness and experience things like cosmic consciousness.

But not to totally disgree, there could be scientific interest in studying what happens during moments of religious ecstasy, shamanistic traditions, etc.. There are things we don't understand. We don't even understand normal waking consciousness

 

[George-ananda]

Regarding the conversation on name dropping like Dr. Alexander, Ken Wilber, James Randi, Susan Blackmore, etc...:

Alceste has made the most balanced point. It's amazing how closely credibilty correlates to whether the person supports your world-view.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Really? You don't know whether Randi is a scientist? What does wikipedia have to say on the subject?

Oh, I don't take my truth from Wiki, especially regarding definitions.

I'm a philosopher; that's who I am. But many or most people in the world might deny that I'm a philosopher. They might insist that a philosopher must have some kind of university degree in philosophy. Maybe they would even require that a person write books in order to properly call himself a philosopher.

But I don't believe that. Nor do I believe that in order to be a scientist, one must be degreed, publish in referreed journals, etc.

Personally, I've never seen actual science done on the tonight show.

OK. We just disagree, I guess. Everyone's got an opinion about things.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes, i would still disgree with that. What they were referring to was people, for example, in mystical states where they transcend the experience of physical consciousness and experience things like cosmic consciousness.

But isn't that just what born-again Christians claim the ability to do? They actually experience the Holy Spirit, directly. If that's not cosmic consciousness, I'm not sure what else could be.

So to me it would seem like an example of narrow science -- to exclude their experiences while including those of the meditators.

 

[Alceste]

I agree, but does it really matter? If James Randi makes logical arguments backed up by solid scientific evidence then his conclusions should be considered valid. I have more respect for James Randi then I do for some "scientists".

Yes, of course it matters. We skeptics don't get to go around calling James Randi - a magician by profession, with absolutely no scientific credentials - a "scientist" any more than creationists get to go around calling Ken Ham a "scientist" because he somehow managed to acquire a bachelor's degree that happens to have the word "science" in it. It matters because words have meaning. There are other words that are much more accurate than "science" for what Randi does. He is a "skeptic", but not a scientist. His methodology may be "empirical", but it is not scientific.

It's not a matter of respect. I don't have an opinion on Randi one way or another, but it seems to me he's more interested in putting on a show (like a professional magician) than he is in carefully and cautiously developing explanatory models for observed phenomena (like a professional scientist).

Also, he cherry picks the low hanging fruit. As far as I know, he's mainly concerned with exposing frauds, by which I mean people who are OBVIOUSLY frauds. Most people who experience OBE and NDE-type experiences are sincere, and are not trying to bilk anybody. They're not seeking any kind of spotlight. I would welcome a genuinely scientific explanation for my own bizarre experiences and recollections, but a person like Randi has no interest in pursuing such a thing. I have to piece together my own hypothesis from studies on cognition, neurology, quantum physics, memory, perception, psychoanalysis, etc. Partly this is because a large community of ideologues who call themselves "skeptics" make it difficult for actual scientists to do research on the subject.

 

[Alceste]

Regarding the conversation on name dropping like Dr. Alexander, Ken Wilber, James Randi, Susan Blackmore, etc...:

Alceste has made the most balanced point. It's amazing how closely credibilty correlates to whether the person supports your world-view.

Ain't that the truth! Personally, I don't think any of those people are exceptionally credible. I'm not even completely certain that I'm credible. Blackmore is the only one on the list I would call an actual scientist, though, in that she has academic credentials in her field, has published work, performed research, and contributed knowledge to her field.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes, of course it matters. We skeptics don't get to go around calling James Randi - a magician by profession, with absolutely no scientific credentials - a "scientist" any more than creationists get to go around calling Ken Ham a "scientist" because he somehow managed to acquire a bachelor's degree that happens to have the word "science" in it. It matters because words have meaning. There are other words that are much more accurate than "science" for what Randi does. He is a "skeptic", but not a scientist. His methodology may be "empirical", but it is not scientific.

It's not a matter of respect. I don't have an opinion on Randi one way or another, but it seems to me he's more interested in putting on a show (like a professional magician) than he is in carefully and cautiously developing explanatory models for observed phenomena (like a professional scientist).

Also, he cherry picks the low hanging fruit. As far as I know, he's mainly concerned with exposing frauds, by which I mean people who are OBVIOUSLY frauds. Most people who experience OBE and NDE-type experiences are sincere, and are not trying to bilk anybody. They're not seeking any kind of spotlight. I would welcome a genuinely scientific explanation for my own bizarre experiences and recollections, but a person like Randi has no interest in pursuing such a thing. I have to piece together my own hypothesis from studies on cognition, neurology, quantum physics, memory, perception, psychoanalysis, etc. Partly this is because a large community of ideologues who call themselves "skeptics" make it difficult for actual scientists to do research on the subject.

But isn't it scientific? He sets up a controlled experiment where the only varying factor is the one being tested, e.g. alleged psychic ability, not any jets of air or whatever. That's pretty much the core of what "science" is.

 

[Alceste]

But isn't it scientific? He sets up a controlled experiment where the only varying factor is the one being tested, e.g. alleged psychic ability, not any jets of air or whatever. That's pretty much the core of what "science" is.

No, it isn't science. Both Uri Geller and Randi are magicians. Randi simply explained how Geller was doing his magic tricks. I'm a musician. If I explain how Ashley MacIsaac gets his unique sound in part by playing a right-handed fiddle left-handed, or upside-down, I'm not doing science either. And if I invited MacIsaac to a talk show where he was required to play a left handed fiddle, or to play right-handed, he wouldn't have sounded very good.

 

[George-ananda]

But isn't that just what born-again Christians claim the ability to do? They actually experience the Holy Spirit, directly. If that's not cosmic consciousness, I'm not sure what else could be.

It's not at all like cosmic consciousness. Cosmic conciousness is (allegedly) your finite consciousness dropping it's ego boundary and experiencing the interconnectedness of all. The experience of the Holy Spirit is (allegedly) spiritual forces entering your consciousness.

So to me it would seem like an example of narrow science -- to exclude their experiences while including those of the meditators.

May I quote myself from the quote you are respomding to:

But not to totally disgree, there could be scientific interest in studying what happens during moments of religious ecstasy, shamanistic traditions, etc.. There are things we don't understand. We don't even understand normal waking consciousness.

You seem to really want to marry me off with conservative Christianity so I can be dismissed in an easier fashion. And I keep shouting 'I Don't' at the altar.