Afterlife Exists says Top Scientist

[Alceste]

Perhaps you could give us a brief outline and references of what you hold to be one of their more compelling scientific experiments.

I read the link he provided. They basically select their research subject from a pool of applicants for their million dollar prize. They had the lady they accepted - who claimed she could perform psychic readings - write readings for ten volunteers on cards. Then the volunteers were asked to identify their reading from the collection. Five correct choices would have been considered a success. None were able to identify their own reading.

The volunteers were completely covered (cloak, ski mask, sunglasses) and could not speak, apart from all repeating the same short poem.

It is a very good debunking, but it isn't what I would call science.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What about a list of scientists I can dig up (Dean Radin, Charles Tart, Raymond Moody, Ian Stevenson, Russel Targ and about a hundred more) whose scientific works seem to contradict your world-view. What is their credibility as scientists?

I'm not in a position to judge as I am not familiar with their work. I am happy to acknowledge anyone doing science as a scientist, even if their work contradicts my worldview.

But you seem pretty familiar with the work of James Randi. I guess it's obvious that we all wish to hear more from people on our side of the arguement. (that probably includes me too, to some extent).

Perhaps you could give us a brief outline and references of what you hold to be one of their more compelling scientific experiments.

I read the link he provided.

My question was directed to George-ananda.

It is a very good debunking, but it isn't what I would call science.

Intersubjectively-verifiable tests aimed at falsifying claims: it looks like science to me.

 

[Alceste]

My question was directed to George-ananda.

Intersubjectively-verifiable tests aimed at falsifying claims: it looks like science to me.

Perhaps my standards are higher. At minimum, I like to see a hypothesis, and some effort to control for the bias of the research team.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, I don't think dignity is what they're going for.

Yeah, I grew up with and around some of them.

But they talk about dignified worshippers with complete disdain. You're not a real Christians and certainly not filled with the Holy Spirit if you keep your hands calmly folded during worship.

I side with you on the matter, but I'm too dignified to even dance in a nightclub or shout furiously for my team during a college basketball game.

Sometimes I worry that I may be missing something important. Other times I'm very much content with myself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps my standards are higher. At minimum, I like to see a hypothesis, and some effort to control for the bias of the research team.

Science is far more hypothesis testing than hypothesis generation, and intersubjectively verifiable testing is the effort to control for the bias of the research team. You simply do not understand science.

 

[PolyHedral]

Perhaps my standards are higher. At minimum, I like to see a hypothesis, and some effort to control for the bias of the research team.

The hypothesis was that the lady could perform psychic readings. Also, I don't see what bias of the research team could make people less sure of their answers.

 

[George-ananda]

Then why can't you present some examples that you've studied and that helped convince you?

NDE's are by nature anectdotal so have flaws.

Let's go with '20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation' by Dr. Ian Stevenson. A classic for it's detail. It's the story of children telling prople about their previous existance and providing veridical details about these lives. It's good to dissect as the stories are more than anectdotal. The researcher does everything the right way. Interviews, follow-up interviews, documenting, tape-recording, studying for contamination and creibility of subjects.

The book is exhaustive with appendages and prefaces, etc. I read this cover to cover many years ago now (and it could be tedious reading if you just want to hear the exciting parts). But I perservered as an intellectual endeavor I wanted to complete.

Even skeptical types like Carl Sagan had to praise the work and wanted to see more funding for and work on this subject.

[/quote]

 

[George-ananda]

Perhaps you could give us a brief outline and references of what you hold to be one of their more compelling scientific experiments.

See my post #367. Magic Man basically asked the same question

 

[George-ananda]

I can see how you might interpret me that way, but I would say it differently. What I'm trying to do is probe your sense of fair play, your objectivity. I don't dismisss Christian bornagainism any more than I dismiss cosmic-consciousness-through-meditation. I just assume it to be a foreign belief system for you.

If you truly want science to be 'broad' rather than narrow, I think you should be wanting science to study all claims of mystical experiences, not just the ones which you champion.

Maybe you believe yourself to be doing that, but I'm unable to see a difference in kind between meditation vs. communing with the Holy Spirit vs. my poetic trances.

Read my replies, I have no problem with studying anything under the sun! But with limited time and money I would start with what seems most promising (and yes that can be subjective).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See my post #367. Magic Man basically asked the same question

It is a very nice post. Now, perhaps you could give us a brief outline and references of what you hold to be one of his more compelling scientific experiments.

 

[Magic Man]

NDE's are by nature anectdotal so have flaws.

Let's go with '20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation' by Dr. Ian Stevenson. A classic for it's detail. It's the story of children telling prople about their previous existance and providing veridical details about these lives. It's good to dissect as the stories are more than anectdotal. The researcher does everything the right way. Interviews, follow-up interviews, documenting, tape-recording, studying for contamination and creibility of subjects.

The book is exhaustive with appendages and prefaces, etc. I read this cover to cover many years ago now (and it could be tedious reading if you just want to hear the exciting parts). But I perservered as an intellectual endeavor I wanted to complete.

Even skeptical types like Carl Sagan had to praise the work and wanted to see more funding for and work on this subject.

Well, at least that's something, although I'm not sure what reincarnation has to do with NDEs (other than a vague connection regarding consciousness). Again, it's a book that I probably won't have time to get to. If I do, I'll get back to you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One view of Dr. Ian Stevenson.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is instructive as well.

 

[George-ananda]

One view of Dr. Ian Stevenson.

Wikipedia is often fine and tries to be fair but sometimes both sides have complaints.

But the SKEPTIC'S DICTIONARY ???? With the millions of words written by him and about him that's what you pick. (not being a rookie I have seen that article too). I wonder if their article on James Randi would be flattering <sarcasm> ??

I know cherry picking information when I see it.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, at least that's something, although I'm not sure what reincarnation has to do with NDEs (other than a vague connection regarding consciousness). Again, it's a book that I probably won't have time to get to. If I do, I'll get back to you.

I don't expect 99.999% of the people to ever read these books. Life's too short.

But maybe pointing out their existance will make you wonder if there's important things you don't know.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't agree. In general, a sample group of one is not considered adequate to draw sound conclusions about anything.

The number of samples was ten. This is enough to draw sound conclusions on this one particular psychic's claim, which was the purpose of the experiment.

I think it's great that they expose frauds, don't get me wrong, but putting a million dollar bet on your preferred outcome is no way to do science.

It's not a bet, it's a prize. And both bets and prizes are common in science.

Obviously this is non-traditional science but I think it illustrates the scientific method in a very simple and elegant way. That's why the American Physical Society chose to recognize Randi with an award.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The hypothesis was that the lady could perform psychic readings. Also, I don't see what bias of the research team could make people less sure of their answers.

Randi himself is often required to be somewhere far, far away when the testing is performed, because even the presence of a skeptic may interfere with the psychic energy fields .... or something. As I recall he once even sat in a room, blindfolded with earphones on, on the other side of the country, to prevent his "bad energy" from interfering with the psychic's powers during an experiment.

They bend over backwards to remove any and all bias and remember: the claimants agree beforehand to the design of the test, and they agree beforehand as to what outcome will constitute a positive vs. a negative result. It's as objective as possible, which is all one can ask of a scientific experiment.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But the SKEPTIC'S DICTIONARY ????

Shoot the messenger? Is that the best you can do? And you talk about cherry-picking in a response that reeks of selection bias. That's chutzpah! :clap

 

[Alceste]

The hypothesis was that the lady could perform psychic readings. Also, I don't see what bias of the research team could make people less sure of their answers.

Well, I would be particularly wary of any researcher who bet a million bucks on a particular outcome, then had the freedom to select his own research subjects and volunteers and design the experiment. How could you not construct a biased exercise with such a fortune riding on it?

Let me ask you, if Exxon-Mobil offered a million dollars to anyone who could prove that AGW was real, and then designed their own experimental conditions and their own unusually high standard for statistically significant results (hundreds of percent greater than random chance, as opposed to a few points), and had complete freedom to select who can or cannot compete for the prize, would you trust their results?

 

[Alceste]

The number of samples was ten. This is enough to draw sound conclusions on this one particular psychic's claim, which was the purpose of the experiment.
It's not a bet, it's a prize. And both bets and prizes are common in science.

Obviously this is non-traditional science but I think it illustrates the scientific method in a very simple and elegant way. That's why the American Physical Society chose to recognize Randi with an award.

No, the sample was one. The experiment was performed on one single person who claimed to be able to read people. The ten people she was asked to read were not being studied, they were assisting with the study of one person.

So what can we learn from this experiment? That particular woman was wrong about the explanation for whatever it is she thinks she can do. Does it mean nobody on earth has ever, or could never, glean insights on things they could not know by some as yet unexplained phenomenon? No, because the sample group is one, and the selection criteria is extremely narrow. It pretty much guarantees a selection pool of frauds and quacks, and excludes everyone who has ever dreamed of a visit from a dying parent at the moment of their death.