Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would argue that a detailed description of the T-shirt would count as evidence for the supernatural. (Assuming that we have good reasons to think that the guy never saw the t-shirt before his NDE)

The claim that I need prior evidence for the supernatural seems circular ,

There's nothing circular about that.
You can't just assume that the supernatural exist. You actually need to support that.
You are invoking an unevidenced entity / force / what-have-you to explain away an unexplained thing.

You are essentially trying to explain a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery.


I shouldn't have to explain why that is pointless.

 

[Lekatt]

Maybe I can help?
I experienced an NDE when I was 49-years-old. It had such an impact on me I have been experiencing spiritual events and studying NDEs for over 30 years. I have a blog on them and a web site. I have written a lot about them over the years. Without trying to change the beliefs of anyone I may be able to answer some questions. I don't know everything about the spiritual world, I don't think anyone living in the physical does. But I have learned a lot over the years. Love

 

[leroy]

There's nothing circular about that.
You can't just assume that the supernatural exist.

Rejecting supernatural hypothesis because there is no prior evidence for the supernatural is circular reasoning.

It´s impossible to have “prior evidence” is all evidence is rejected by default (because there is no prior evidence)

Given that you haven presented any conclusive evidence against the “supernatural” the default answer should be agnosticism (perhaps there is supernatural perhaps not, both are realistic possibilities)… rejecting supernatural by default is fallacious .

You are essentially trying to explain a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery.

.

So what? there is nothing wrogn about explainig a mystery appealing to an other mystery.

A doctor can conclude that a patient was infected with a virus, even if the origin of that virus remains a mystery…….. Perhaps the Doctor has no idea where the virus came from, nor how did it infected the patient, but he can still conclude that the virus is the most probable explanation .

The point is that there is nothing wrong with “solving” a mystery with another mystery, this happens all the time in science (do you agree with this specific point?)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what? there is nothing wrogn about explainig a mystery appealing to an other mystery.

I think we have arrived at Terminus here.

If that is what you believe, then any conversation with you is pointless. And it also explains quite a few things about your stubborn insistence on a few key points and the thought patterns that underpin it.


As long as you don't rectify this obvious illogical nonsense, you won't even understand where you go wrong.


Here's a hint: the word explain means to "make clear" to "raise understanding". You don't do that by appealing to another mystery. In fact, you accomplish THE OPPOSITE by doing that: it raises even more questions, makes things LESS clear and it DECREASES understanding.

A doctor can conclude that a patient was infected with a virus, even if the origin of that virus remains a mystery……..

The virus would be very observable and demonstrably exist. Where it came from is another question.

The diagnose of "infected with a virus", IMPLIES that the virus was found and identified. And that would be independently verifiable.

So where is the "spirit that leaves the body"? How can the existence of that be independently verified?

The point is that there is nothing wrong with “solving” a mystery with another mystery, this happens all the time in science (do you agree with this specific point?)

No, that doesn't happen in science.

 

[Lekatt]

Mark Twain, Samuel Clemons, said:

"Some people think they can,
and
Some people think they can't."
"They both are correct."

What you believe controls you, think about it.

 

[leroy]

Only if you formally define exactly what "out of body experience" actually means.

That the mind/conscience of an individual left the body and had experiences outside the body.

This is what I mean

Nothing have really changed from my previous comments and you're still conflating the effects with the proposed cause (and not just you). All the discussion here is refers to effects, mainly individuals purportedly gaining knowledge without any apparent means for them to gain it. Even if we're accept/confirm such a claim, in itself it proves nothing.

The combination of.

1 A guy claiming to have an experience that felt like an out of body experience

2 he is accursedly describing with detail stuff from the real world

3 there are good reason to think that he didn’t have knowledge about the stuff that he is describing before the NDE

The combination of 1+2+3 makes “real NDE” the most probable explanation, any disagreement?


.

[] You would still need to provide positive evidence for any specific proposed mechanism or process (such as "out of body experience"), which itself would require that formal definition as the basis for your hypothesis.

and why woudlnt the combination of 1+2+3 count as positive evidence?

 

[sun rise]

@TagliatelliMonster said: ↑
I classify it as quackery masquerading as science.

So making observations, asking questions and sharing data and ideas is "quackery" to you.

The real process of science

Hypothesis: reincarnation is real
Expected results: some people will remember past lives
Actual results: some people remember what seem like past lives.
Is this proof? No. There are alternative explanations for the data but the data is real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So making observations, asking questions and sharing data and ideas is "quackery" to you.

No.

But presenting "conclusions" using quantum word salad jargon, while none of those included in the "studies" actually have any credentials or qualifications whatsoever in those fields, and making all kinds of fantastical claims based on ONLY the anecdotal claims of children while not even using a control group and not doing any kind of additional research or taking any measures whatsoever to try and minimize selection bias, confirmation bias or impose any type of scrutiny whatsoever............. that's quackery to me.


And that your biggest supporter is Deepak Chopra, who's like Lead Quacker in this area, off course does not help.

The real process of science
View attachment 56885


Hypothesis: reincarnation is real
Expected results: some people will remember past lives
Actual results: some people remember what seem like past lives.

Fantastic example of confirmation and selection bias.


Also, how did one come up with those "expected results".
You can call them that, but what they really are are "wanted results".

And then they actively try and look for them. No control group. No decent sample size. No verifiability. Just people making claims and the "researchers" merely hearing what they wanted to hear.


Also, I would not expect such results. Memories are stored in physical brains. If there is such a thing as "reincarnation", then I would NOT expect memories to "carry over", as memories are experiences being stored in neural pathways in the physical brains.

 

[HonestJoe]

That the mind/conscience of an individual left the body and had experiences outside the body.

That's fine but I was thinking something more technical and mechanical. The idea of the mind or conscience leaving the body is entirely alien to the standard psychological and physical understanding of those concepts. That doesn't automatically mean you're wrong, but if you're proposing something new, potentially even contradictory to current understanding, I'd suggest you'd need to go in to a lot more detail.

The combination of 1+2+3 makes “real NDE” the most probable explanation, any disagreement?

I'd avoid the term "real NDE" entirely as that still isn't describing the mechanism. The focus is really the proposed "out of body experience" (you've not even established that it can only happen during NDEs after all). Again though, that needs a more details technical definition.

In this hypothetical specifically, I'd suggest it doesn't have enough to say OBE (or indeed anything else) is the "most probably explanation". "We don't know" is always the default position and you need strong evidence to move on from that at all. Any actual case would also require a lot more detail on the key points.

One of the issues with reported/claimed NDE cases is that sufficient detail often isn't accurately recorded in the first place, with much reported second-hand, from memory and on the basis of a presumed explanation. That is why the scientists legitimately looking in to this field tend to focus on establishing procedures to gather evidence at the time rather than just after the fact, seeking clearer understanding of what actually happens (rather than what people perceive or recall happening). Only with that can we really start talking about what could be the cause(s).

and why woudlnt the combination of 1+2+3 count as positive evidence?

Positive evidence for what exactly though? "Real NDE" or "an out of body experience" aren't sufficient answers to that question. A sufficient answer would be in paragraphs, not a single abstract label.

 

[tas8831]

And further are we to assume that the skeptical quote

"Skeptical"? The quote SUPPORTED him!

 

[tas8831]

Hypothesis: reincarnation is real
Expected results: some people will remember past lives

If reincarnation is real, why wouldn't ALL people remember past lives? Seems awfully arbitrary.

Actual results: some people remember what seem like past lives.

Actual actual results: some people CLAIM that they can remember what seem like past lives

Is this proof? No. There are alternative explanations for the data but the data is real.

Unreliable data, yes. Testimonials are notoriously bad at reflecting real events.

 

[tas8831]

That the mind/conscience of an individual left the body and had experiences outside the body.

This is what I mean





The combination of.

1 A guy claiming to have an experience that felt like an out of body experience

2 he is accursedly describing with detail stuff from the real world

3 there are good reason to think that he didn’t have knowledge about the stuff that he is describing before the NDE

The combination of 1+2+3 makes “real NDE” the most probable explanation, any disagreement?


.

and why woudlnt the combination of 1+2+3 count as positive evidence?

These are all hypotheticals. You seem to just want to ignore all of the actually documented cases of fraud and fakery.

 

[tas8831]

The point is that there is nothing wrong with “solving” a mystery with another mystery, this happens all the time in science (do you agree with this specific point?)

Examples please.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because the probability of dreaming something by chance that happens to correspond to something from the real world is low, (especially if the observation is specific and detailed)

What calculations did you carry out to determine that?

I dream about things that happen in reality all the time. I don't see anything remarkable about that. Our brains interact with reality on a daily basis, so it's not all that weird that reality would seep into our dreams.

If I ever have an experience that “feels” like an out of body experience, go* to my mothers house, and see her eating popcorn while watching a specific show in the TV. I might wake up and conclude that it was just a dream

But if I call my mother and she tells me that indeed she was eating popcorn and watching that TV show I would conclude that probably* my NDE was real. And quote frankly I would say that it is a rational conclusion………………any disagreement? Wouldn’t you conclude the same?

Why would you conclude that based on such unremarkable events?
I've seen my mother eating popcorn and watching TV before. I know she watches her favourite show every single Thursday night while eating popcorn. If I have a dream about that, is that remarkable, or is the dream just a reflection of my experiences with reality?

 

[KWED]

Rejecting supernatural hypothesis because there is no prior evidence for the supernatural is circular reasoning.

No it isn't.
Circular reasoning is where you begin with the conclusion you are trying to arrive at. (eg. "The afterlife exists because our soul goes there")

Rejecting unsupported assertions as evidence is not circular reasoning because it relies on accepting evidence, not making unsupported assertions.

It´s impossible to have “prior evidence” is all evidence is rejected by default (because there is no prior evidence)

Claims for the supernatural are not rejected because claims for the supernatural are rejected. They are rejected because they provide no evidence to support them.

Given that you haven presented any conclusive evidence against the “supernatural” the default answer should be agnosticism (perhaps there is supernatural perhaps not, both are realistic possibilities)… rejecting supernatural by default is fallacious .

Bu that's not how it works. We don't assign a 50/50 probability to every event for which there is no certain outcome.
If your ice-cream vanished from your freezer and your flat mate said "It wasn't me, it was the invisible dragon living in the oven" would you be "agnostic" about the actual culprit?

We have incontrovertible, absolute evidence for everything that we have an explanation for, happening by natural processes.
We have no evidence for anything happening by magic.
We don't even have any evidence that magic exists in the first place.
Therefore if the choice for an explanation for an observation is "natural process" or "magic", the most reasonable choice is always "natural process".

Your argument is basically "Magic exists because if magic existed, it would be the best explanation for stuff that happens by magic".
Not gonna lie, you are getting a D- for that!

there is nothing wrogn about explainig a mystery appealing to an other mystery.

Are you serious? Of course there is!
Is the motion of a car engine best explained by internal combustion, or by invisible engine fairies?

A doctor can conclude that a patient was infected with a virus, even if the origin of that virus remains a mystery…….. Perhaps the Doctor has no idea where the virus came from, nor how did it infected the patient, but he can still conclude that the virus is the most probable explanation .

But if he knows that it is a viral infection, it is not a mystery. However, if the origin of the virus was unknown, he wouldn't claim it was magical.
Also, if an illness is undiagnosed, some kind of infection or reaction, or organ failure, or immune system problem (none of which are mysteries) would be a better explanation than magic.

The point is that there is nothing wrong with “solving” a mystery with another mystery, this happens all the time in science (do you agree with this specific point?)

Could you give an example of a "scientific mystery" has been solved by invoking another "mystery"?

 

[KWED]

The combination of.
1 A guy claiming to have an experience that felt like an out of body experience
2 he is accursedly describing with detail stuff from the real world
3 there are good reason to think that he didn’t have knowledge about the stuff that he is describing before the NDE

The combination of 1+2+3 makes “real NDE” the most probable explanation, any disagreement?

and why woudlnt the combination of 1+2+3 count as positive evidence?

Oh dear.
The problem with this argument has been explained in detail. Yet you are still using it. Whether this is through dishonesty or a genuine inability to understand simple concepts is yet to be determined.

Now, if by point 3 you mean that by some repeatable, testable process it has been determined that the subject had gained information it was impossible to have gained by any other means that a genuine OBE, then yes, it would suggest an OBE.
The problem is that such a scenario does not exist, and attempts to generate it have always failed.

So all you are saying is "If X could be proved to be true, then X would be true".
Well, no **** Sherlock!
But before you can claim X is true, you have to prove it is true.

 

[sun rise]

If reincarnation is real, why wouldn't ALL people remember past lives? Seems awfully arbitrary.

Why don't some people catch COVID, others get a mild case and some die. Seems awfully arbitrary.

The point is that science does not explain everything related to a phenomenon initially in a large number of cases. The discrepancy is real and investigation is warranted.

Actual actual results: some people CLAIM that they can remember what seem like past lives
...
Unreliable data, yes. Testimonials are notoriously bad at reflecting real events.

Claims are nothing.

[Evidence that suggest the reality of reincarnation] - PubMed

Worldwide, children can be found who reported that they have memories of a previous life. More than 2,500 cases have been studied and their specifications have been published and preserved in the archives of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia (United States). ... In many cases, the revelations of the children have been verified and have corresponded to a particular individual, already dead. A good number of these children have marks and birth defects corresponding to wounds on the body of his previous personality. Many have behaviors related to their claims to their former life: phobias, philias, and attachments. Others seem to recognize people and places of his supposed previous life, and some of their assertions have been made under controlled conditions. The hypothesis of reincarnation is controversial. We can never say that it does not occur, or will obtain conclusive evidence that it happens. The cases that have been described so far, isolated or combined, do not provide irrefutable proof of reincarnation, but they supply evidence that suggest its reality.

 

[George-ananda]

"Skeptical"? The quote SUPPORTED him!

Huh, I'm confused. Not that it matters, but the quote I was referring to was intended to cast skeptical doubt on Sabom's ability to be objective.

 

[KWED]

Hypothesis: reincarnation is real
Expected results: some people will remember past lives
Actual results: some people remember what seem like past lives.
Is this proof? No. There are alternative explanations for the data but the data is real.

That's a pretty meaningless argument.

Hypothesis: X is real
Expected results: some people will claim to have experienced X
Actual results: some people claim to have experienced X, but there is no evidence to support their claim.
Is this proof? No. There are alternative explanations for the data but the data is real.

And if the alternative explanations have actual evidence, while the hypothesis has none (as in your example), then the alternatives are the better explanations.
In which case, it is unreasonable to insist that X is real, even though that possibility remains.

This is where the religionist's understanding of evidence and explanation seems to fall apart.
The rational/scientific/evidence-based argument isn't "X does not exist". It is "given all the verifiable data we have, it seems likely that X does not exist".
The religionist, on the other hand, argues that because they believe X exists, and there are people who claim to have experienced X, therefore X must exist and any evidence to the contrary can be ignored.
And this is an important point. The religionist/spiritualist argues that even the most unreliable anecdote qualifies as "evidence" if it supports their position, and must be considered, but repeatable, testable experimental evidence can be just waved away if it doesn't suit them.

 

[Lekatt]

Near Death Experiences are natural occurrences. They happen because we humans are spiritual first and human second. The evidence for this is in hundreds of NDEs that have been verified by surgeons and medical personal present at the time it happens. It's OK with me if others believe or not. I had the experience myself and know for me there is no doubt.