# Can you have out of body experiences?



## Kramodlog (Mar 10, 2014)

A girl can do it at will. 



> _Messier and his co-author interviewed the student and had her undergo an MRI to see if her brain activity might shed light on her unusual ability.Messier said the girl first noticed her ability when she was a child and had a hard time going to sleep during naps. To pass the time she would "float" above her body._
> _"I feel myself moving, or, more accurately, can make myself feel as if I am moving. I know perfectly well that I am not actually moving," the student told the researchers. "In fact, I am hyper-sensitive to my body at that point, because I am concentrating so hard on the sensation of moving…For example, if I 'spin' for long enough, I get dizzy."_
> _Messier said at some point the student's brain showed similar activity to that of a high-level athlete who can vividly imagine themselves winning a competition. One difference, however, was that her brain activity was focused on one side, and the athletes usually show activity on both brain hemispheres._
> _Messier said more study was needed, but he said that this discovery could mean many more people have this ability but find it "unremarkable." The discovery could be similar to how synesthesia, a mix of multiple senses, was discovered in a wider population._
> _Alternately, the ability could be something that everyone is able to do as an infant or child, but lose as they get older._


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2014)

Black text on black background.  (Info here).

But in answer to the bit I can read - the thread title - no, I cannot.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Mar 11, 2014)

Sort of. At several points I suffered through some severe hypoglycemia and felt like I was watching the scene when others tried to help me. I felt like a neutral observer musing about the chances of the helpers to, well, help me.

But I don't recall whether I actually _saw_ myself from the outside, though. Actually I think these out-of-body experiences are the product of the subject's fantasy, perhaps a bit like deja-vus.


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

Yes people can do this and yes there is evidence. It's documented all over the place if you start looking into it. People being under while at hospital and having out of body experiences, watching everything that happens and then being able to state who was in the room, where they were and what was said. Out of body experiences are only a problem if you are a materialist, but then so is dark matter, paranormal experiences, what a 'thought' is and how much it weighs and so on. In which case, a materialist has to deny the documentation on this, claim that is anecdotal and therefore doesn't count (note - despite eye witness accounts being admissible in courts of law of course, but then double standards abound) or make statements about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence (they don't: all evidence is equal as all facts are equal).


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> Out of body experiences are only a problem if you are a materialist, but then so is dark matter, paranormal experiences, what a 'thought' is and how much it weighs and so on.




Please don't categorize dark matter with paranormal experiences.  They aren't anywhere near equivalent.

"Materialsts" don't have to go very far to explain the described phenomenon - the person has some awareness of their environment in a semi-conscious state.  Done.  Nothing all that strange about it.  The sensation of being outside the body is no more strange than, for example, seeing oneself from a third-person perspective in a dream.


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

A memory of the actual experience, from an outside perspective, is what happens, even though the person is unconscious and cannot possibly know those details which they recall. Go read the literature on this stuff. What you think an out of body experience is and argue for - and what is reported by those that have them - are not the same thing.

Dark matter cannot be detected directly, the theory of gravity tells us it is there or the universe would simply not hold together. A substance spanning multiple dimensions that can only be inferred that it exists is really very paranormal. Similarly with dark energy. And thoughts, which exist in our minds, but do not correspond to the physical structure of the brain, i.e. a neuron is not a thought, nor a chemical, but something else more mysterious.


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

A point of clarity - in assuming that out of body experiences are merely dreams, one is falling into a trap. If the dream revealed events that you could not possibly know, but  nonetheless were confirmed by those that you dreamt about, then it would  be similar to a dream. Otherwise, it really isn't. My advice is to go read about these incidents and challenge what you think you know about the nature of reality.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 11, 2014)

I believe that Umbran's issue is that there's more proof to dark matter, gravity, etc than 'this guy that was on a lot of drugs (properly prescribed and administered, of course, but still drugs) says it happened'.

I've had some ... questionable experiences in my day that left me feeling a lot of different sensations.  What I know about them is that not a one was real.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I've had some ... questionable experiences in my day that left me feeling a lot of different sensations.  What I know about them is that not a one was real.



Keep telling yourself that. 

/smokes cigarette


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

Dark matter is _inferred_ and there is no concrete proof of it. Almost by definition there can't be. It's possible that our theory of gravity is just wrong and variable gravity is correct (or one of a handful of alternative theories). What you are really talking about is is an assumption that because something is accepted by the mainstream of science that there must be evidence for it and lots of it, too. Yet this isn't how science works at all. Theories stand (based upon observations) until they are disproven. They are not proven first. They do not even have to be replicated. Or replicable. Take for example the theory of multiple parallel universes.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> Dark matter is _inferred_ and there is no concrete proof of it. Almost by definition there can't be. It's possible that our theory of gravity is just wrong and variable gravity is correct (or one of a handful of alternative theories). What you are really talking about is is an assumption that because something is accepted by the mainstream of science that there must be evidence for it and lots of it, too. Yet this isn't how science works at all. Theories stand (based upon observations) until they are disproven. They are not proven first. They do not even have to be replicated. Or replicable. Take for example the theory of multiple parallel universes.



Are there scientifict theories about projecting our souls outside our bodies?


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

> Are there scientifict theories about projecting our souls outside our bodies?




No. This is considered to be outside of the domain of science, being applicable to the human soul and therefore more the domain of religion and/or spirituality. Modern science is atheistic at its core and resists the inclusion of paranormal data which might contradict materialistic views of the universe on the face of it, despite including what are essentially paranormal theories in its body (such as parallel universes, which work just as well for heaven, hell, asgard, etc as any religious idea does). The difference is that in the latter case it doesn't realise it is doing it. E.g. a Christian could easily claim that dark matter is heaven or something like this, but that idea would never appear in science even though it is just effectively different words that describe the same thing (hidden realms within the universe ... as in the Celtic otherworld perhaps).


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> /smokes cigarette




Those aren't the experiences to which I was referring.  Don't worry, I'll never forget our night in Detroit.



kingius said:


> Dark matter is _inferred_ and there is no concrete proof of it. Almost by definition there can't be. It's possible that our theory of gravity is just wrong and variable gravity is correct (or one of a handful of alternative theories). What you are really talking about is is an assumption that because something is accepted by the mainstream of science that there must be evidence for it and lots of it, too. Yet this isn't how science works at all. Theories stand (based upon observations) until they are disproven. They are not proven first. They do not even have to be replicated. Or replicable. Take for example the theory of multiple parallel universes.




There are varying degrees of 'no concrete proof', I'm afraid.  There's been a lot more research into what we're discussing now than there has been into out of body whatevering.  It's really nothing more than some drugged up people talking about what they experienced while high.  It's only slightly more credible than a friend on acid telling you that your face morphed into an eagle's head.  'A lot of people said so' isn't evidence at all.  'A lot of people' said there were witches and killed those witches.  Does that make those folks actually witches or is there possibly some other explanation?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> A point of clarity - in assuming that out of body experiences are merely dreams, one is falling into a trap. If the dream revealed events that you could not possibly know...




Folks would be very surprised at how much you "could not possibly know" that is, in fact, readily available information.  



> My advice is to go read about these incidents and challenge what you think you know about the nature of reality.




Already have.  I'm not impressed.  The people gathering data in this field seem to have a less-than-adequate grasp of what constitutes a controlled experiment.

I'm a physicist.  I challenge what I think I know about the nature of reality fairly regularly.  I, however, have a pretty high bar on what I consider evidence, as opposed to anecdote.


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

Here's how science attempts to deal with this problem. It attempts to reduce it to simply brain activity. However to do this, it has to completely ignore the aspects of the reports which contradict this theory. For example, the reports of people knowing exactly who was in the room while they were unconscious and where they were stood, what they said to each other and so on, details which are confirmed by the people themselves as being true.

Now for the scientific reduction to work it must be presented as being the truth and discourage people from looking at the original reports themselves. Effectively it dismisses them as being worthless and because people to not research it for themselves they do not know that the theory being presented is not just inaccurate but completely wrong. Hence, we must look at what is being described by the theory, in this case we must actually read the reports of people who claim to have had these experiences and determine if the accepted theory has been disproven. I.e. we determine if reductionism of all activity to the brain is sufficient to explain this phenomena... or if the wool is being pulled over our collective eyes.


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

> as opposed to anecdote.




All science is based upon observations and anecdote is also eye witness testimony which can get someone locked up for life in a murder trial, so I cry foul to the double standards you are hiding behind. Don't take this personally, mainstream scientists are all doing this, it's indemic because critical thinking is not being applied to the scientific method itself ... or the assumptions which scientists are building theories on top of. Effectively, this ends the discussion because it starts to get philosophical and we stray from the point too far.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> Dark matter is _inferred_ and there is no concrete proof of it.




Correct.  But then, the observations that made it clear that we need more mass to describe the motions of bodies in the Universe are fairly recent.  Patience.

I note, however, that inference is very powerful.  We infer your own existence from your postings, for example.  Do you suggest we should also question whether you exist?  



> Almost by definition there can't be.




No.  By definition our normal telescopes can't directly observe the stuff.  That doesn't mean there can be no concrete proof of it - we simply have to use indirect observations, or tools other than telescopes.



> It's possible that our theory of gravity is just wrong and variable gravity is correct (or one of a handful of alternative theories).




Yes, this is possible.  Cosmologists don't deny it.



> Theories stand (based upon observations) until they are disproven. They are not proven first. They do not even have to be replicated. Or replicable. Take for example the theory of multiple parallel universes.




You seem to be conflating the common language version of "theory" with the way the term is used in science.  Among scientists, if an idea is untested, it is more usually referred to as an "Hypothesis".  It becomes a theory only after the hypothesis is put through tests and found to be fairly solid.

There are wide swaths of hypotheses that cannot be tested, as they make no predictions.  The hypothesis that there are universes outside our own is very nice, but unless you also posit that the boundaries between universes are crossed regularly in a particular way, or that the existence of another universe implies something specific that will happen in ours, then there's nothing to test.  We can neither confirm nor deny the existence of other universes, as we have no way to check and see if they might be there.

Mind you, other universes are completely consistent with modern quantum mechanics.  There's nothing in the way of them being there.  But, the point is mostly moot, as we don't seem to interact with other universes in a meaningful way.  Who cares if there's another universe, if you can't get there from here?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> For example, the reports of people knowing exactly who was in the room while they were unconscious and where they were stood, what they said to each other and so on, details which are confirmed by the people themselves as being true.




Which is pretty easily explained by the subject in question still being able to hear and/or see.  Unless you also verify that brain death had occurred (and a flat EEG is not brain death), this is a possibility.


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

Yes these are out of body experiences reported during what are called NDE's. I highly recommend that you read these as they speak for themselves and put together a more convincing case than I ever could. In addition you'll be getting to the source which the materialist theories are attempting to conceal by misrepresenting the facts. Anyway I would like to not argue and would prefer for people to go see for themselves and make their own minds up, arguing the toss on an online forum doesn't serve either of us very well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 11, 2014)

I don't particularly remember any out of body experience, but I believe they are possible, and that they are not supernatural or have anything to do with our souls leaving the body.

It is a matter of perception and memories, both are not perfect.

As Umbran stated - you may just underestimate at what an "unconcious" body can actually percieve. I don't remember hearing while I sleep, but my ears still function, as do my eyes (it's just with the eyelids closed, they don't see much). I don't remember in the morning all the sensations that my skin felt, or the taste in my mouth, or the smell my nose detected.

So I find it not hard to believe that some part of the brain actually registers something going on around it, people in the room, what they talk about. 
But in the state you find yourself during a "out-of-body" experience, this information is not correctly assembled the way it usually is, so it appears "out of body".

Our brain does a lot of fancy stuff that we never conciously register. For example, it is correcting brightness, for the effect our natural eye lenses (including the fact that the image of the outside world appear upside down on our receptors, but are turned the right way - and it can adapt to this changing, if you wear special googles that revert the image beforehand, the brain eventually corrects for this and makes the effect disappear). 

One of the things it seems to do is correctly give us a sense where and even when stuff happens (eye and ear are synchronized normally, and it can actually happen that people with a particular defect can constantly see stuff desynchronized, creating a perceptable delay between the perception of sound for an event and the perception of sight - e.g. seeing people speak and hearing the words come out a bit later). 

So I figure an out of body experience is the result of a particular aspect in our brain not quite working as it normally does. That some people can conciously create this state is fascinating - it makes one wonder what kind of effects we could also get a level of concious control over (can everyone do it, or are their requisite elements to it you cannot just train? I may be wrong, but I think synesthesia cannot be "learned").


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

> So I figure an out of body experience is the result of a  particular aspect in our brain not quite working as it normally  does.




While that may be true in your particular case -  and a good deal others - it cannot be true in all of them because it  just does not fit the facts for all reported cases. And that, in a  nutshell, is the problem with reductionism to brain activity (a  cornerstone of the materialist philosophy) being used as an attempt to  explain this type of phenomena. So we are left with two choices; either  the explanation is wrong or the people who experience it (for example  whilst being clinically dead and then later revived, either through a  defibrillator or waking up in a morgue or some other strange  circumstance) are wrong despite this being well documented and not being  constrained to any particular point in human history.

I side with the theory being wrong, but others may not.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> Here's how science attempts to deal with this problem. It attempts to reduce it to simply brain activity. However to do this, it has to completely ignore the aspects of the reports which contradict this theory. For example, the reports of people knowing exactly who was in the room while they were unconscious and where they were stood, what they said to each other and so on, details which are confirmed by the people themselves as being true.



Well, there is a burden of proof that has to be met by those who claim that something not "scientific" is happening. Right now it looks like when there is something science can't explain (yet), some people go "I don't know, so magic". 

Some people were unconscious and had an idea of what was going on around them. Science doesn't have an explaination (yet). Why should the explaination be beyond science?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Well, there is a burden of proof that has to be met by those who claim that something not "scientific" is happening. Right now it looks like when there is something science can't explain (yet), some people go "I don't know, so magic".




It's a common rhetorical technique known as "God of the Gaps".  Find the gaps in scientific knowledge, and fill it with non-falsifiable stuff you made up.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 11, 2014)

I guess I just can't accept 'some people said it happened' as enough evidence to completely rule out other explanations - including even coincidence.  To me, it's far more likely that the person experienced a dream of sorts that was heavily influenced by what they saw right before the lights went out, so to speak, than it is that their unconscious was actually hovering over their body taking it all in.


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

> It's a common rhetorical technique known as "God of the Gaps".  Find the  gaps in scientific knowledge, and fill it with non-falsifiable stuff  you made up.




Utter rubbish. The idea of souls leaving the body predates materialist thinking by many millenia. You have your time line back to front. People are not 'filling in gaps in science'... science is attempting to replace what people already think.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> Utter rubbish. The idea of souls leaving the body predates materialist thinking by many millenia. You have your time line back to front. People are not 'filling in gaps in science'... science is attempting to replace what people already think.



So you're saying all sort of explainations were used before science was used to explain natural phenomenons?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2014)

Morrus said:


> It's a common rhetorical technique known as "God of the Gaps".  Find the gaps in scientific knowledge, and fill it with non-falsifiable stuff you made up.



Sounds more like a gay guy who shops a lot at GAP.

Not that there is anything wrong with it.


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

Here is how the establishment pulls the wool over our eyes on these matters...

1. The evidence for the contrary is declared as being anecdotal, ie. non-evidence

2. Theories are created which span the evidence and crucially miss out any contradictory elements which might ruin the underlying world view being posited in the theory itself. To understand how this works, you start with the world view (i.e. the conclusion) and then build the theory to fit it, cherry picking the evidence as you go. [edited for clarity]

3. People are disuaded from looking at the (now non-)evidence and instead are pointed to the theories. If the theory sounds plausible then that is all that is required... because people won't look at the original data that the theory is based on

4. Anyone who does not believe the theory has their thinking criticised, in this case called 'magical' or 'superstitiuous' which are effectively synonyms for ingorance.

5. This further disuades people from looking at the evidence, thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions. The end result is that establishment is doing the thinking for people who otherwise think critically about other areas that they examine.

And that in a nutshell, is how it is done.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> Here is how the establishment pulls the wool over our eyes on these matters...
> 
> 1. The evidence for the contrary is declared as being anecdotal, ie. non-evidence
> 
> ...



Very challenging ideas. 

Do you have other examples in other fields?


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

Yes I first noticed it when I started to learn about ancient gods. The academic theories surrounding these broadly state that many gods are equivalents and this is broadly accepted. I accepted it too, because on face value, it sounds correct. However, when I started to actually read the source material that the theories were based upon, the contradictions arose. The more I read the more I realised that the theories were entirely innacurate. Not worthless, but not the truth (as in not what they purported to be). That was my first encounter with how scientific theories were being wielded by people to either spread agendas or make money (or both). Agendas are usually about influencing people and their world views and this ultimately is about control. So in some cases, this is actually going on. Science's war with the supernatural is a thinly disguised war against the church (actually I support this) but somewhere in all of this the truth has been forgotten. Hence people need to, of their own accord, review the source material or data and come to their own conclusions about whether the theories are adequately describing the phenonoma they purport to be.


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

I'd like to say something further, if I may. With all the computing power at an individual's finger tips we really should be examining data on our own and becoming less reliant on someone else telling us what the truth is. That's a digression but is in line with my thinking on these things. For example, statistical anaylis of the evidence for NDEs and out of body experiences could be within reach which could lead to some radically different conclusions than mainstream science currently has. 

As for alternative explanations that predate scientific thinking, again, consult the original sources. There have been stories of out of body experiences that go back many thousands of years if you want to take a look then you'll find them.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> As for alternative explanations that predate scientific thinking, again, consult the original sources. There have been stories of out of body experiences that go back many thousands of years if you want to take a look then you'll find them.



I do not really dought it, but if it is a natural phenomenon it should have been with us for a long time. It is not like it started happening just when "science was invented". As for explainations, well people made with what they understood at the time, don't you agree?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> Here is how the establishment pulls the wool over our eyes on these matters...




Oh, goodness, the Establishment!  A conspiracy!  Dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but the scientific community is not unified in any real sense.  There is no cabal pulling the wool over yoru eyes.  There's merely a bunch of people who have all learned pretty much the same thing - to find out how the universe actually works, we need to be very picky.



> 1. The evidence for the contrary is declared as being anecdotal, ie. non-evidence




Scientists in each field have fairly clearly stated notions of what qualifies as anecdotal and non-anecdotal evidence.  All you have to do is perform your research in a manner rigorous enough to be non-anecdotal.  Most of the rest of your objections fall apart at this point - do your research in a thorough manner, and you won't have the problem.

You fail to do your research in a thorough manner, but claim to have The Truth?  Yes, I'll criticize your approach, and your conclusions.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> Utter rubbish. The idea of souls leaving the body predates materialist thinking by many millenia.




"Old" does not mean "correct".  

Those ancient folks, lacking the understanding of scientific discipline, saw *everything* as a gap, and filled it in with, "magic!"  We've just been reducing the gaps over time.



> You have your time line back to front. People are not 'filling in gaps in science'... science is attempting to replace what people already think.




Yes.  Science is attempting to replace what people already think.  Because what people already think is often *wrong*.  Science is trying to give the human race an ever-more accurate understanding of how the universe works.

So, you know, some folks used to think the Earth was at the center of the universe, and the stars were on crystal spheres around us - science brought us the more accurate heliocentric solar system and galaxies.  Others used to think that diseases were caused by evil spirits - science replaced that with germ theory.

I find it pleasantly ironic that the very process of science that you seem to think is wrong brought you the computer that you're using to claim that the process of science is wrong.  

To quote Randall:




With which I'm not really trying to call people names, but just using a popular author's comedy to drive the point home:  We have gotten a whole lot out of science - pretty much all technological advancement since the Renaissance.  Modern life in pretty much every developed country in the world is owed to science.  It does, in fact, work.  It may not be perfect, but it gets the job done.  You have a long row to hoe to convince me we should disregard it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> While that may be true in your particular case -  and a good deal others - it cannot be true in all of them because it  just does not fit the facts for all reported cases. And that, in a  nutshell, is the problem with reductionism to brain activity (a  cornerstone of the materialist philosophy) being used as an attempt to  explain this type of phenomena. So we are left with two choices; either  the explanation is wrong or the people who experience it (for example  whilst being clinically dead and then later revived, either through a  defibrillator or waking up in a morgue or some other strange  circumstance) are wrong despite this being well documented and not being  constrained to any particular point in human history.
> 
> I side with the theory being wrong, but others may not.




So you telling me there are cases where the brain was working like it always does, yet the person was having an out of body experience? 
What data did you have to know that the person experienced an out of body experience? Did the brain activity seem "normal" (whatever that means) the entire time during, before and after the experience? Are you certain that our scans on brain activity are actually precise enough to detect all activity? 
People revived by a defibrillator for example are not necessary (not even usually) brain dead, and neither they, nor people that are clinically dead or in the morgue are usually sitting in a computer tomograph. 

If there is some kind of "soul" that left the body, what kind of observations should we expect, what kind of predictions do you have, how can we test them? 


I mean, I strongly suspect the real reason we have out-of-body experiences is that we accidentally catch a glimpse of the narrator that is telling the story we are all in is merely messing up the text while narrating, and suddenly says something like "He looked so peaceful in the coma", Mustrum thought, as he was talking with the Doctor about Mustrum's state. "Well, Umbran, I am sorry, but a recovery is not guaranteed. Mustrum was hit pretty hard when he was thrown out of the car."


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 11, 2014)

Curious, because I know nothing about it: has anyone done any controlled experimentation on this topic?  You know, put someone to sleep, rolled them into a room where something is placed (or not) where they can't see it if they inadvertently wake up, then roll them out some time later, wake them up, and ask them to describe what they saw?

This seems like a very simple concept to test under blind, controlled laboratory conditions.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> Utter rubbish. The idea of souls leaving the body predates materialist thinking by many millenia. You have your time line back to front. People are not 'filling in gaps in science'... science is attempting to replace what people already think.




So you're saying that the sun rises cuz Apollo pulls it across the sky, that we get sick because of an imbalance of body humours and that lighting is actually Zeus making his presence known to us?  Maybe that the Earth is actually flat?  I mean, all that predates materialist thinking, too, does it not?

The common understanding is that science is, in fact, filling in the gaps.  People hadn't a clue what caused fire initially so they assigned some higher power to it.  Over time, the actual event was better understood.  That's ... it's how all this works.



kingius said:


> Here is how the establishment pulls the wool over our eyes on these matters...
> 
> 1. The evidence for the contrary is declared as being anecdotal, ie. non-evidence.




Umm ... in the case of out of body experiences the evidence _is _purely anecdotal.  'He said it happened to him' isn't evidence at all.  I'm sorry, it's just not.  



kingius said:


> I'd like to say something further, if I may. With all the computing power at an individual's finger tips we really should be examining data on our own and becoming less reliant on someone else telling us what the truth is. That's a digression but is in line with my thinking on these things. For example, statistical anaylis of the evidence for NDEs and out of body experiences could be within reach which could lead to some radically different conclusions than mainstream science currently has.
> 
> As for alternative explanations that predate scientific thinking, again, consult the original sources. There have been stories of out of body experiences that go back many thousands of years if you want to take a look then you'll find them.




There's a lot of merit to what you suggest.  However, there's also a fairly large problem: Most people are not taught to analyze, well, anything - let alone scientific data.  There's a reason there are large portions of entire fields devoted strictly to research and why a lot of that research happens at educational institutions.  Quite simply, analysis isn't an innate talent.  We need to be taught how to do it and how to do it right.  I'm not suggesting that anyone who isn't trained shouldn't explore this, of course, but if we were to see more of this we'd see a hell of a lot more crackpot theories and junk science come out of it.  And that doesn't help anyone or anything.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 11, 2014)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Curious, because I know nothing about it: has anyone done any controlled experimentation on this topic?  You know, put someone to sleep, rolled them into a room where something is placed (or not) where they can't see it if they inadvertently wake up, then roll them out some time later, wake them up, and ask them to describe what they saw?
> 
> This seems like a very simple concept to test under blind, controlled laboratory conditions.




Lots of times. There are big million dollar prizes for people who demonstrate paranormal abilities in supervised controlled conditions. So far exactly zero people have managed to claim them, and not for want of trying.


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

> Quite simply, analysis isn't an innate talent.



In other words: Don't look for yourself, trust us, because only we know the truth... except if you do look you find the theories can be wrong. But don't whatever you do trust your own findings, trust the original sources, trust the evidence, trust your own senses. It's a familiar story. Once it was the church saying this. Now it is science.

What society needs is people to engage their critical thinking and not be selective about it. That means critically engaging with science and not accepting it as being blind dogma. I'm sorry if you don't like that because it means the truth of things you would like covered up comes out but that's how it has to be if we are to continue to progress as a society, as a race, into the future.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> trust your own senses.



How can I trust my senses when it is someone else saying they had an out of body experience?


----------



## kingius (Mar 11, 2014)

> There are big million dollar prizes for people who demonstrate paranormal abilities in supervised controlled conditions



These are good points and should be troubling for mediums and psychics and charlatons. What this point of view doesn't include though are all of the times when psychics made predictions that were right, often occuring in dreams and prophecies and so on. It's really cherry picking the data. What it also doesn't take into account is that these kind of abilities - like precognition - come at random. Many ordinary people have had dreams that contain elements that come true on the following day. But that must be written off as mere coincidence because to do otherwise breaks the materialist world view that there is nothing else out there. 

However this line of reasoning holds no water to materialists who have already made their minds up without looking at all of the evidence in the first place. Essentially, if a theory sounds reasonable and makes sense, why look? What could be found? This is how they think. It's like when Einstein tried to disprove quantum theory with classical physics, Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'. There can't really be two particles that can affect each other at any distance can there? That would be... paranormal... spooky... it can't be real...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> These are good points and should be troubling for mediums and psychics and charlatons. What this point of view doesn't include though are all of the times when psychics made predictions that were right, often occuring in dreams and prophecies and so on. It's really cherry picking the data.




Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2014)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Even a broken clock is right twice a day.



Even if it lost its needles?


----------



## Ragnar_Lodbrok (Mar 11, 2014)

kingius said:


> What this point of view doesn't include though are all of the times when psychics made predictions that were right, often occuring in dreams and prophecies and so on.



This has a variety of problems. Under controlled conditions, "psychic predictions" have a rate of accuracy about identical to chance, indicating that it's less a "gift" than a guess. Outside of controlled conditions, psychics, mediums, oracles, and the like use a variety of techniques to _look_ accurate, such as vague predictions, cold-reading, and gathering information to make an educated guess. After that, the person who got the prediction tends to employ confirmation bias in determining whether it was accurate.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 11, 2014)

I've had 2 in my life that were definitely real. No idea how it happened or what it is other than to know that the explanation is beyond our current scientific knowledge to understand.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 12, 2014)

kingius said:


> In other words: Don't look for yourself, trust us, because only we know the truth...




Nope.  "Not an innate talent" does not mean "don't look for yourself."

It means, "if you want to get to the truth, you need to learn how to do analysis,"  There's a ton of universities that are more than willing to help you learn.  If you don't like universities, you can just get the books and learn.

But, if you're not willing to go through the effort of doing it right, no, they won't listen to you.  'Cause your "data" won't be what you think it is.



> What society needs is people to engage their critical thinking and not be selective about it. That means critically engaging with science and not accepting it as being blind dogma.




That blade cuts both ways.  *You* have to be willing to engage in critical thinking too.  And accepting data *without* the controls that basic science would put on it is not being terribly critical.  If the effect is there, it can be seen under proper controlled conditions, so there's no reason to not use basic scientific methods.

It is fine to have an open mind... just no so open that geese wander in and poop all over the place.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Mar 12, 2014)

Carl Sargent...hm? 
"Skeptics" are extremists, just as bad as any extreme (note spelling, I do NOT refer to genuine, normal "scepticism" which is quite rational)

there are two kinds of such "out of the body"
one is of the imagination, I also used to imagine images and flash forward faster and faster through them as "tool" a mental exercise.

the other is very different.

As for "extraordinary proof"...I used ot have precogniscent dreams all the damn time, very draining, very unsettling as they do not "fit" like normal "mental objects", since they lack "Causality", they are like spiky Lego bricks your mind juggles with to avoid the spikes 

most were completely boringly mundane, like getting milk from fridge etc (always just what I would literally see)
Sometimes things way beyond what I could know/predict, like the Lockerbie Bombing. Used to give my pals the heebie-jeebies with such stuff.
Also, sometimes I could "see" that things are not "fixed". How I went about a task, how I went to a place etc was not fixed, merely my end goal was (or was MOSTLY fixed in result), which throws up interesting questions.

Normal "scepticism" ends when you've had your ass bit


----------



## Umbran (Mar 12, 2014)

kingius said:


> These are good points and should be troubling for mediums and psychics and charlatons. What this point of view doesn't include though are all of the times when psychics made predictions that were right, often occuring in dreams and prophecies and so on.   It's really cherry picking the data. What it also doesn't take into account is that these kind of abilities - like precognition - come at random. Many ordinary people have had dreams that contain elements that come true on the following day. But that must be written off as mere coincidence because to do otherwise breaks the materialist world view that there is nothing else out there.





There's this thing about numbers.  Consider how many things we'd say are a one-in-a-million chance (say, of having a dream that is almost exactly what happens the next day).  Now, remember that there are 300 million Americans.  And 365 nights a year for them to have dreams.  So, there's lots and lots of chances for those low-probability events to happen.  It turns out, then, that one-in-a-million events should be (and are) happening all the time!  We can expect three hundred one-in-a-million dreams every night, and thus nearly 110,000 of them every year, in the USA alone!

And, with modern communication, we hear about them!  But we forget how many of those one-in-a-million things *didn't* happen, because we don't hear about them.  So, we give a lot of credit to the things we do hear about - and that's a form of confirmation bias - giving great weight to the events that happen to confirm our suspicions, and meanwhile ignoring how just shy of 300 million people had perfectly normal days.

The measure isn't whether it happens at all - we should expect thousands of weirdly coincidental things happening in the country each day - but whether it happens with a frequency greater than that which can be explained by just random chance.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 12, 2014)

kingius said:


> In other words: Don't look for yourself, trust us, because only we know the truth... except if you do look you find the theories can be wrong. But don't whatever you do trust your own findings, trust the original sources, trust the evidence, trust your own senses. It's a familiar story. Once it was the church saying this. Now it is science.




Umbran already covered this but, hey, I gotsta gets me mines, right?!

This is a Strawman.  I never said that people shouldn't look for themselves.  Nothing I said indicated that people couldn't learn analysis - in fact, what I said clearly points to the opposite.  If some people learn it, more can, right?  So what's stopping them?  Oh yeah, nothing.



> What society needs is people to engage their critical thinking and not be selective about it. That means critically engaging with science and not accepting it as being blind dogma. I'm sorry if you don't like that because it means the truth of things you would like covered up comes out but that's how it has to be if we are to continue to progress as a society, as a race, into the future.




So, in other words, don't selectively quote someone and respond with your immediate reaction instead of looking deeper at the presented text?  It's ... interesting you'd say that.  



kingius said:


> These are good points and should be troubling for mediums and psychics and charlatons. What this point of view doesn't include though are all of the times when psychics made predictions that were right, often occuring in dreams and prophecies and so on. It's really cherry picking the data. What it also doesn't take into account is that these kind of abilities - like precognition - come at random. Many ordinary people have had dreams that contain elements that come true on the following day. But that must be written off as mere coincidence because to do otherwise breaks the materialist world view that there is nothing else out there.




Umm ... if the results cannot be replicated in a controlled environment but folks swear that they do happen, well, if you choose to look at what folks say and also dismiss what happens in a controlled environment, what you're doing is cherry picking the results you like best.  You've got a data set of sorts here - happens X times outside of lab + happens 0 times inside of lab.  You're choosing to only accept the first part of the set.

And I feel a little dirty adding the 'it happens cuz people say it does' to the data set thing I mentioned.  Please, nobody take it as an endorsement of anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 12, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> what you're doing is cherry picking the results you like best.  You've got a data set of sorts here - happens X times outside of lab + happens 0 times inside of lab.  You're choosing to only accept the first part of the set.




Considering MILLIONS of people who CAN'T control this type of thing. And, the extremely small % of humanity that it RARELY happens to (according to the people saying it happens to them) AND, the insignificant number of controlled lab experiments on this. To state that since it hasn't been replicated in a lab it reflects on the probability that it does or, doesn't happen, is unscientific in the EXTREME.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 12, 2014)

number of time psychics have been right borders on 0.
If psychics were real and available, why don't the police use them on missing persons cases and other times when they are stumped for evidence? Oh yeah, they tried. Every time it turned out to be a waste of time.
If psychics are real, why don't they win lotteries?
Number of times Nostradamus was correct with his predictions? 0. And he was one of the most famous of all times.

If I claim my last bowel movement produced a black hole, and display as evidence a shattered commode, is that proof that a black hole emerged from my colon? I said it. I have my evidence to prove it. Isn't that enough? No. Because it is an extraordinary claim, and it needs some seriously major evidence to back it up. So, maybe it wasn't a black hole, but a really potent fart. strong enough to shatter porcelain. would you believe that? No?

Like the light at the end of the tunnel effect (which can be simulated by putting people into a blackout from blood loss to the brain via g-force testing), psychics and out-of-body experiences just can't be successfully proven.

As for documentation, I'd be interested in seeing that. And seeing the results of clinical trials and demonstrations under laboratory conditions.
Otherwise, what you have is mysticism, rumor, fairy tale, and possibly religion. Now I think it's time to watch Men Who Stare At Goats again.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 12, 2014)

I listen to dozens of science podcasts, watch loads of science broadcasting on TV, read tons of popular science books.  I'm not a scientist, but _man_ am I the target audience which receives the bulk of mass-media science-based messaging. 

Not once have I ever, _ever,_ read, heard, or seen a scientist encourage people to not think critically or look at the evidence themselves.  Never.  In fact, the opposite is true - they encourage folks to do it to the point of nausea.

The first step in trying to get yourself taken seriously: _stop lying about what those with contrary viewpoints are saying_.  Because that just makes you dishonest, and nobody wants to listen to what a liar has to say.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 12, 2014)

Morrus said:


> The first step in trying to get yourself taken seriously: _stop lying about what those with contrary viewpoints are saying_.  Because that just makes you dishonest, and nobody wants to listen to what a liar has to say.



You do not believe some people actually believe what they say about conspiracy and stuff?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 12, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You do not believe some people actually believe what they say about conspiracy and stuff?




I know that nobody* has heard an "establishment" tell them not to think critically, or told them not to look at evidence, and that any claims that such statements are being made are factually incorrect. And given the two  reasons why somebody might make such an evidently false factual claim, I'm very cautious about suggesting one of them.  

That said, I'll gladly recant if the poster in question provides the slightest bit of... ermmm.... evidence.... that the scientific "establishment" is, indeed, somehow uniting in some as-yet unspecified anti-knowledge agenda and spreading such a viewpoint, and that I have somehow, despite avid exposure to media-based science, managed to entirely miss it. Everything's possible, I guess.

*Some obvious countries excepted, but that's not what we're talking about here.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 12, 2014)

Morrus said:


> I know that nobody* has heard an "establishment" tell them not to think critically, or told them not to look at evidence, and that any claims that such statements are being made are factually incorrect. And given the two  reasons why somebody might make such an evidently false factual claim, I'm very cautious about suggesting one of them.
> 
> That said, I'll gladly recant if the poster in question provides the slightest bit of... ermmm.... evidence.... that the scientific "establishment" is, indeed, somehow uniting in some as-yet unspecified anti-knowledge agenda and spreading such a viewpoint, and that I have somehow, despite avid exposure to media-based science, managed to entirely miss it. Everything's possible, I guess.
> 
> *Some obvious countries excepted, but that's not what we're talking about here.



Some people might be exposed to all you mentioned, but they still can believe there is _more_ to it all. 

From what I read, conspiracists have trouble understand what is explained to them, so they need to come up with their own explainations to rationalize certain events and phenomenons.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 12, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Some people might be exposed to all you mentioned, but they still can believe there is _more_ to it all.




Well, like I said, I can only think of two reasons someone would listen to science based media and subsequently claim they hear people telling them _not_ to think critically. One's a choice, the other isn't. I feel it's more polite to assume the former given no information otherwise.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 12, 2014)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Curious, because I know nothing about it: has anyone done any controlled experimentation on this topic?  You know, put someone to sleep, rolled them into a room where something is placed (or not) where they can't see it if they inadvertently wake up, then roll them out some time later, wake them up, and ask them to describe what they saw?
> 
> This seems like a very simple concept to test under blind, controlled laboratory conditions.




There's one experiment I recall being talked about on QI, in which a British researcher placed unusual and eye-catching objects on top of the shelves and cupboards in hospital operating theatres, where they'd be out of view from ground level. The theory was that, since out-of-body experiences typically involve seeming to float up at ceiling level, anyone who'd genuinely experienced one should be able to accurately describe the objects in question.

As of the time of recording, the experiment had not yet reached the point of yielding data.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2014)

Morrus said:


> The first step in trying to get yourself taken seriously: _stop lying about what those with contrary viewpoints are saying_.




To quote Professor Richard Feynman:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 13, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> number of time psychics have been right borders on 0.
> If psychics were real and available, why don't the police use them on missing persons cases and other times when they are stumped for evidence?




They do.  So does the FBI.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 13, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> They do.  So does the FBI.




Hiring is not helping.  A quick Google search turned up a significant amount of debunking of psychic "assistance" to police (and no credible evidence of hiring by the FBI despite some pretty widely publicized claims).  Do your own research, but here's an example of what I found searching for "Does the FBI hire psychics?"



> The fact here is that no psychic has ever been shown to have helped the police. They do a lot of claiming after the fact, but it's never been backed up with evidence. In fact, when an independent experiment was done some years back to determine if psychics could help, the psychics actually did worse than the control group of students!
> 
> So why do the police continue to use psychics? Some don't know better--even police officers can be fooled. Some are hesitant to refuse any aid, no matter how little they think it will actually help. (Imagine if they didn't accept a psychic's help on a high-profile case and the psychic went to the press complaining that she has knowledge that could help but the police won't listen.) Sometimes they are pressured by families who believe the psychics.




From: http://www.straightdope.com/columns...rauds-why-do-police-keep-asking-them-for-help

Also (admittedly older sources):



> No psychic detective has ever been praised or given official recognition by the FBI or US national news for solving a crime, preventing a crime, or finding a kidnap victim or corpse.
> 
> So say Arthur Lyons in his book _The Blue Sense: Psychic Detectives and Crime_, (Mysterious Press, 1991) and again by Joe Nickell in his book _Psychic Sleuths: ESP and Sensational Cases_, (Prometheus Press, 1994)




Of course, this is all just the internet ...


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Well, like I said, I can only think of two reasons someone would listen to science based media and subsequently claim they hear people telling them _not_ to think critically. One's a choice, the other isn't. I feel it's more polite to assume the former given no information otherwise.



I guess I live in a world with a lot more gray.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 13, 2014)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> A quick Google search turned up a significant amount of debunking of psychic "assistance" to police (and no credible evidence of hiring by the FBI despite some pretty widely publicized claims).




Your Google foo is irrelevant in this discussion. I know the person and I know that the FBI pays them.  I met them as I worked counter terrorism with the CIA & FBI until ~'05.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 13, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> They do.  So does the FBI.




No, they don't. Not as standard practice. No case has been solved because of a psychic, medium, or clairvoyant. There may be individuals within Law Enforcement who have tried (for PR reasons or desperation), but it has never worked.

Google is irrelevant? You have special knowledge that you are not willing to share or substantiate? What actual evidence do you have to back your claims?

"Ask Martha Stewart."
"Mrs Stewart didn't know."


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> These are good points and should be troubling for mediums and psychics and charlatons.




mediums, psychics, and _charlatons_?
Mediums, psychics and phoneys/fakes/con artists?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2014)

Charleston.

[video=youtube;ZJC21zzkwoE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJC21zzkwoE[/video]


----------



## kingius (Mar 13, 2014)

This is an utterly pointless argument. If people look at the evidence themselves they can make their own minds up. They are quite capable of doing this. An intelligent society benefits us all. While ever people are being discouraged from doing this, and instead looking at theories which do not accurately describe the phenonoma, the truth has been lost and we as a society are being deceived. If you cannot see, and do not take the time to look at the evidence for out of body experiences yourselves, then nothing I can say will change it. Because the only thing that can is /discover it for yourself/.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> This is an utterly pointless argument. If people look at the evidence themselves they can make their own minds up. They are quite capable of doing this. An intelligent society benefits us all. While ever people are being discouraged from doing this, and instead looking at theories which do not accurately describe the phenonoma, the truth has been lost and we as a society are being deceived. If you cannot see, and do not take the time to look at the evidence for out of body experiences yourselves, then nothing I can say will change it. Because the only thing that can is /discover it for yourself/.




Where is the evidence? Can you point me to the right person to speak and watch to?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> This is an utterly pointless argument. If people look at the evidence themselves they can make their own minds up.



Can you link 2 or 3 examples of this evidence?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> This is an utterly pointless argument. If people look at the evidence themselves they can make their own minds up. They are quite capable of doing this.




Yes.  But there are two things to note:

1) What you believe does not change the facts.  The truth is what it is, no matter what you believe.

2) It is very easy to fool yourself.  Humans are subject to a host of flaws in how they evaluate information.  The point of science is to give us discipline to eventually get past human failings, and get at the truth regardless.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  But there are two things to note:
> 
> 1) What you believe does not change the facts.  The truth is what it is, no matter what you believe.
> 
> 2) It is very easy to fool yourself.  Humans are subject to a host of flaws in how they evaluate information.  The point of science is to give us discipline to eventually get past human failings, and get at the truth regardless.



Not that I agree with him, but he can flip these arguments and say you are wrong. You are not using pertinent arguments.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> This is an utterly pointless argument. If people look at the evidence themselves they can make their own minds up. They are quite capable of doing this.




They do.  All the time.  Millions of people across the world look at evidence and come to their own conclusions.  They call themselves "scientists".



> While ever people are being discouraged from doing this,




You can keep repeating that phrase over and over and over (I guess you have to, because that appears to be your entire case), but it won't make it true.  People are not being discouraged from looking at evidence. The exact opposite is true.

Hey, provide some examples of people discouraging us from looking at evidence? For someone so hot on evidence, you don't seem to be very keen on actually providing any.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Not that I agree with him, but he can flip these arguments and say you are wrong. You are not using pertinent arguments.




Oh, they're pertinent.  I just didn't extend to the conclusion.  I'd considered this as I was on my way to work this morning, so please allow me to continue....

Upthread, kingius mentioned critical thinking.  So, let's consider that.  When thinking critically, the first question we apply to a piece of information shouldn't be, "Do I believe this?"  The first question is, "_Should_ I believe this?"  Has the information been gathered or presented in such a way as to help avoid the foibles and failings of casual human thought?  This is what the processes of science do for us - get us information in which we can have some level of confidence, and a way to refine and correct going forward.

Now, my previous statement becomes difficult to flip around.  We humans are easy to fool.  So, we should take strong precautions against being fooled.  What precautions went into the gathering of the evidence he refers to?

Now, perhaps he doesn't want to get into it - that's fine, as EN World isn't a peer reviewed journal or anything.  But, this becomes a key point to anyone who does decide to look at the evidence, and make up their own mind.  It isn't enough to read a report of an event or events - one should think critically about how that report was prepared and presented, and what it means in the greater context.


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> Many ordinary people have had dreams that contain elements that come true on the following day. But that must be written off as mere coincidence because to do otherwise breaks the materialist world view that there is nothing else out there.




The foundations of science are being able to prove it and repeat it, preferably by another party./

True story:


> Over a decade a go, I was sitting at the work lunch table talking with a bunch of coworkers.  One of them was an EMT, telling about a run he did the night just past.  I suddenly had the strongest sense of deja vu, that I had heard him tell the story, that I interupted him, and asked him if it ended the way I remembered it.
> 
> As it turned out, I had it spot on.  He was puzzled how I knew the ending, as it has JUST happened to him.  Whereas I had this solid memory of the same lunch-gathering of him telling the story before and had insisted that was so.  As this event happened over a decade ago, I can barely recall the story, other than he was an ambulance driver, racing to a scene and it was stormy out.




From a science perspective, how do I prove to YOU that this event happened.

How do I repeat it?  How does anybody repeat it?

There are plenty of legitimate science people trying to puzzle that out.  How to make it testable and provable.

It may still be too early to say it doesn't exist (too many anecdotes), but there hasn't been a soli solid science proof to prove it exists.  And that's pretty much the gold standard.


----------



## kingius (Mar 13, 2014)

True story - the body of work in 'science' is many and varied. It contains, among other things, theories which cannot be tested, never mind repeated, without jumping billions of years into the future (or the past). Much of what is accepted as canon is speculation expressed through mathematics. Quite how parallel universes are accepted, for example, when they are not provable in any way, when paranormal phenomenon like out of body expreience has a huge body of research and evidence to back it up... is what is called a /double standard/.

You'll never agree to this, despite it being true, so this is an utterly pointless discussion.


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> I'd like to say something further, if I may. With all the computing power at an individual's finger tips we really should be examining data on our own and becoming less reliant on someone else telling us what the truth is. That's a digression but is in line with my thinking on these things. For example, statistical anaylis of the evidence for NDEs and out of body experiences could be within reach which could lead to some radically different conclusions than mainstream science currently has.
> 
> As for alternative explanations that predate scientific thinking, again, consult the original sources. There have been stories of out of body experiences that go back many thousands of years if you want to take a look then you'll find them.




Do you have any idea how stupid people are?

While I'm not making the case for Scientists are Right very well, my point is half of the population is be is below average intelligence.

People reach wrong conclusions all the time.  And they fail to understand data or statistics.

I think everybody agrees that everybody should go look stuff up and come to their own conclusion.

The problem is that a bunch of people aren't good at coming to logically sound conclusions.

That's why scientists, those nerdy people who tend to be smart and like to think and figure out how to prove their conclusions, are the reasonably trusted source for "how stuff works."  I'm inclined to let them keep doing their jobs as it's worked out better in the last 500 years or so than the previous 10,000 combined.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Oh, they're pertinent.



"I have the truth, you're wrong cause science is great" is not a pertinent argument and no different from his arguments.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2014)

goldomark said:


> "I have the truth, you're wrong cause science is great" is not a pertinent argument and no different from his arguments.




Which is fine, because that's a strawman.  I said: "This is what the processes of science do for us - get us information in which we can have some level of confidence, and a way to refine and correct going forward."  Which most certainly is pertinent to the discussion at hand.

If you don't acknowledge the difference between that and, "I have the truth, you're wrong cause science is great," we can just stop right here.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Which is fine, because that's a strawman.



No, it is what you said.



Umbran said:


> Yes. But there are two things to note:
> 
> 1) What you believe does not change the facts. The truth is what it is, no matter what you believe.




He is saying science doesn't lead to truth, but humans can find it. You just say the opposite. 



> 2) It is very easy to fool yourself. Humans are subject to a host of flaws in how they evaluate information. The point of science is to give us discipline to eventually get past human failings, and get at the truth regardless.




You need to change your arguments to be more pertinent and actually say something that could convice him or at least back your affirmation. Right now it is two people who pretty much keep saying the truth is on their side because it is.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You need to change your arguments to be more pertinent and actually say something that could convice him or at least back your affirmation.




Oh, well, I'm not trying to convince him, in particular.  I'm giving an alternate view for those in the audience who are sitting on the fence.  

I think I've backed my assertion pretty well, by noting how pretty much any technology that's come up after the Renaissance comes out of science.  Cars, airplanes, telephones, electrically powered anything, computers, modern medicine... that's not enough affirmation that it works?  Geeze, tough crowd.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> This is an utterly pointless argument. If people look at the evidence themselves they can make their own minds up. They are quite capable of doing this. An intelligent society benefits us all. While ever people are being discouraged from doing this, and instead looking at theories which do not accurately describe the phenonoma, the truth has been lost and we as a society are being deceived. If you cannot see, and do not take the time to look at the evidence for out of body experiences yourselves, then nothing I can say will change it. Because the only thing that can is /discover it for yourself/.




Has it occurred to you that maybe you are the one being deceived?

If all this paranormal research has reached scientific proof, why is it not in the news. You claim "double standard" is in effect, but why?
Yes, huge volumes of research have been done. Do they _Prove_ the existence of what you are claiming, or simply support the possibility.
Take the occam's razor test. Does it really seem likely that the entire field of science and media are out to suppress what has been folklore for centuries? That all those people are calling it bunk? Or could it be that the phenomenon could not be proven or verified under laboratory conditions, and was therefore shoved aside into at best Fringe science?

Unfortunately, my preferred examples and chain of comments without  delve into criticizing religion, which is not allowed on this board.
There are a number of things that science and common culture used to say were just rumors and tall tales that have since been verified. (The concept of White Squall is the first that comes to mind). There are more that just aren't. Sasquatch videos rank pretty high in that. While it is scientifically impossible to prove a negative, every video that has turned up has been dissected and debunked through video analysis.
UFOs: well, what does the U stand for? Unidentified. The second you say "I don't know what that is." you're done. You don't know what it was. This is not proof that you saw an alien space ship--it just means you maybe saw something. That's it. You're done. Anything else is speculation and guesswork.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 13, 2014)

Morrus said:


> They do.  All the time.  Millions of people across the world look at evidence and come to their own conclusions.  They call themselves "scientists".





Correct.  I am a scientist and that is part and parcel to our training.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Oh, well, I'm not trying to convince him, in particular.  I'm giving an alternate view for those in the audience who are sitting on the fence.
> 
> I think I've backed my assertion pretty well, by noting how pretty much any technology that's come up after the Renaissance comes out of science.  Cars, airplanes, telephones, electrically powered anything, computers, modern medicine... that's not enough affirmation that it works?  Geeze, tough crowd.



It's a bit circular. It works cause it produces result and the results prove that it works.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 13, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> Correct.  I am a scientist and that is part and parcel to our training.




So, as a scientist, if someone comes to you with a claim, but can't back it up, offers not proof, and/or refuses to site sources, what would you do with that claim?

Who were these psychics you met back in '05? What were you doing when you met them? What were they doing (specifically)?
Can you show us any scientifically respected published paper specifically _proving _ESP, Out-of-Body experience, Remote viewing or Psychometry?


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 13, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> So, as a scientist, if someone comes to you with a claim, but can't back it up, offers not proof, and/or refuses to site sources, what would you do with that claim?




Depends on the claim.  If someone claimed tht they drove to work yesterday I'd do nothing.



sabrinathecat said:


> Who were these psychics you met back in '05? What were you doing when you met them? What were they doing (specifically)?




The names are protected by Fed statute.  Anyone who has any decent EDU knows that those type of agents have that protection.  What was I doing? I was instructing DoD & CIA on anti-terror strategy. 



sabrinathecat said:


> Can you show us any scientifically respected published paper specifically _proving _ESP, Out-of-Body experience, Remote viewing or Psychometry?




No, why would I?  That isn't the scientific method.  AND, I never made a claim as such. BUT, the wording of this question tells me in no uncertain terms that YOU actually lack a college degree in ANY scientific discipline.   

When you figure out how I was able to ascertain that fact from a simple question you posed.  Get back to me.  BUT, not before then as you wil just waste my time.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> True story - the body of work in 'science' is many and varied. It contains, among other things, theories which cannot be tested, never mind repeated, without jumping billions of years into the future (or the past). Much of what is accepted as canon is speculation expressed through mathematics. Quite how parallel universes are accepted, for example, when they are not provable in any way, when paranormal phenomenon like *out of body expreience has a huge body of research and evidence to back it up*... is what is called a /double standard/.
> 
> You'll never agree to this, despite it being true, so this is an utterly pointless discussion.



Do you have any links to any studies that prove out of body experiences?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 13, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> The names are protected by Fed statute.  Anyone who has any decent EDU knows that those type of agents have that protection.  What was I doing? I was instructing DoD & CIA on anti-terror strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, either you missed my point, or ignored it. You are claiming to have worked with psychics employed by the federal government. That's a pretty extraordinary claim. You offer no way for us to confirm or verify that. In fact, you state that you cannot verify that.

Oh, so rather than support your claims, you switch to attacking the other person? Not the weakest of arguments, but certainly one that shows a weak hand.

Can you point us to any respected scientific publication suggesting or implying that telepathy, ESP, psychometry, remote viewing, or other such "supernatural" abilities actually exist? How about anything that confirms that any law enforcement or intelligence agency actually does employ such gifted individuals? Proof that they exist or have successfully solved/prevented any cases?

Scientific method is what would be used to compile such a paper or study, not to defend an argument. Internet links or other references could confirm your claims.

So far, you are full of claims, but have yet to back one of them up.


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> True story - the body of work in 'science' is many and varied. It contains, among other things, theories which cannot be tested, never mind repeated, without jumping billions of years into the future (or the past). Much of what is accepted as canon is speculation expressed through mathematics. Quite how parallel universes are accepted, for example, when they are not provable in any way, when paranormal phenomenon like out of body expreience has a huge body of research and evidence to back it up... is what is called a /double standard/.
> 
> You'll never agree to this, despite it being true, so this is an utterly pointless discussion.




Parallel universes is accepted?  [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] can probably clarify that.

Even Theories are still held with a taint of dubiousness, that's why they are classified as Theory.  The only thing truly accepted as irrefutable are Laws.

As I found in some other thread, it's faulty logic to assume that just because you can't see it, that physics hasn't been proven to be true by virtue of the calculated outcomes and the actual final results.  We can't see an actual electron.  But all the physics math calculated a ton of things that proved the model worked when they invented things like transistors that relied on its effects.

So, as I said about dumb people before, I don't understand the math.  Umbran is smarter than me.  I accept that the math and theory must be right, not because Umbran is smarter than me, but because ultimately, he can demonstate that the math models how things work, and that when he does Y, it will cause X to happen.  Every time.  He can predict the outcome because of the math.  Whether I understand it or not.

Ideally, folks like Bill Nye come along to dumb it down for the rest of us.  And honestly, Umbran does that service on this forum.

But the difference is, Umbran's Physics powers can be proven by virtue of the tests that be performed that result in real world measurable outcomes.


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Has it occurred to you that maybe you are the one being deceived?
> 
> If all this paranormal research has reached scientific proof, why is it not in the news. You claim "double standard" is in effect, but why?
> Yes, huge volumes of research have been done. Do they _Prove_ the existence of what you are claiming, or simply support the possibility.
> Take the occam's razor test. Does it really seem likely that the entire field of science and media are out to suppress what has been folklore for centuries? That all those people are calling it bunk? Or could it be that the phenomenon could not be proven or verified under laboratory conditions, and was therefore shoved aside into at best Fringe science?




I concur.

I'm inclined to think that if any of this wierd stuff existed, scientists would be all over it.  Not to hide it, but to figure it out.  it would be a marvel of nature, and scientists generally are in awe of the universe in whatever aspect they focus on.  That's why they devote their lives to it.


----------



## kingius (Mar 13, 2014)

> Do you have any links to any studies that prove out of body experiences?




No or we wouldn't be having this conversation. What we have instead are vast amount of research into the subject matter, collecting thousands of reports over decades, coupled with out of body experiences being reported in the historical archives... and even into prehistory with myth and so on. In terms of scientific burden of proof, this is normally regarded as being insufficient. But you have to look at the context to understand why and I'll get to that.

Many other things that science accepts has much less evidence for it (or none at all), or may even be utterly unprovable and yet still stands as part of the established body of science. This type of double standard needs to be critically examined because it is a sign that something else is at work and that is an agenda.

I reach a conclusion, which to me is obvious as it is shocking; science cannot look beyond the philosophy of materialism no matter what. This is similar to how classical physicists could not get their heads around quantum theory and tried to get rid of it. They weren't very successful in that though, they were dead wrong. That generation of scientists has now died out. 

Todays materialists are hampering scientific progress by claiming that their way of viewing the world is the only true way. To do this they have to misdirect people away from anything that suggests otherwise. They are going to go the way of the old classical physicists because ultimately, the truth about reality itself, like the truth about anything, can only be concealed for so long. Eventually, science finds the truth of the matter, but it will be the mavericks on the fringe that do it, not the establishment.


----------



## kingius (Mar 13, 2014)

> I'm inclined to think that if any of this wierd stuff existed,  scientists would be all over it.  Not to hide it, but to figure it out.




This is a noble thought. The problem that scientists have is that they cannot reproduce these phenonoma in a way that works with the scientific method. Hence they are not all over it. The researchers in to these matters have to take the phenonoma on its terms in order to 'figure it out'. These are hard subjects on the limits of human knowledge that just won't play the way we want them to. Perhaps our faith in science in these matters is unjustified; like how you have to go into the wild to observe a wild animal's natural behaviour (as an example), scientists, by and large, don't seem to understand not all things to be studied are necessarily equal. Perhaps our faith in them is justified; the scientists on the fringe, the mavericks, they are likely to be ones who make the break throughs, as history shows us, because they are not constrained by the same thinking as everyone else. Something to think about.


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> When you figure out how I was able to ascertain that fact from a simple question you posed.  Get back to me.  BUT, not before then as you wil just waste my time.




You're on a forum, you're already wasting your time.  let's not get too arrogant here sherlock.

Sabrina has listed his credentials in past threads.  You could have picked it up there.  Or you have access to NSA spy databases and abused your power to look up some dude you're arguing with on the internet.


The problem with your claim of knowing instances of psychics working with the FBI or whatever (forgive me if I get a detail wrong), is you've got the "it's a secret" shield up.

As with Kingius, how freaking hard is it to cite some article somewhere about a psychic working with the cops,  Heck, start with the ones on TV.  Sylvia Brown from the Montel show, the guy who EP'd the Ghost Whisperer based on his own experiences, Allison Dubois, who EP'd the show Medium because it was based on HER HELPING COPS.

Which, then I find, Wikipedia (well known and trusted well of facts), specifically debunks that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_DuBois


> DuBois claims she uses this ability to connect deceased loved ones to the living, and also to help law enforcement agencies solve crimes, such as the Texas Rangers and the Glendale, Arizona police department, and that she used these abilities as a jury consultant.[3] These law enforcement agencies have since either denied any such cooperation happened or stated the tips provided by Dubois were not helpful.[1]




Now that's just one example (and sadly debunked).  But seriously, do I have to do your job for you to prove YOUR point?  Find a couple respectable links and post them to support the claim.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> . But you have to look at the context to understand why and I'll get to that.



You didn't get to it. 



> Many other things that science accepts has much less evidence for it (or none at all), or may even be utterly unprovable and yet still stands as part of the established body of science.



Like what? 

I'm also waiting for a 2 or 3 examples, as I asked earlier.



> I reach a conclusion, which to me is obvious as it is shocking; science cannot look beyond the philosophy of materialism no matter what.



You want people to study invisible immaterial phenomenons? How are they supposed to be studied if they cannot be observed? 



> Todays materialists are hampering scientific progress by claiming that their way of viewing the world is the only true way.



Can you show other successful methods?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> This is a noble thought. The problem that scientists have is that they cannot reproduce these phenonoma in a way that works with the scientific method. Hence they are not all over it. The researchers in to these matters have to take the phenonoma on its terms in order to 'figure it out'. These are hard subjects on the limits of human knowledge that just won't play the way we want them to. Perhaps our faith in science in these matters is unjustified; like how you have to go into the wild to observe a wild animal's natural behaviour (as an example), scientists, by and large, don't seem to understand not all things to be studied are necessarily equal. Perhaps our faith in them is justified; the scientists on the fringe, the mavericks, they are likely to be ones who make the break throughs, as history shows us, because they are not constrained by the same thinking as everyone else. Something to think about.




You seem to be confusing several different threads of thought here. Let's try to break it up a bit.

Scientists are materialists: well, not universally. Scientists, like all professions, cover a wide variety of beliefs and characters. Science, however, does require having something to study. Funny that. Yes, in order to study something, you have to have access to either the subject or the information on it. And yes, being able to duplicate something in a lab would be a pretty significant factor in establishing a science.

Scientists are closed minded or have their vision shuttered by blinders of Scientific method: again, not universally. There are scientists that choose to look into matters that are considered supernatural or paranormal. As far as I know, they have not succeeded in proving anything of the like exists, or that there is any probability of such a thing existing.

Not all things to be studied are equal? Science is about study. I would expect someone researching ESP to take the same strategies to explore that as any other science project: determine a methodology consistent with the topic, gather evidence, analyze, report. Investigate anything interesting. Yes, ESP is not the same as ichthyology, so the methodology of gathering information would be different.

Faith: I'd love to provide the definition of faith from Blake's7 here, but it is not admissible.

Finge/Maverick scientists make the breakthroughs: Um, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Someone else would have to provide the stats on which type provides more, as well as defining which scientists are "stodgy traditionalists" and which are "Fringers/Mavericks".

Scientists established and unwilling to question: I think scientists have to be willing to question just as a basic requirement of the title. Now, there are aspects of the human personality that are resistant to change. In archeology, there was a school of thought that said "_____ is the first group of humans to occupy North America." and rejected and discredited any attempt to prove otherwise, or even study it. It was later proven that ____ was Not the first group. This put egg on the faces of many academics, and those put down were eventually justified. But those academics were sacrificing science for prestige. In that, they were perhaps bad scientists. They eventually lost.

Do humans understand everything? No. But science is our best bet for learning.
Gravitation and Evolution are only theories. However, they are the two theories most supported by evidence of the universe around us.

Perhaps you want to believe in something so much, you are willing to ignore the evidence to the contrary?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 13, 2014)

Janx said:


> Sabrina has listed his credentials in past threads.  You could have picked it up there.  Or you have access to NSA spy databases and abused your power to look up some dude you're arguing with on the internet.
> The problem with your claim of knowing instances of psychics working with the FBI or whatever (forgive me if I get a detail wrong), is you've got the "it's a secret" shield up.
> 
> As with Kingius, how freaking hard is it to cite some article somewhere about a psychic working with the cops,  Heck, start with the ones on TV.  Sylvia Brown from the Montel show, the guy who EP'd the Ghost Whisperer based on his own experiences, Allison Dubois, who EP'd the show Medium because it was based on HER HELPING COPS.
> ...




Or he could have just looked at my profile. It isn't hard to find my web page or work.

One other point: spectral evidence is not admissible in a US court of law. the only time it was accepted in the US was during the Salem witch trials (which were presided over by a man with no legal training), an incident almost universally condemned in legal circles.
Imagine this scene:
"Your Honor, we want a search warrant for ____."
"On what basis?"
"Our psychic had a vision."
"Was it verified?"
"Well, that's why we need the warrant."
"You came to me with _that_?"


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2014)

Janx said:


> Parallel universes is accepted?  [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] can probably clarify that.




Modern physics allows for multiple universes fairly easily.  Note that "multiple" does not necessarily equate to "parallel", in the way it is often used in fiction.  

Our Universe started in a Big Bang.  There could have been (some would say likely were, when you review the math) other big bangs that created other universes.  These universes are not related in any meaningful way.  It isn't like in the universe next door, there's an exact copy of you, with just some minor point of history different, or something.  The next universe over probably has a different set of physical constants and/or laws that mean we could not exist within that universe.

There's also the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which our universe branches every time a particle has to collapse into one particular quantum state over another - so that actually it collapses into *all* possible states.  In this case, it is like the Universe just next door has an exact copy of you...

Note that in both these cases, the universes don't interact.  The fact that there's another universe is largely moot - you can't get there from here.  The existence of other universes would be something we'd call "non-falsifiable" or not testable.  It is allowed by current theories, but we can neither confirm nor deny it.  Not just "as a practical matter, we haven't yet figured it out yet", but "we could not, even in theory, confirm or deny it - confirming or denying it is, as far as we know, impossible."



> Even Theories are still held with a taint of dubiousness, that's why they are classified as Theory.  The only thing truly accepted as irrefutable are Laws.




And even those are noted as having limits.  We sometime refer to Newton's Laws of Motion.  But they are recognized as holding in Classical physics - meaning for largish objects moving at modest speeds.  They don't hold for small objects (where quantum mechanics holds) or for really fast moving objects (where relativity holds).  Thus demonstrating that we do alter our beliefs as we come up with more accurate models.



> So, as I said about dumb people before, I don't understand the math.  Umbran is smarter than me.




I may be better at math.  But that's only one of many ways a person can be smart.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 13, 2014)

Umbran said:


> The existence of other universes would be something we'd call "non-falsifiable" or not testable.  It is allowed by current theories, but we can neither confirm nor deny it.




Actually, per the Scientific Method a theory cannot be a theory if it is untestable and therefore not subject to falsification attempts. THUS, ANY "theory" that contains that is NOT in fact a scientific theory.

Which is of course why deism cannot be a scientific theory...


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> Actually, per the Scientific Method a theory cannot be a theory if it is untestable and therefore not subject to falsification attempts. THUS, ANY "theory" that contains that is NOT in fact a scientific theory.
> 
> Which is of course why deism cannot be a scientific theory...




Which is probably the difference between "theory" in conversation and "Theory" in science terms.

The capital T makes all the differences.  I imagine it requires papers being published, reviews, confirmation by a team in China, etc.

I suspect that in most cases, if somebody says "I have a theory" they mean Hypothesis.

Such nit-picking leads to pedantry.

In any case, anybody who truly supports the principals of science, whether they know the official rules and parlance gets the idea that if you can't prove it, you ain't got much to work with.  And if somebody comes up with a proof that contradicts you, then it's time to change your view.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 13, 2014)

Janx said:


> Which is probably the difference between "theory" in conversation and "Theory" in science terms.
> 
> The capital T makes all the differences.  I imagine it requires papers being published, reviews, confirmation by a team in China, etc.




No.  Creation of a theory (scientific) does NOT rely on consensus, authority, et al. All that is required is adhering to the Scientific Method. What you just referenced, is the M.O. of religion and faith.  Which is why any real scientist cringes when someone says that X number of scientists agree, therefore it is true.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2014)

goldomark said:


> It's a bit circular. It works cause it produces result and the results prove that it works.




Well, no. The results prove that it works.  

It works because, as I've already mentioned, it allows us to work around the common limitations and quirks of how humans think.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 13, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> Considering MILLIONS of people who CAN'T control this type of thing. And, the extremely small % of humanity that it RARELY happens to (according to the people saying it happens to them) AND, the insignificant number of controlled lab experiments on this. To state that since it hasn't been replicated in a lab it reflects on the probability that it does or, doesn't happen, is unscientific in the EXTREME.




Umm ... no.  What's 'unscientific in the EXTREME' is accepting personal testimonial as scientific fact.  You believe it's possible because Joe Bob said he predicted his steak would be burnt that one time at Applebee's and it was.  That's what's unscientific.

Hell, look at the insane assumptions you're making.  You say millions of people have this happen to them.  How the hell do you know that?  What's your proof aside from Joe Bob and his 'near death experience' that one time when he drank too much Coors at the NASCAR race?  How is it scientific to trust the people who say it happened to them over scientific testing?  I'll help you with this one: It's not.  For one thing, there's that whole thing about taking accused criminals to trial.  See, if we just asked them if they did it and they said 'no' and we believed them there wouldn't be many people in jail, would there?  So why is it acceptable to doubt them there and then subject them to a trial (experiment) to prove whether or not they did, in fact, do it and somehow, at the same time, not acceptable to take someone who said they floated above their body when dead (or alive) and subject that to a trial of its own?  Double standard, maybe?



kingius said:


> True story - the body of work in 'science' is many and varied. It contains, among other things, theories which cannot be tested, never mind repeated, without jumping billions of years into the future (or the past). Much of what is accepted as canon is speculation expressed through mathematics. Quite how parallel universes are accepted, for example, when they are not provable in any way, when paranormal phenomenon like out of body expreience has a huge body of research and evidence to back it up... is what is called a /double standard/.
> 
> You'll never agree to this, despite it being true, so this is an utterly pointless discussion.




What body of research is there?  Do you honestly assert that the body of research on this stuff is greater than that on parallel universes?  Ok, let's play a game, then:

Umbran: You've told us a (very) little bit about parallel universes.  Would you be so kind as to link one article discussing some research on the matter?

kingius: You've told us a (very) little bit about out of body experiences.  Would you be so kind as to link one article discussing some research on the matter?


----------



## kingius (Mar 13, 2014)

> You've told us a (very) little bit about out of body experiences.  Would you be so kind as to link one article discussing some research on the matter?




This has been intentional so as to prompt further enquiry by people on their own terms rather than on mine. My own reading on this has been in book form and not via internet forums or linked articles, though I dare say there could be value in approaching the subject form that angle as well. Cutting the 'wheat' from the 'chaff' could be problematic. You can take that as being that because I have not provided any that there therefore isn't anything if you wish, it would certainly be easy to argue that, though if you perform a search of your own you'll learn that this isn't the case. Don't take my word for it, go look.

The current scientific establishment will not accept this kind of evidence despite there being less (or no) evidence for many of the outlandish theories which are currently very popular, but that is not to say in the future it will be so. Science will not tolerate close mindedness in the long term or it would not survive. The only reason the church did with such an approach is because it was 'heresy' or 'blasphemy' to speak out against it and the inquisition and so on.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> True story - the body of work in 'science' is many and varied. It contains, among other things, theories which cannot be tested, never mind repeated, without jumping billions of years into the future (or the past). Much of what is accepted as canon is speculation expressed through mathematics. Quite how parallel universes are accepted, for example, when they are not provable in any way, when paranormal phenomenon like out of body expreience has a huge body of research and evidence to back it up... is what is called a /double standard/.
> 
> You'll never agree to this, despite it being true, so this is an utterly pointless discussion.



Parallel Universes are not accepted at all. They are still only the level of hypothesis. There is one way to interpret quantum mechanics that says all the possible quantum states do happen - in different universes. But there is no way to test this with our current knowledge, it doesn'T make any predictions indistinguishably by what alternate interpretations (like the official Kopenhagen interpretation about collapsing wave functions means). 
It might be accepted in mainstream media as a cool thing to tell stories about - but on the science level, it's not something that is "accepted". 

We cannot replicate the big bang. But the theories involving the big bang make predictions we can test with current observations. Not everything we can actually pull off in a lab, which we would find preferable - but we can still make predictions. Basically, one prediciton of these theories is the big bang - but there are other predictions, and we can gain confidence.

That also means, by the way ,we do not need, strictly speaking, have to test paranormals in the lab. We just need a meaningful prediction the presence of paranomal/psychic acitivities makes and observe if the prediction matches the observation. FOr example, if you say: "Because precognitive abilities exists, there must be people that never lose on horse races" and we can check horse racing statistics and see if we find someone that qualifies. But of course, there are two problems with this particular prediction: 
- There are alternate explanations for someone that constantly wins horse races. Your hypothesis is no better than those. 
- You can always claim "We just haven't found it yet". What you really want is something falsifiable. (Basically - if we measure X, then my theory cannot be true.) Something like: "A person that was born under the sign of Scorpia from parents born under the sign of Lion must be prophetic and on every New Years Eve, he will predict the next 3 horse races correctly". If that persons succeeds, we gain confidence in your hypothesis, and if we can do it enough, it might be the (first) precognition/astrology theory! If it fails, your hypothesis is debunked. You get back to the drawbing board and figure out where you went wrong. If your theory works well enough, you might look for other predictions it makes and see if those are also confirmed - every confirmation adding confidence, but every failure meaning that you need to reexamine the theory and evidence and see what went wrong.


Paranormal activity is not some new, fancy belief no one has ever thought of before. People believed in magic for a long time, and it was (and may still be) a very wide-spread belief.
All this belief however never produced a fire elemental powered air ship or wizard schools (outside of fantasy novels).
Most people didn't think about atoms and might not even have believed in them, but we found evidence of them and teaching about them is part of regular school courses, and of course, plenty of our electrical power we have comes from our ability to split atoms. Not many suspected or would have believed in tiny organism (or almost-organism) inside our bodies that could make us sick, and yet now we know they exist and use vaccines and antibiotics to make people healthier then ever.

If paranormal powers were "real", I think we would have already had a very good confidence they exist and were using them practically in large capacity.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Well, no. The results prove that it works.



Circular logic is... circular, independently of the results of the scientific method.

I can say Earth is round because it is round as much as I want, and I'll be right, it is still ciruclar reasoning.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> This has been intentional so as to prompt further enquiry by people on their own terms rather than on mine. My own reading on this has been in book form and not via internet forums or linked articles, though I dare say there could be value in approaching the subject form that angle as well. Cutting the 'wheat' from the 'chaff' could be problematic. You can take that as being that because I have not provided any that there therefore isn't anything if you wish, it would certainly be easy to argue that, though if you perform a search of your own you'll learn that this isn't the case. Don't take my word for it, go look.
> 
> The current scientific establishment will not accept this kind of evidence despite there being less (or no) evidence for many of the outlandish theories which are currently very popular, but that is not to say in the future it will be so. Science will not tolerate close mindedness in the long term or it would not survive. The only reason the church did with such an approach is because it was 'heresy' or 'blasphemy' to speak out against it and the inquisition and so on.




That's not how this game is played.  You make an assertion, I want to see proof.  If I won't take peoples' word for it that they have had an out of body experience, what makes you think I'll take yours when you say there's proof of it somewhere?  

I don't want to google it.  You're the one saying it's there, show me.

EDIT: To explain it another way, you're demanding that I make your argument for you.  That's unreasonable.


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> No.  Creation of a theory (scientific) does NOT rely on consensus, authority, et al. All that is required is adhering to the Scientific Method. What you just referenced, is the M.O. of religion and faith.  Which is why any real scientist cringes when someone says that X number of scientists agree, therefore it is true.




Given the part you quoted and how you are commenting about a non-quoted part of my post, you are wrong on both counts.

I described in layman's terms the nomenclature used by the scientific community and the generic process they promote scientific discoveries from Hypothesis to Theory to Law.  Which IS by peer review and comittee.

Umbran can't do some math and declare XYZ is Law.  There is peer review.  
There is testing and reproducing of results.  And scientists who run specific tests to try to disprove Umbran's results.

There is absolutely a comittee or whatever in his field, that determines what's considered agreed upon


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> What body of research is there?  Do you honestly assert that the body of research on this stuff is greater than that on parallel universes?  Ok, let's play a game, then:
> 
> Umbran: You've told us a (very) little bit about parallel universes.  Would you be so kind as to link one article discussing some research on the matter?




Will Scientific American do as a start?  I took classes from Alexander Vilenkin in grad school, and he wrote part of this first piece for them:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-multiverse-really-exist/ (most of this is behind a paywall, but if you're a subscriber...)

And a scientific americal blog on the matter...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-insider-tips-for-criticizing-the-multiverse/


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> No or we wouldn't be having this conversation.



Why not? If we had the proof we could still be having this conversation. 


> What we have instead are vast amount of research into the subject matter,



Do you have any links to this 'research?'


> collecting thousands of reports over decades,



The problem with reports is that they aren't necessarily truthful. Sure, you can take it as fact, but that doesn't actually make it fact. I mean, slacked-jawed Jim said reported saw Big Foot having a tea party with Ronald Reagan, would that make it fact?


> coupled with out of body experiences being reported in the historical archives...



Do you have a link to one of these historical archives with reports of out of body experiences?



> and even into prehistory with myth and so on.



How do we have records and reports before there were records? Prehistory being the time before recorded history, it would seem a bit difficult, wouldn't you agree?


> In terms of scientific burden of proof, this is normally regarded as being insufficient. But you have to look at the context to understand why and I'll get to that.



Just curious, but what do you consider to be "the scientific burden of proof?"



> Many other things that science accepts has much less evidence for it (or none at all), or may even be utterly unprovable and yet still stands as part of the established body of science. This type of double standard needs to be critically examined because it is a sign that something else is at work and that is an agenda.



Do you have any examples of this?



> I reach a conclusion, which to me is obvious as it is shocking; science cannot look beyond the philosophy of materialism no matter what. This is similar to how classical physicists could not get their heads around quantum theory and tried to get rid of it. They weren't very successful in that though, they were dead wrong. That generation of scientists has now died out.



Could you explain how you reach your conclusions?



> Todays materialists are hampering scientific progress by claiming that their way of viewing the world is the only true way. To do this they have to misdirect people away from anything that suggests otherwise. They are going to go the way of the old classical physicists because ultimately, the truth about reality itself, like the truth about anything, can only be concealed for so long. Eventually, science finds the truth of the matter, but it will be the mavericks on the fringe that do it, not the establishment.



What other way would you suggest scientist use to prove theories?


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> That's not how this game is played.  You make an assertion, I want to see proof.  If I won't take peoples' word for it that they have had an out of body experience, what makes you think I'll take yours when you say there's proof of it somewhere?
> 
> I don't want to google it.  You're the one saying it's there, show me.
> 
> EDIT: To explain it another way, you're demanding that I make your argument for you.  That's unreasonable.




Yup.

I'm not quite sure what the threshold is for when to tell you are the guy who has to supply proof.  But there's a slew of generally accepted "facts" that for shorthand, people aren't expected to have to prove.  Puppies like to lick. Gravity makes things fall down are probably in that category.

Once you are the guy arguing against a majority or against an expert (Umbran is a physicist), you are probably on the hook for supplying evidence in some basic fashion.

And expecting me to go hunt down your proof, when I already know I am right is not going to get you any points or even sway my position.  Heck, I'm more likely to have a bias in how I do my search if I have to FIND opposing evidence to my view.

This is why science uses the "other scientists" method of disproving.  I announce a finding.  Some other scientist says, "that smells like BS" and invents a test to disprove it.  When it works, he publishes it to show the world how I was wrong.

Simple, and effective.  And if that other guy was wrong, somebody else will disprove him the same way.


----------



## kingius (Mar 13, 2014)

This discussion has entered the realms of the farsical. Whatever happened to the goal of people thinking for themselves in an enlightened society? I seem to be encountering people who are unable to do a bit of research themselves and seem to want me to do it all for them. 

We, as a global society, have got to do better than this. Having other people think for us is not going to get us any further forwards than we are now. We are always going to be targets for manipulation if we cannot seek out information for ourselves and make our own minds up about it. This is because any time we are removed from the source we can be deceived easily. And believe me, this is happening. Heck, don't believe me, but go look for yourself to prove me wrong. Whatever you do, go look.

Replacing one dogma with another is a trap. Merely repeating what others have you taught us to think does not make us clever, though it may fool some. We are an intelligent species, let us not squander that intelligence.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2014)

I did my research and found proof!

[sblock]


[/sblock]


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> This discussion has entered the realms of the farsical. Whatever happened to the goal of people thinking for themselves in an enlightened society? I seem to be encountering people who are unable to do a bit of research themselves and seem to want me to do it all for them.



Not true. I looked for some of this research you mentioned, but all I found were research studies that disprove out of body experiences, ESP, and other similar phenomena.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 13, 2014)

Hmm ... you mean sources like this?

It certainly tries to sound scientific, but of course provides no links to the studies it cites, so the studies themselves cannot be evaluated.  Evaluating the claims about the studies, then, reveals to me:

(1) Questionable methodology
(2) Experiments which assume the phenomenon exists and search for causes, without verifying the phenomenon itself
(3) A willingness to accept anecdote as proof
(4) A few citations which appear to debunk the OBE claims themselves

About the only thing I'm comfortable concluding from that mass of material is that they can correlate REM activity with very lucid dreams.


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> This discussion has entered the realms of the farsical. Whatever happened to the goal of people thinking for themselves in an enlightened society? I seem to be encountering people who are unable to do a bit of research themselves and seem to want me to do it all for them.
> 
> We, as a global society, have got to do better than this. Having other people think for us is not going to get us any further forwards than we are now. We are always going to be targets for manipulation if we cannot seek out information for ourselves and make our own minds up about it. This is because any time we are removed from the source we can be deceived easily. And believe me, this is happening. Heck, don't believe me, but go look for yourself to prove me wrong. Whatever you do, go look.
> 
> Replacing one dogma with another is a trap. Merely repeating what others have you taught us to think does not make us clever, though it may fool some. We are an intelligent species, let us not squander that intelligence.




I know more psychics who believe they have psychic abilities than you can shake a stick at.  

You have failed to consider that I some of us are well versed in the topic.

I have rows of books on meta-physical topics..  I am quite well informed.

So again.  Cite some proof of anything meta-physical being proven.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Circular logic is... circular, independently of the results of the scientific method.




Yes, but again, you seem to be behind what I'm saying.

What part of, "Science works because it allows us to get beyond the limitations of casual human thought.  The proof that it works is that we get results (like, say the semiconductors that allow the computer you're using to function) when we apply it," is circular?  The cause for function is *separate* from the proof of function.  Nothing self-referential in that.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 13, 2014)

kingius said:


> This discussion has entered the realms of the farsical. Whatever happened to the goal of people thinking for themselves in an enlightened society? I seem to be encountering people who are unable to do a bit of research themselves and seem to want me to do it all for them.
> 
> We, as a global society, have got to do better than this. Having other people think for us is not going to get us any further forwards than we are now. We are always going to be targets for manipulation if we cannot seek out information for ourselves and make our own minds up about it. This is because any time we are removed from the source we can be deceived easily. And believe me, this is happening. Heck, don't believe me, but go look for yourself to prove me wrong. Whatever you do, go look.
> 
> Replacing one dogma with another is a trap. Merely repeating what others have you taught us to think does not make us clever, though it may fool some. We are an intelligent species, let us not squander that intelligence.



Would you care to lead by example? So far you have insisted that something extraordinary is possible, and followed it up with the assertion that scientists, as some unified oligarchy, have dismissed it and refuse to even discuss it, but not cited a single source of information. Why, oh because you don't wish to converse with us "on our level."
We are just supposed to accept your statements on blind faith and conspiracy logic.
You have yet to go through a logical, rational discussion. You reach your conclusion, and then make up the argument along the way, and anyone that doesn't agree with you is biased.
Please, lead us out of farcical with some logical discussion.
Only one person gets to decide what the rules of conversation are on that board: the owner. The rules include no personal attacks, no politics, and nothing derogatory about religion.
Your pattern of (I can't call it 'dialog' because you don't seem to be listening to what others are saying) seems to be more religion-based than science based.
No one has (so far) said that you are wrong: they have asked you for proof. Proof you have refused to provide, thus totally negating your own side of the discussion.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but again, you seem to be behind what I'm saying.



Actually, you seem to.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 14, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Actually, you seem to.




Ah. I get it.  Okay, we're done.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Ah. I get it.  Okay, we're done.



Not my fault in post #79 you said the proof science gets results are its results. That is circular.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 14, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If paranormal powers were "real", I think we would have already had a very good confidence they exist and were using them practically in large capacity.




So if one out of ten million people had random, very infrequent, uncontrollable paranormal powers we'd, "have already had a very good confidence they exist and were using them practically in large capacity."

Please explain EXACTLY how that would be so. ...


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 14, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> So if one out of ten million people had random, very infrequent, uncontrollable paranormal powers we'd, "have already had a very good confidence they exist and were using them practically in large capacity."
> 
> Please explain EXACTLY how that would be so. ...




Then there would be about 600 to 800 people alive right now who could provide useful data.
Or, like life itself, the powers would be a statistical anomaly.
If they want to be taken seriously, they have to be willing to submit to study.
Once proven, people would be jealous, wishing they had the ability(ies), regardless of the consequences or price paid by the individuals. They would be branded as pariahs, and become the new rock stars, at the same time.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 14, 2014)

Janx said:


> Given the part you quoted and how you are commenting about a non-quoted part of my post, you are wrong on both counts.




Sorry sunshine.  Back to school you go.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 14, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Not my fault in post #79 you said the proof science gets results are its results. That is circular.




Like I said, I get it:  You continue pointing at stuff a third of the way back in the thread that has been clarified since.  We're done.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 14, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> So if one out of ten million people had random, very infrequent, uncontrollable paranormal powers we'd, "have already had a very good confidence they exist and were using them practically in large capacity."
> 
> Please explain EXACTLY how that would be so. ...



If ten million people had random, very infrequent paranomral powers, but we could observe and study them, we would learn how to control them better. Like we did with things like steam machines, internal combustion engines, fission, rockets, vaccines. When we start with something completely new, we always start with a small experimental system involving a small number of researcers and subjects (where applicable). Our beginning attempts are often crude, we get things wrong, stuff in the lab explodes/dies/falls apart. But we refine our procedures.


----------



## Janx (Mar 14, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> Sorry sunshine.  Back to school you go.




You are failing worse now.  This is your last chance, before I deem you troll and end interaction.

Saying "you're wrong" as if that's your proof is bad form.  You need to back it up with some explanation.

Here's a link to the scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Note how it mentions peer review and approval.

Here's a description of Scientific Law, though it does not denote the process of moving from Theory to Law that I learned in school:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

In any case, I stand by my point that when normal people use "theory" as in "I have a theory" they are not speaking in the Science sense of Theory as published and accepted by Scientists.  Just as when an Indian says "I have a doubt" he doesn't me he is dubious of your project, he means he has a question.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 14, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If ten million people had random, very infrequent paranomral powers, but we could observe and study them,




You FAILED to answer the question.  I said "EXACTLY".  "But if" doesn't qualify.

Get back to me when you have an answer.  In the meantime I just blew your _conclusion_ out of the water.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 14, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> In the meantime I just blew your _conclusion_ out of the water.




It seems to me that an "exact" description would be impossible, without just as exacting a description of the full nature and behavior of the powers.  Your scenario was not exact, so cannot get an exact response.  Doubly so when your'e not clear about what is "exact" enough for you.  Too much space in there for you to move goalposts, I'm afraid.  

Oh, and gloating?  It makes you look like you're interested in scoring points, in winning an argument on the internet.  If that's accurate, then thank you for being honest.  If it isn't, well, you might want to look to that before folks get the wrong impression.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> It seems to me that an "exact" description would be impossible,





Correct. And you haven't been able to defend your assertion.  It's your claim to flesh out, not mine.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 14, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> Correct. And you haven't been able to defend your assertion.  It's your claim to flesh out, not mine.




Except, of course, that I didn't make the assertion to which you seem to be referring.


----------



## Arduin's (Mar 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Except, of course, that I didn't make the assertion to which you seem to be referring.




I quoted you.  I'm sorry, but until you deign to answer I won't waste my time responding to nothing.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Like I said, I get it:  You continue pointing at stuff a third of the way back in the thread that has been clarified since.  We're done.



You haven't clarified the circular logic, just dodged it by pointing out stuff a third of the way back in the thread.


----------



## Janx (Mar 14, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You haven't clarified the circular logic, just dodged it by pointing out stuff a third of the way back in the thread.




This line of discussion is irritating.  As you keep hitting it and getting the same response, can you please drop it.

Something that works has results.
Science has results.
Therefore Science Works.

I don't think it would be simple to outline the whole chain of scientific discovery and process that enabled the Transistor to be invented so we could have computers.  Can we just accept that it happened because we're all on computers.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 14, 2014)

This thread features multiple people being jerks to each other, people deliberately misrepresenting each others' positions, and more than one instance of hounding. If you can't be polite, don't post. It's really that simple.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 14, 2014)

Janx said:


> This line of discussion is irritating.  As you keep hitting it and getting the same response, can you please drop it.



No. I think people should own the arguments they use in debates.



> Something that works has results.
> Science has results.
> Therefore Science Works.



The Earth is round because it is round. While true, it is circular and should be avoided. Poor quality arguments won't help disprove Kingius's affirmations or convince him, if possible, that his arguments are ridiculus.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 14, 2014)

Arduin's said:


> You FAILED to answer the question.  I said "EXACTLY".  "But if" doesn't qualify.




I did answer your question. Exactly.
Or as exactly as possible, given the undefined "psychic powers", which was really open and non-specific.

I imagine the discussions would be similar to "Which comic book super hero would you like to be?" with a bunch of kids and geeks dreaming of glory and grandure, wishing somehow they were special.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 18, 2014)

kingius said:


> This discussion has entered the realms of the farsical. Whatever happened to the goal of people thinking for themselves in an enlightened society? I seem to be encountering people who are unable to do a bit of research themselves and seem to want me to do it all for them.
> 
> We, as a global society, have got to do better than this. Having other people think for us is not going to get us any further forwards than we are now. We are always going to be targets for manipulation if we cannot seek out information for ourselves and make our own minds up about it. This is because any time we are removed from the source we can be deceived easily. And believe me, this is happening. Heck, don't believe me, but go look for yourself to prove me wrong. Whatever you do, go look.
> 
> Replacing one dogma with another is a trap. Merely repeating what others have you taught us to think does not make us clever, though it may fool some. We are an intelligent species, let us not squander that intelligence.




What you're encountering are people who refuse to do your work for you.  If you make a statement and are asked to back it up, 'the truth is out there' fails as corroboration.  You say there's proof, we say there's not.  If there really is proof the easiest way to show that isn't to repeat 'it's there' over and over again, it's to simply post some.  I gave you a chance and, to make it fair, I asked Umbran to perform the same task I asked of you.  So far, he's the only one who's posted anything backing him up.  I wonder why ...


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 18, 2014)

The argument provided is the same as saying "Why don't scientists accept (my religion) as fact. Millions of people have believed in it for hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. You don't need any more than that. The fact that they believed was enough." Without facts or sources or references to back it up, Out of Body Experiences (which do fall primarily under the category of Spiritual Experiences) is more of a religious belief. You need real logic. You need evidence. You need examples. Preferably ones that back up your claims, if you want to persuade people to join your side. And if you find more evidence to the contrary, you have to be prepared to change your own views, or recognize that maybe this is a spiritual matter more than a scientific one.


****Note: I am not bashing any religion, or religion in general (this time). I am simply providing a parallel example of the argument style, and some honest advice.


----------



## kingius (Mar 18, 2014)

As predicted you have taken this tactic. I wonder why ;-)

You know that it's impossible to win this game from any position but your own because the game has already been rigged. The evidence for out of body experiences is not considered as evidence by the scientific community, so its game over before it ever begins isn't it? So excuse me if I don't take part in an exercise in futility.

If you are truly interested in the research that's been done then start looking for it, not a fight.


----------



## kingius (Mar 18, 2014)

> The argument provided is the same as saying "Why don't scientists accept (my religion) as fact.




Science is atheistic in nature and this is why religion is not accepted. Atheism is itself a belief system (the belief in the non-existence of something), no matter what underpins it, it could still be wrong. So be careful about confusing facts with beliefs. Agnostism accepts that questions about gods, spirits, souls and so on may be fundamentally unknowable and unprovable, but that doesn't preclude them from existing. This is now the domain of philosophy which science is ill equipped to deal with, especially considering the close minded nature of scientific debate over that which we do not know and consider to be 'paranormal'. In short, don't look to a scientist to understand these things because science simply (at this point in time) is too busy denying the existence of these things to get anywhere close to them.

Edit to expand - the very notion that people who do not agree with atheism are not somehow being rational is itself somewhat crazy. It is entirely possible to experience something and to come to the conclusion that the experience was 'paranomal'. Simple logic can lead one down this path when one considers all of the facts as known. Often scientists have to miss out on crucial facts in order to utilise reductionism and create a theory which spans multiple sources. You have to go back to the original sources to discover this, though, and until you do, you won't know that the theory is wrong.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 18, 2014)

kingius said:


> As predicted you have taken this tactic. I wonder why ;-)
> 
> You know that it's impossible to win this game from any position but your own because the game has already been rigged. The evidence for out of body experiences is not considered as evidence by the scientific community, so its game over before it ever begins isn't it? So excuse me if I don't take part in an exercise in futility.
> 
> If you are truly interested in the research that's been done then start looking for it, not a fight.



I've actually looked and didn't find anything that wasn't New Age.


----------



## kingius (Mar 18, 2014)

Well I think we both know that I'm completely wasting my time here because right from the start people made their minds up to disregard what I was saying and portray every little bit in the worst possible light, truth of it be damned. At least you have looked, which is something. As for something being 'new age' might it be a good idea to look at something a bit more rigorous? Possibly the researcher you were looking at has become convinced of the existence of an afterlife (and so on) as a result of the research that's been done... I'm speculating here without knowing what it was you looked at, but it is entirely possible. Certainly what I have read on this has made it clear to me that there is much more going on than mainstream science (and the atheism that underpins it) can satisfactorily explain. However these issues are, for the most, about people's beliefs and you can bet that there are people salivating at the lips for a fight on this, just look at the reactions on the side, it seems that one thing the human race cannot get out of is fighting over beliefs. 'I'm right and you're wrong'. Science hasn't got us very far away from that, has it?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 18, 2014)

kingius said:


> As for something being 'new age' might it be a good idea to look at something a bit more rigorous?



I agree, but I can't find any. They often mention studies or researches, but never give references.



> However these issues are, for the most, about people's beliefs



Anyone can believe anything, but that doesn't make it true. 



> and you can bet that there are people salivating at the lips for a fight on this, just look at the reactions on the side, it seems that one thing the human race cannot get out of is fighting over beliefs. 'I'm right and you're wrong'.Science hasn't got us very far away from that, has it?



Umm... You're the only who is figthing over what science is/can do. 

You've mention extra-scientific facts. People are sceptical and want to see those facts. I do not think it is unreasonable or trying to pick a fight to be sceptical. 

People might be defensive, that I give you, but you make claims that go against commonly accepted facts and do not back them. You shouldn't be surprised to see people asking for proof.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 18, 2014)

kingius said:


> As predicted you have taken this tactic. I wonder why ;-)
> 
> You know that it's impossible to win this game from any position but your own because the game has already been rigged. The evidence for out of body experiences is not considered as evidence by the scientific community, so its game over before it ever begins isn't it? So excuse me if I don't take part in an exercise in futility.
> 
> If you are truly interested in the research that's been done then start looking for it, not a fight.




Taken what tactic?  A commonly accepted approach to debate?  Yeah, I'll cop to that.  I'm only asking you to join us.

At any rate, you say I'll refute your evidence without looking at it and then a couple lines later tell me there's evidence I'd accept.  Umm ... why not just post this evidence?  I'm not looking for a fight at all, by the way, I'm looking for some respect.  _You _made an argument so _you _should support it.  Asking me to do your legwork is unacceptable.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 18, 2014)

kingius said:


> Well I think we both know that I'm completely wasting my time here because right from the start people made their minds up to disregard what I was saying and portray every little bit in the worst possible light, truth of it be damned. At least you have looked, which is something. As for something being 'new age' might it be a good idea to look at something a bit more rigorous? Possibly the researcher you were looking at has become convinced of the existence of an afterlife (and so on) as a result of the research that's been done... I'm speculating here without knowing what it was you looked at, but it is entirely possible. Certainly what I have read on this has made it clear to me that there is much more going on than mainstream science (and the atheism that underpins it) can satisfactorily explain. However these issues are, for the most, about people's beliefs and you can bet that there are people salivating at the lips for a fight on this, just look at the reactions on the side, it seems that one thing the human race cannot get out of is fighting over beliefs. 'I'm right and you're wrong'. Science hasn't got us very far away from that, has it?




You're trying to argue your point on an internet bulletin board. As has been stated, you are already wasting your time, by definition.
I cannot expand on what I said, because on this board it would be considered bashing religion, which earns demerits and possible banning. I'm a lapsed agnostic: I don't know if there's a supreme deity, and I don't care. If there is and it wants to talk to me, it will. So far, it hasn't. If there isn't one, it won't. DONE.
Atheism is what it is. Sadly, there is a down side to it, but out of respect for other beliefs, I will NOT detail that here.

If you are so convinced, why don't you do a study? Why don't you do the research? If you don't have the money, why don't you start a kickstarter or other fundraising to do the research?
Science and scientists in general will accept anything that is presented to them in the proper way. Use their weapons against them.
Religion is religion.
Science is science.
Many (if not most) scientists are also religious.
There is overlap.
There is conflict.
You decide for yourself which has priority in your life.
If you want to persuade others to join you, you'll have to be far more convincing than you have been. There is a style and argument to debate. There is even an art to it. This is a board with a lot of sci-fi fans, many of whom use science and logic as the basis of their lives. If you want them to accept something non-scientific and provide data (in fact, you refuse to provide any data for any of your claims), you may be fighting an uphill battle, or trying to fight it in the wrong place.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 18, 2014)

kingius said:


> Well I think we both know that I'm completely wasting my time here because right from the start people made their minds up to disregard what I was saying and portray every little bit in the worst possible light, truth of it be damned.




That is not what is happening at all.

You come in and say, "This thing really happens!"
We say, "Oh?  I am skeptical, as other explanations seem more likely.  What's your evidence that this happens?"
You: "It totally happens!  There is evidence!"
Us: "What evidence?  Was the evidence gathered carefully?"
You: "You're painting this is the worst possible light!"

We are asking questions, and asking that your assertions be put through the same process we put everything else through.  I put "cold fusion" through similar skepticism, for example.  Test.  Peer review.  Prove it.  The burden to provide initial evidence is on the one asserting they have the truth.  The rest of us then review the evidence, do our own tests.  If the tests all indicate the same things, we come to agree that this is, in fact, truth.

To repeat a wise idea, "You have the right to your own opinion.  You don't have a right to your own facts."  What is in question here are not beliefs - what is in question is what happens, whether or not we believe in it.


----------

