False equivalency is false, no matter what flavor you choose.
It's not an equivalency, it's an analogy. So if you wanted to critique it would be a false analogy.
-Sab
An interesting article on scientific explanations of near-death / out-of-body experiences
by cedars 95 Replies latest jw friends
-
sabastious
-
EntirelyPossible
I wasn't critiquing "it", whatever "it" is.
False equivalency is false.
-
DavePerez
GromitSK said:
I hear ya Dave. You might find the research by the people I mention of interest. I am not saying it will convince you beyond all doubt but its food for thought. If you never look at it you'll never know :) Fontana is a good place to start for a summary.
Funny, as Fontana seemed to be the whackiest of the bunch, a psychologist writing pseudo-scientific babble to sell books to an unsuspecting public who doesn't know the scientific method (which the field of psychology, his discipline, is criticized for not following), but are looking for excuses to believe what they do. Did you NOT read his list of works?
- The Meditator's Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Eastern and Western Meditation Techniques (1992)
- Meditation: An Introductory Guide to Relaxation for Mind and Body (1999)
- Discover Zen: A Practical Guide to Personal Serenity (2001)
- Learn to Meditate: A Practical Guide to Self-Discovery and Fulfillment
- The Secret Language of Symbols: A Visual Key to Symbols and Their Meanings (2003)
- Psychology, Religion and Spirituality (2003)
- Learn to Dream: Interpret Dream Symbolism, Enhance Inner Life, Remember Your Dreams (2004)
- Is There An Afterlife?: A Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence (2005)
- Life Beyond Death: What Should We Expect? (2009)
- Creative Meditation & Visualization (2007)
That's highly suggestive of a snake-oil salesman, but using pseudo-science instead of theology (L Ron Hubbard's Scientology comes to mind). Same goes for the MD neurologist who violates a basic principle of the scientific method, relying on his own personal testimony as his evidence offered to others.
BTW, some may find it beneficial to make sure they properly understand WHAT the scientific method actually is, before offering their opinions on it. Here's a good review which is easy to understand:
http://arachnoid.com/what_is_science/
Here's an excerpt:
Evidence
Scientific evidence must meet a very high standard of objectivity and repeatability, compared to which legal evidence seems like gossip. For example, the standard of legal evidence sufficient to put someone to death — "beyond a reasonable doubt" — isn't remotely suitable for a scientific investigation.
Among other things, scientific evidence must be objective (it must appear the same to two similarly equipped observers), it must be repeatable, and it cannot be susceptible to more than one interpretation. If I see a bright light in the sky, it might be a UFO, but it might also be Venus — and because of a scientific precept called Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually correct), it probably is Venus. This wouldn't make very good scientific evidence, though it's plenty good enough for the Discovery Channel's next UFO special.
Sab said:
The sheep represent the many times in history when an explaned event is resolved as an unsolved mystery. I am speaking about mysteries that remained mysterties even until today.
Really?
Even though you claimed "many times" this has happened, can you give just ONE example of that situation, where an unexplained but reliably-documented (i.e. with many observers who independently provide the same account) event is reported by ancient men, which HASN'T been resolved by modern men?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of ANY, zilch.
-
GromitSK
Hi Dave
I should perhaps have been more specific "is there an afterlife" is the compendium I refer to. He doesn't really express much of his own opinion in the book, in fact at the end I found he sat on the fence a bit really. It is pretty much a summary of some of the types evidence and the breadth of it and has extensive references you can follow up. I wouldn't regard Fontana as whacky to be honest. The books on meditation etc would be acceptable to most practioners of meditation I would think (I haven't read them as I have no interest in it), meditation is important to millions of people across the world. As for symbology - the man was a psychology professor - it might be part of his professional expertise. I would think he was qualified to comment on processes relating to the human mind given his credentials.
Whether you decide to read the recommendation or not is up to you of course, but I don't think your characterisation of him is reasonable (having read some of his work myself).
interestingly your original post said scientists had never been offered a shred of evidence. This isn't true. I suggested Fontana because the book I now mention contains, as I said, a good summary of the spread of evidence. It isnt Fontana's evidence. I didn't say you'd like. If you don't want to read it that's your choice of course.
-
DavePerez
Interestingly your original post said scientists had never been offered a shred of evidence. This isn't true. I suggested Fontana because the book I now mention contains, as I said, a good summary of the spread of evidence. It isnt Fontana's evidence. I didn't say you'd like. If you don't want to read it that's your choice of course.
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps you can paraphrase the evidence Fontana found (eg citations) for us, as I'm extremely doubtful such evidence exists, but I'm not interested enough to waste time tracking down the book to see accounts of ghost-chasers and paranormal investigators (mildly entertaining topic for cable TV, though, if you can suspend disbelief). As you say, his own fence-sitting on the matter is not a stunning endorsement, or providing much hope: he apparently didn't find it compelling, either.
As I said, the very fact it hasn't been elevated to the likes of James Randi suggests to me the evidence either doesn't exist, or it has been faked and cannot withstand the scrutiny of independent verification in a controlled environment. As a skeptic, it's pretty easy to know which side to bet on, as typified by the wise saying of Tim Minchin: " Throughout history, ever mystery ever solved has turned out NOT to be 'magic'."
-
sabastious
Even though you claimed "many times" this has happened, can you give just ONE example of that situation, where an unexplained but reliably-documented (i.e. with many observers who independently provide the same account) event is reported by ancient men, which HASN'T been resolved by modern men? Off the top of my head, I can't think of ANY, zilch.
There is a good reason why I'm not giving any specifics even though I have many on hand in my mind. Concepts and hypotheticals work better to explain what I am attempting to explain. When I put in details and specifics people like you typically hone in and use them against me. This always results in a big waste of time. There are plenty of unsolved scientific mysteries that you could find yourself. The reason I use the analogy is to package them all into a simple concept that involves a measure of peril.
That said I am not totally against giving details so I will give you ONE. Please give me a scientific explanation of this event. Then take that scientific explanation and compare it spiritual explanations and determine which framework, spiritual or scientific, is best suited for explanation.
-Sab
-
GromitSK
Hi Dave - no offence but I am not going to précis the contents. You can borrow it from a library if you're interested. If you're not interested Enough to read a book I don't think there is any point in wasting time discussing it. I have no interest in pursuading anyone one way or the other about it but I would be interested in discussing the contents with anyone who has read it. You mentioned there is no evidence, I have pointed you at one source which collects a summary of some of it. Whether you choose to look into it or not is up to you. In the book I mentioned, Fontana pulls together evidence some of which has been collected by some of the finest scientific (and non scientific) minds of their time over the last 150 years or so. It isn't ghost hunting or 'TV psychics'-style but very matter of fact.
-
DavePerez
Sab said:
Please give me a scientific explanation of this event. Then take that scientific explanation and compare it spiritual explanations and determine which framework, spiritual or scientific, is best suited for explanation.
Uh, the most obvious one: coincidence? They were both elderly, and it's not unlikely from a statistical standpoint that they'd die with the same time-frame (as contemporaries do, esp in that time period where there likely was less variability in lifespans for their common socioeconomic level).
Furthermore, there's a well-known phenomena of those who are close to death or fighting terminal illness being able to hang on to witness an important event (witnessing the 50th anniversary of the U.S. is not an unreasonable thing to think they'd share, and wish to see before they "let go", being that it's such a sentinel achievement of both of their lives). This is a well-known phenomena amongst hospice workers and medical professionals that people can somewhat control the time and day of their death, where they just give up emotionally and quit 'fighting'.
Occam's razor says this is the incredibly more likely scenario vs accepting a string of incredibly impossible events for which no evidence exists. Granted, it's not as warming and reassuring as believing in a God with a master plan (maybe He wanted a few legislators in Heaven, to draft a Heavenly Constitution?), but reality doesn't care what we want it to be: it just IS.
GromitSK said:
Hi Dave - no offence but I am not going to précis the contents. You can borrow it from a library if you're interested. If you're not interested Enough to read a book I don't think there is any point in wasting time discussing it.
No offense taken, but you surely have been exposed to the concept of "burden of proof", wherein the person who's advocating a claim has to be able to provide proof to back it up? I'm likewise not interested in chasing ghosts and loose ends (esp if you say the author discounted the very evidence he presented in his own book!), simply to confirm that yes, there is a lack of verifiable evidence.
-
EntirelyPossible
When I put in details and specifics people like you typically hone in and use them against me.
I would laugh but... wait, I am laughing.
Please give me a scientific explanation of this event.
People die. Some people are in the BS numerology. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
-
GromitSK
Dave I have suggested a place to look before you say there is no evidence, if you don't want to that's fine. I don't think I have any 'burden' at all other than to tell you that. I certainly don't have an obligation to précis a book for you. It's not my evidence, I was trying to be helpful. You don't even have to buy it, you could borrow it from a library. I would have be interested to discuss it when you'd looked at it as I am still forming my own views on the subject. My view at the moment is that there is a great deal of evidence to support survival, but I haven't seen anything that conclusively proves or disproves it for me.
I wasn't saying the author discounted his own evidence, I was saying he didn't state a firm conclusion, that could well be because he'd rather leave it to the reader to make their own mind up. I don't think Fontana was a champion of survival after death, simply fascinated by it although in his book about what happens after death he does go a bit further but as he says himself in it, it is conjecture and depends on what one makes of the evidence for survival in toto.
i think that's all I have to say on the subject really.