Michael Shermer has a Paranormal Experience

That rises another question though - is it even possible to create studies to satisfy those needs to make parapsychological research 'high quality'?

While there may be some cases where it isn't, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be?

But if that is the case, then so be it. Not every hypothesis can be confirmed - even if true!
 
That rises another question though - is it even possible to create studies to satisfy those needs to make parapsychological research 'high quality'?

There's no reason why not. The kinds of claims which are made are testable, and similar to claims which are tested in related fields.

Linda
 
Yes, this is well known and has been well known by scientific researchers in psi. In fact, that is why every effort is often made to uncover corroborative testimonies and other evidentiary material to support accounts provided. By simply asserting eyewitness accounts are unreliable, does not reasonably justify dismissing large amounts of well corroborated and investigated testimonies by credible sources and the scientists (many of who have been highly respected scientists if not leaders in their field) who have provided the research.

I don't know if psi researchers are aware of the limitations, given that much of what they do is simply collect more of the same kind of unreliable information. For example, most reincarnation stories have been collected long after feedback has been given. So even though you might interview multiple participants, they all suffer from the same problem - you no longer know who was the original source of which information. Ian Stevenson tried to overcome this by making a concerted effort to document information before there was feedback. But those cases are only a small proportion of his total (less than 1%).

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_02_2_stevenson.pdf

Or consider the lack of prospective documentation of auditory and visual experiences associated with medical crises, or NDE's. Only a tiny proportion of them have been documented prior to receiving feedback, and none of those include the kind of documented veridical information you find in abundance among the anecdotes collected by NDERF. Yet you still find researchers claiming that NDEs contain veridical elements and represent proof of survival of consciousness on that basis.

I'd feel a lot more confident that parapsychologists understood the limitations if those limitations were taken into account when drawing conclusions or designing studies.

Going back to my original quote that I provided from "Phantasms of the Living" (have you read this massive study by the early SPR?), one would have to assume families have been struck by mass hallucination, and people are in the custom of writing mournful letters about bereavements that have never occurred, among a long list of other corroborative facts that supplement well documented "testimonies".

I haven't read this yet (although I see that the book is available online), but it seems to be missing the point. The problem isn't overcome by confirming that a bereavement has occurred, or that others have the same recollection. The problem is whether there is some documentation of what was experienced prior to any feedback, under blind conditions.

The argument could be made that a single report of this kind would not be sufficient for evidentiary value, but given the large amounts of cases that have been investigated and published by a scientific organization such as the SPR (and others), to dismiss all of it on the flimsy polemic that "eyewitness accounts are notorious" is, in my opinion, unreasonable.

The problem is that increasing the number of times you collect unreliable information means that you have larger amounts of unreliable information, when what you are really looking for is something different - reliable information.

It was remarkable enough to Shermer and his wife to have an emotional reaction to the event and write about it. That in itself stands out to me. I don't believe Shermer is someone who would be predisposed to just post it unless it had some unusual impact on him.

Right, but we already know that people have emotionally compelling experiences, including skeptics and non-proponents. So it isn't remarkable for someone to offer another example of this.

Regarding psi evidentiary value, yes there is nothing outstanding about his account that doesn't seem like it might have some reasonable explanations. Although I would be curious regarding the actual physical state of the radio in question.

Shermer is a psychologist, I think, and is supposedly used to pursuing ideas using a scientific approach. Yet even he failed to document the details of this experience in a way which would be reasonably valid and reliable. I have this idea that if ordinary people were taught to document their experiences under blind conditions, we could make progress on collecting reliable information (e.g. Andy Paquette's dream journals). But I'm not sure that this is even remotely feasible.

Linda
 
Yet even he failed to document the details of this experience in a way which would be reasonably valid and reliable.
Would recording the exact minute/second that he changed the batteries help?

Cheers,
Bill
 
I don't know if psi researchers are aware of the limitations, given that much of what they do is simply collect more of the same kind of unreliable information.
I find this a remarkable statement. Are you aware of who the psi researchers have been such as past presidents of the SPR? You are implying they were not acquainted with the limits of scientific data or methodology?? I don't know, I admit, I'm almost speechless here, given just the caliber of scientists who have been involved in psi research. Some have been among the most famous names known to science.

Or consider the lack of prospective documentation of auditory and visual experiences associated with medical crises, or NDE's. Only a tiny proportion of them have been documented prior to receiving feedback, and none of those include the kind of documented veridical information you find in abundance among the anecdotes collected by NDERF. Yet you still find researchers claiming that NDEs contain veridical elements and represent proof of survival of consciousness on that basis.

I'd feel a lot more confident that parapsychologists understood the limitations if those limitations were taken into account when drawing conclusions or designing studies.

I haven't read this yet (although I see that the book is available online), but it seems to be missing the point. The problem isn't overcome by confirming that a bereavement has occurred, or that others have the same recollection. The problem is whether there is some documentation of what was experienced prior to any feedback, under blind conditions.

You haven't read one of the most seminal works in psi research and yet you already know the facts about it apparently. How do I respond to this kind of lack of knowledge of the scientific research and data in the field?

In addition, are you even aware of Dr. Jeffrey Long's work with NDE reports by children 5 and under? Most of whom couldn't possibly have had preconceived notions of what death entails, or the well-known elements that have been established that are representative of NDEs? Are you even aware that follow-up studies by Bruce Greyson, MD in 2007, interviewed these same children many years later, to see if any of their recollections had changed or even were embellished over the intervening years (over 20 years), and all of them, all of them, reported the same experiences in very marked and vivid detail? These were 72 cases of children under 5.

Are you aware there have been prospective studies in NDE research, which are even ongoing today? Do you believe the many dedicated scientists who have been studying NDEs now, some of them for decades, are oblivious to the psychological possibility of deception, or false memories?

NDE researcher, Penny Sartori,Ph.D. published a study in 2004, where she studied NDE subjects who were able to describe their resuscitation efforts in great detail, at a time when by all known medical standards, they were dead, there was no brain activity, and no possible level of brain activity that could create the kind of highly organized, vivid, continuous experiences well-known as the hallmark of NDEs. In addition, Penny Sartori compared the experiences reported by the NDE subjects to a control group of patients that had also undergone resuscitation and were asked to describe the resuscitation efforts upon them, but did not report an NDE with an OBE element.

Let me guess, you probably don't know what the results of Penny's study or have not read about it. I'll leave it to you to actually look at the material, because this is what real scientists do (and I might add, real skeptics).

The problem is that increasing the number of times you collect unreliable information means that you have larger amounts of unreliable information, when what you are really looking for is something different - reliable information.
Again, it's remarkable to me that you haven't even read one of the landmark works in psi-research, you have very little knowledge of the NDE research studies that have been conducted, and apparently not much respect for the researchers themselves and their ability and knowledge regarding the reliability of the scientific data they collected during their studies, and yet are able to make a gross and sweeping assumption that a large amount of data collected has been "unreliable". This, IMO is based on no more than Skeptic polemics that, my guess is, you have studied more than you have studied the actual scientific research performed in psi.

Right, but we already know that people have emotionally compelling experiences, including skeptics and non-proponents. So it isn't remarkable for someone to offer another example of this.
Actually the psychological component in psi experiences is often analyzed in reported cases, and does factor into the evidentiary weight of any given testimony (in addition to the corroborative evidence that accompanies all good psi testimony). For example, when studying affective dreams such as precognitive or clairvoyant dreams, it was early on established that only those dreams that had a significant psychological effect upon the dreamer i.e. the dreamer would wake up in the middle of the night, and would immediately write down their experience, or report their experience to someone else, or actually get up out of bed and visited some location etc. were given far more evidentiary weight to the early psychical researchers. And dreams without this psychological effect were usually dismissed as insufficient. In fact, a very high expertise in psychology, including abnormal psychology is required for any credible researcher in psi IMO. Since by definition, the researcher is dealing with mostly subjective experiences, and the whole range of psychological phenomena from autism to genius etc.
 
Last edited:
I find this a remarkable statement. Are you aware of who the psi researchers have been such as past presidents of the SPR? You are implying they were not acquainted with the limits of scientific data or methodology?? I don't know, I admit, I'm almost speechless here, given just the caliber of scientists who have been involved in psi research. Some have been among the most famous names known to science.

I'm familiar with many of the psi researchers, but I'm saying that I would rather look at the actual research and see what it consists of.

You haven't read one of the most seminal works in psi research and yet you already know the facts about it apparently. How do I respond to this kind of lack of knowledge of the scientific research and data in the field?

To be honest, you're the first person who's suggested it's one of the most seminal works in parapsychology. :) Otherwise, I probably would have read it already.

I'm happy to read stuff which others suggest. I've read many, many parapsychology papers and books, so I will likely read this as well. I was responding to the part you quoted and what you said about it.

In addition, are you even aware of Dr. Jeffrey Long's work with NDE reports by children 5 and under? Most of whom couldn't possibly have had preconceived notions of what death entails, or the well-known elements that have been established that are representative of NDEs? Are you even aware that follow-up studies by Bruce Greyson, MD in 2007, interviewed these same children many years later, to see if any of their recollections had changed or even were embellished over the intervening years (over 20 years), and all of them, all of them, reported the same experiences in very marked and vivid detail? These were 72 cases of children under 5.

I'm familiar with this work. Your statements about follow-up studies or the youth of the children misses the point. Neither follow-up or the age of the children prohibits the problems which Stevenson raised in the paper I linked to earlier.

Are you aware there have been prospective studies in NDE research, which are even ongoing today? Do you believe the many dedicated scientists who have been studying NDEs now, some of them for decades, are oblivious to the psychological possibility of deception, or false memories?

I'm very familiar with the prospective research. It doesn't matter whether or not the researchers are aware of the problems. What matters is whether or not the research is performed in a way which addresses these problems. For example, Penny Sartori was able to interview the subjects in her study quite early in the process (prior to some of the feedback) and provided documentation (transcripts of her recorded interviews) of what the subjects said. In comparison, initial interviews in the AWARE study could be delayed for months or longer, long after feedback had been received, which made them less reliable in terms of what information came from the experience (vs. feedback).

NDE researcher, Penny Sartori,Ph.D. published a study in 2004, where she studied NDE subjects who were able to describe their resuscitation efforts in great detail, at a time when by all known medical standards, they were dead, there was no brain activity, and no possible level of brain activity that could create the kind of highly organized, vivid, continuous experiences well-known as the hallmark of NDEs.

Um...have you read her book/research? That's not an accurate description of what she found. Most subjects did not describe their resuscitation in great detail - only one did. A few others mentioned one or two not particularly specific details. And none of this took place when they were dead or had no brain activity. For example, the one who provided the most detail had measurable activity on physical exam (reactive pupils) and didn't have cardiac arrest or a physical condition which would preclude brain activity. Another was under anaesthesia, and research shows that implicit awareness can occur under anaesthesia without explicit awareness. And the accuracy of the details only holds for those sensations available to the physical body. Many inaccuracies were recorded (just not mentioned in the reports), especially once the subjects started reporting on stuff just outside their available senses.

In addition, Penny Sartori compared the experiences reported by the NDE subjects to a control group of patients that had also undergone resuscitation and were asked to describe the resuscitation efforts upon them, but did not report an NDE with an OBE element.

Well, they reported on those elements which were part of their NDE. But they weren't able to report on anything which didn't make it into their NDE (such as the targets she had placed in the room). I'm also not sure that this means anything with respect to survival, since it seems likely that given the vagaries of resuscitation, some subjects will have enough sensory awareness to incorporate some elements from their resuscitation into their auditory/visual experiences.

Let me guess, you probably don't know what the results of Penny's study or have not read about it. I'll leave it to you to actually look at the material, because this is what real scientists do (and I might add, real skeptics).

Well, I strongly encourage you to follow your advice and read her research report (published in book form). It is highly enlightening.

Again, it's remarkable to me that you haven't even read one of the landmark works in psi-research, you have very little knowledge of the NDE research studies that have been conducted, and apparently not much respect for the researchers themselves and their ability and knowledge regarding the reliability of the scientific data they collected during their studies, and yet are able to make a gross and sweeping assumption that a large amount of data collected has been "unreliable". This, IMO is based on no more than Skeptic polemics that, my guess is, you have studied more than you have studied the actual scientific research performed in psi.

I don't know where you got that idea. I have read much of the landmark research in psi, as well as many other studies. My comment came from a familiarity with the kinds of information used by NDE researchers and the relative paucity of prospective studies, and the even rarer early documentation of the auditory and visual experiences, compared to the collections of thousands of stories.

I'm happy to discuss the details of the actual research. To be honest, I find that when I try to do so here, few people have actually read (or understood) the primary reports.

Linda
 
I don't know where you got that idea. I have read much of the landmark research in psi

I don't have time this evening to respond in full to your response. But given you have never read "Phantasms of the Living" is where I "got that idea" because it is a landmark work in psi research. That you have never even heard it described as such, and were unfamiliar with it - would be like a physicist stating he had never heard or read about the two slit experiment in quantum physics, or hadn't heard of or read John Von Neumann's book "Foundations of Quantum Physics." So ....

But it looks like you're making an attempt, and you're more knowledgeable (in some areas) than your original comments led me to believe.

I will take a closer look at Dr. Sartori's work, since I suspect that you have cherry picked her research and have left a good deal out, which I have discovered to be often the case with Skeptics who only review their own Skeptical sources without looking at the actual research.
 
Last edited:
So that Linda can be prepared (and for those of you who are following this discussion) here is a link to Dr. Sartori's original paper in 2007:

http://iands.es/bibliografia/Sartori_Fenwick.pdf

I would also like to first examine the apparently most veridical case in the paper, as that to me provides the most interest and as William James once wrote, "All it takes to disprove the assertion that all crows are black is the existence of one white crow."

I will be curious what Linda's objections or explanations will be. Hopefully, not too concocted an explanation.
 
Well, I strongly encourage you to follow your advice and read her research report (published in book form). It is highly enlightening.
¿What was the name of the book again Linda? I keep forgetting it, but it keeps popping in conversations of NDE. It seems mandatory to be read.
 
I'm familiar with this work. Your statements about follow-up studies or the youth of the children misses the point. Neither follow-up or the age of the children prohibits the problems which Stevenson raised in the paper I linked to earlier.

Ian Stevenson, as you know, one of the most preeminent psychical researchers of the SPR in its recent history (which dates back to the 19th century) , was one of its presidents as well. A scientific researcher of very high intelligence and dilligence, yet recently, sadly much maligned and (IMO) libeled by a dogmatic and know-it-all group of guerilla skeptics on Wikipedia (see http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/)

I imagine Ian would be the first to point out that memories of a possible past life of the children he investigated, would have a far different dynamic than the memories a child might have in their actual life. I think his research which I have studied quite a bit myself, bears this out.

Memory is an area that a great deal of psychological research has been involved in, and that many psi researchers have been aware of, including Podmore, Gurney and Myers in the book I referenced you "Phantasms of the Living".

One of the more interesting recent psychological studies on memory (and unfortunately I cannot cite it off the top of my head right now) is one that has established very emotional/traumatic events, such as a close brush with death, or indeed, a Near Death Experience, unlike what has been the common view held in the traditional Freudian psycho-analytical psychology: traumatic events become repressed memories. Instead this study established that just the opposite occurs with highly emotional events: the individual will usually remember the event in very great detail, more-so than most of her other memories (such as, where were you when the World Trade Centers were attacked?, or when JFK was shot). Obviously, this wouldn't really or couldn't be shown to apply in the cases that Ian Stevenson studied, because he was hypothesizing memories from a completely different lifetime, the parameters of which nobody, not even Ian Stevenson given his 20? 40? years of work could reasonably outline. His work was preliminary at best. He collected the data. Made some very good hypothesis of the data he collected but no overall theory. Actually, the only theories of consciousness that have seriously dealt with psi and the unconscious have IMO come from two individuals in the last century: Frederic Myers and Carl Jung.

However, Near Death Experiences, being a very emotional and impactful event in an individual's life (a number of studies have been conducted on the post effects and changed lives of individuals after their NDEs, which I assume you are aware) would be a very memorable event. And in addition, a memory that after 20+ years remains unaltered in the children that reported them. In addition the prospective studies have corroborated the older NDE studies, and support their authenticity. There is no good psychological reason to assume that people make up these NDE accounts, especially given the large number of scientific studies that have now been conducted. I would be surprised if this would be your line of argument and I of course would strongly disagree with such an argument given the facts. I think a more reasonable line of skepticism would be (as you commented earlier) something else is going on at the moment, or near the moment of death that we have yet to understand.

But I need to get to sleep and I'm off to reading Dr. Sartori's paper. You were correct and I did mis-characterize her original research. But I don't believe by much. I will try to be less hostile and more objective here, as you seem so far to have granted that toward me to some degree, which is something I am not used to experiencing from most Skeptics, thus the defensiveness.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tim
I don't have time this evening to respond in full to your response. But given you have never read "Phantasms of the Living" is where I "got that idea" because it is a landmark work in psi research. That you have never even heard it described as such, and were unfamiliar with it - would be like a physicist stating he had never heard or read about the two slit experiment in quantum physics, or hadn't heard of or read John Von Neumann's book "Foundations of Quantum Physics." So ....

I dunno. It was published in 1886. It seems more like admitting that one hasn't read Newton's Principia Mathematica with respect to understanding Gravity. Are you sure you aren't overstating the case? I've started reading it and I haven't yet run across the kind of decent quality, reliable and valid information we are looking for. So far it's been undocumented stories.

But it looks like you're making an attempt, and you're more knowledgeable (in some areas) than your original comments led me to believe.

I will take a closer look at Dr. Sartori's work, since I suspect that you have cherry picked her research and have left a good deal out...

Well, clearly I've left a good deal out, since it's a 500 page report. :) But I agree that one should avoid cherry-picking and provide a representative summary. That's why I corrected your misperception (I don't know what your source was).

It's probably best if you read it for yourself, but I'm happy to provide summaries for you. There are others here who have read the book and have copies, so that will keep me honest. :)

...which I have discovered to be often the case with Skeptics who only review their own Skeptical sources without looking at the actual research.

I agree with you that it is best to avoid relying on getting information from people with a conflict of interest. That's why I prefer to look at and discuss the primary reports, rather than depend upon appeals to authority or summaries provided by proponents/skeptics.

Linda
 
So that Linda can be prepared (and for those of you who are following this discussion) here is a link to Dr. Sartori's original paper in 2007:

http://iands.es/bibliografia/Sartori_Fenwick.pdf

I would also like to first examine the apparently most veridical case in the paper, as that to me provides the most interest and as William James once wrote, "All it takes to disprove the assertion that all crows are black is the existence of one white crow."

I will be curious what Linda's objections or explanations will be. Hopefully, not too concocted an explanation.
We've had long discussions about this particular case already. I was hoping that we could discuss her research, rather than a single cherry-picked case report. I'll see if I can find previous discussions.

While I agree that a single "white crow" case would be useful, this doesn't seem to be one - the target wasn't sighted in this case (or any of Sartori's cases).

Linda
 
However, Near Death Experiences, being a very emotional and impactful event in an individual's life (a number of studies have been conducted on the post effects and changed lives of individuals after their NDEs, which I assume you are aware) would be a very memorable event.

The prospective studies do not quite bear this out. Sartori commented in her report that except for the two deepest NDEs, the patients did not appear to attach any significance to them or understand them (Max will point out that many of these patients died and so were not available for longer term follow-up). There were also examples of loss of detail or recall of new details between interviews in both Sartori's and Parnia's studies. Sartori and Pim van Lommel found that people with and without NDE had their lives changed or became more spiritual by their brush with death. There did seem to be a trend that these changes were more prevalent in the NDE group in Pim van Lommel's study. But it's fairly clear that the experiences cannot be distinguished on this basis a priori (that is, you can't look at whose lives are different post "brush with death" and identify who had an NDE and who didn't).

And in addition, a memory that after 20+ years remains unaltered in the children that reported them. In addition the prospective studies have corroborated the older NDE studies, and support their authenticity.

Well, it depends upon what you mean by "authenticity". None of the prospective studies have managed to document a veridical case on par with the plethora of veridical stories collected. And I'm not sure that any have managed to establish the validity of the "NDE" as a distinct experience from the other auditory and visual experiences which patients report during medical crises. It would make more sense to look at all the auditory and visual experiences these people report, rather than taking a select few on the basis of content which could be regarded as spiritual. It would be nice to be able to draw conclusions about the content.

There is no good psychological reason to assume that people make up these NDE accounts, especially given the large number of scientific studies that have now been conducted. I would be surprised if this would be your line of argument and I of course would strongly disagree with such an argument given the facts.

I doubt that there is any more confabulation going on than goes on anywhere else you find people sharing undocumented stories. Of greater concern is that people are asked only for a specific kind of story (if it's not that kind of story, it's not an NDE). So we don't hear from the girl who was taken to the hospital on a sleigh pulled by reindeer, we only hear from her if the sleigh was manned by a god-like figure or the reindeer were angels. This gives people the impression that the only kinds of experiences people have near death involve heavenly figures, rather than a hodge-pudge of experiences from the fantastical to the mundane, most of which do not involve a life review, meeting Jesus, or going towards the light.

Linda
 
I dunno. It was published in 1886. It seems more like admitting that one hasn't read Newton's Principia Mathematica with respect to understanding Gravity. Are you sure you aren't overstating the case? I've started reading it and I haven't yet run across the kind of decent quality, reliable and valid information we are looking for. So far it's been undocumented stories.

I can already see there isn't going to be much of any kind of reasonable discussion here given the usual skeptic complaints and the absurdity of these complaints. Let me respond to you on some of the points you make here and cut to the chase, (so I can go to the bakery and get some fresh bread and donuts). But I have decided after the seeming "openness" in your previous comments, assuming you might be willing to hold a rationale argument, I now doubt that is the case at all. And I don't want to waste my time with someone so entrenched in their dogma they have blinded themselves to anything logical or reasonable.

First, it is ridiculous, especially in science to dismiss scientific work based on age. Einstein wrote his famous papers on relativity and the photo-electric effect in what? 1906, 1907? And they are still quite relevant today. The preliminary discoveries and mathematics of quantum physics was established nearly over 100 years ago by Bohr, Schrodinger, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. Many of the fundamental scientific discoveries and laws of astronomy go far back. The work of the psycho-analytical psychological movement go back to Freud and Carl Jung, Adler etc - again nearly 100 years ago. Medical science has a long history of establishing scientific data etc over the last century if not centuries. Science in fact, is BUILT on what has been established by previous work of scientists.

For you to trot out the usual Skeptic line that - oh, that psi research was written in 1886, and then make the comment you've "started" reading it, WHATEVER that means, and I suspect now that probably means a selective 10 minute review of a few paragraphs here and there, is Linda Rubbish. Intellectual rubbish. And I don't buy your Skeptical line and your intellectual vacuity for a second here. I suspect again that you are consulting some other resource to make your comments than again, really looking at the actual work, or considering the scientists involved etc.


Well, clearly I've left a good deal out, since it's a 500 page report. :) But I agree that one should avoid cherry-picking and provide a representative summary. That's why I corrected your misperception (I don't know what your source was)

Yeah - it's funny how you didn't waste any time reminding me of this isn't it? :) And let's cut to the chase here as well: Skeptics have made a mockery of some of the most prominent researchers in psi, such as Frederic Myers, or Williams James. The libel present against Ian Stevenson and Rupert Sheldrake on Wikipedia is absolutely outrageous amount of bias and bigotry that no reasonable intellectual has been able to respond too because of the blanket assinine censorship and dirty banning tricks the guerilla skeptics there are engaged in with ANYONE who dares defy their one-sided, fundamentalist view of reality.

It's probably best if you read it for yourself, but I'm happy to provide summaries for you. There are others here who have read the book and have copies, so that will keep me honest. :)
Summaries? I was not asking for summaries with you providing references from a Skeptical society dictionary and website. CSI is not even a scientific organization, whereas the SPR has been one for over 100 years. Tell me Linda, how much scientific research by SKEPTICS have been engaged in by CSI in NDE research. You guys love to sit and make "summaries" of the hard work of those individuals doing the actual research, some over their entire lifetime, but ALMOST NONE of you, can cite actual RESEARCH that supports some of your absolutely ridiculous positions and summaries that you invariably make. Such as ... "well, that research and scientific data was collected in 1886, so how can it be valid?" UTTER CRAP.

I agree with you that it is best to avoid relying on getting information from people with a conflict of interest. That's why I prefer to look at and discuss the primary reports, rather than depend upon appeals to authority or summaries provided by proponents/skeptics.
Yes except you've already demonstrated you are trotting out Skeptic polemics without any supporting scientific research, and you were completely ignorant of probably the most seminal work in psychical research. So, again I am going to cut to the chase here, and say here that no Linda, this is not the case at all. You quote me some excerpt from an Ian Stevenson paper, that has/had NOTHING to do with Dr. Satori's hard work and research, pointing to a a few paragraphs of reasoning Ian used to question the evidentiary value of his research methods and gathering of important data, and you seem illogically and irrationally believe that these few lines of reasoning somehow is a valid scientific objection to Dr. Satori's work and the many other NDE studies extant. That's just intellectual nonsense.

We've had long discussions about this particular case already. I was hoping that we could discuss her research, rather than a single cherry-picked case report. I'll see if I can find previous discussions.
You know how I translate this Linda? Well this single study doesn't really give me the room to regurgitate all the CSI/Skeptic polemics that have been developed by guys like James Randi who in the past was taken to court so often based on his utter fabrications and libel that CSICOP (then called) had to cut all official ties to him and practically disown him. Not to mention the latest news about James Randi.

While I agree that a single "white crow" case would be useful, this doesn't seem to be one - the target wasn't sighted in this case (or any of Sartori's cases).
This really is such bunk. So what? So what if a target wasn't cited? How does that rationally prove or not prove anything? When you have the subject not only describing in detail elements of the rescucitation efforts THAT NOBODY who is generally anethestized, or possesses a flat EEG line could, under any REASONABLE medical explanation, be able to experience, much less provide a cohesive account afterward. And in addition, a control group that did not have the OBE experience was asked to attempt the same kind of descriptions and were wildly innacurate. You want to talk about "cherry picking" Linda. You focus on a single element of the case and COMPLETELY ignore all the rest of it, using what is a well known Skeptic line of polemic, that well, nobody has reported back the "targets" therefore all the rest of the evidentiary data must be false. Again, intellectually dishonest, Skeptically unreasonable and biased. I have no time for this level of unwillingness to engage ALL THE FACTS, not just facts that are spewed out of a Skeptical dictionary concocted by a bunch of fundamentalist non-scientists in an organization that itself has not practiced science on any level even comparable to those who have earnestly devoted their lifetimes to unusual scientific phenomena. And approach the data with fair and open minds - not this, well the single target was not perceived by the subject therefore all the rest of her testimony can't be true, or jeez, that study was published in 1886, how can that possibly be relevant in science today?? OR: gee, Ian Stevenson argues that children can be influenced by what their parents or other people tell them between the time we study them and the time thy first begin describing their past lives - therefore, based on Ian Stevenson's reasoning, it must be true that this is not only the case for all of Ian Stevenson's case studies (I believe at least over 600+ cases) but must also be true regarding NDE research that has taken place over the last number of decades. Heck, even though you have corroborative witnesses at the time the child begin speaking and reporting their past experiences, none of this is psychologically acceptable, because just maybe, just maybe, the tooth fairy came down and made the child say verifiable facts about someone's past life in a village 20 miles away, and we can't be sure if it was the tooth fairy or the witnesses who heard the child themselves, who is more accurate.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you that it is best to avoid relying on getting information from people with a conflict of interest. That's why I prefer to look at and discuss the primary reports, rather than depend upon appeals to authority or summaries provided by proponents/skeptics.

No dice Linda because I don't believe you. Why? Because you have absolutely trotted out well-known skeptical positions to me here so far and have not backed any of them up with actual scientific research, other making a rather absurd attempt to use Ian Stevenson's own paper as some kind of scientific reference and proof that Dr. Satori's work was invalid. In addition, you again trot out yet another Skeptic piece of nonsense in your last sentence here. i.e. "appeals to authority". In case you are not aware, as most Skeptics are unaware, science IS based on to some extent on the CREDIBILITY of the scientists performing the research. That is why education, degrees, established papers are IMPORTANT. That is why the past presidents of the SPR are important, because the credibility of the scientists, among the most notable in their field, DOES add to the reliability, credibility and authenticity of their work. Not just a bunch of non-scientist bigoted skeptics that have somehow taken control of Wikipedia, who have made a mockery of the biographies of good people like Rupert Sheldrake or Frederic Myers. Who almost none of them have performed the actual scientific work they are so biased against.

You say authority is not important to Skeptics, but man how you guys do everything under the sun to make sure your propaganda is the voice of authority over the actual validity and credibility of the scientists who have done the actual work. Wikipedia is the shining example of your willingness to do whatever it takes (including outright deception and libel) to tear down someone's established scientific authority and credibility.

So no dice. I am not going to go round and round with your Skeptic talking points with you avowing that you don't get your information from people with conflicts of interest because obviously you already have. So that just is a blatant falsehood here.

Now I am going to get my donuts and bread. Goodbye.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Bertha: with all due respect, I might suggest that you take a step back and ask yourself whether its possible that your own preconceptions are affecting you here. The only way you would find Linda's points on a CSI crib sheet is if they borrowed from her. There's a good discussion to be had here - but it will be hindered if you are mentally adding in things that weren't said. These issues are more nuanced that people tend to realise.

You have no duty to do this of course. You seem to have your idea of what a skeptic is and what arguments skeptics make and what they are based on. That can be an easy excuse not to engage or to consider issues you might not have before.

Something you should add to your reading list though (not from the field of parapsychology but still relevant I believe): http://handbook.cochrane.org/ Particularly Chapter 8. It will give you an idea where some of the skeptics here are coming from.
 
First, it is ridiculous, especially in science to dismiss scientific work based on age. Einstein wrote his famous papers on relativity and the photo-electric effect in what? 1906, 1907? And they are still quite relevant today. The preliminary discoveries and mathematics of quantum physics was established nearly over 100 years ago by Bohr, Schrodinger, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. Many of the fundamental scientific discoveries and laws of astronomy go far back. The work of the psycho-analytical psychological movement go back to Freud and Carl Jung, Adler etc - again nearly 100 years ago. Medical science has a long history of establishing scientific data etc over the last century if not centuries. Science in fact, is BUILT on what has been established by previous work of scientists.

I didn't dismiss it based on age. I have no doubt that it is valuable to read Einstein's original papers, Darwin's original books, or Newton's Principia. I also have no doubt that the book you suggested would also be a valuable read. What I doubt is that it gives a useful overview of the available evidence for psi phenomena, given that we have over a hundred years worth of additional research to take into account, so I wouldn't get too excited about whether someone has read that book vs. some of the more contemporaneous books which include that information.

I did also point out that it does not seem to contain the kind of reliable information which we would be looking for in terms of documentation under valid conditions. But that has nothing to do with age.

I suspect again that you are consulting some other resource to make your comments than again, really looking at the actual work, or considering the scientists involved etc.

All my work is my own. For one, as I mentioned previously, I don't trust sources with an agenda, so I avoid information put out by any sort of Skeptic Movement.

Yeah - it's funny how you didn't waste any time reminding me of this isn't it? :) And let's cut to the chase here as well: Skeptics have made a mockery of some of the most prominent researchers in psi, such as Frederic Myers, or Williams James. The libel present against Ian Stevenson and Rupert Sheldrake on Wikipedia is absolutely outrageous amount of bias and bigotry that no reasonable intellectual has been able to respond too because of the blanket assinine censorship and dirty banning tricks the guerilla skeptics there are engaged in with ANYONE who dares defy their one-sided, fundamentalist view of reality.

Yes, I have criticized this behaviour on multiple occasions. Like I said, that is why I prefer to read and discuss the primary reports directly, rather than referencing what other people have to say about the work.

Summaries? I was not asking for summaries with you providing references from a Skeptical society dictionary and website.

What are you talking about? I have provided references to primary reports. I only offered to provide excerpts from Sartori's book to make up for lack of access.

CSI is not even a scientific organization, whereas the SPR has been one for over 100 years. Tell me Linda, how much scientific research by SKEPTICS have been engaged in by CSI in NDE research. You guys love to sit and make "summaries" of the hard work of those individuals doing the actual research, some over their entire lifetime, but ALMOST NONE of you, can cite actual RESEARCH that supports some of your absolutely ridiculous positions and summaries that you invariably make. Such as ... "well, that research and scientific data was collected in 1886, so how can it be valid?" UTTER CRAP.

None of this has anything to do with me or my offer. By "summaries" I just meant that I could provide information from the book for you. However, as I said earlier, it would be my preference that you obtain and read the book yourself.

Yes except you've already demonstrated you are trotting out Skeptic polemics without any supporting scientific research, and you were completely ignorant of probably the most seminal work in psychical research.

I was aware of the book and have read excerpts in the past. Most proponents seem to treat other works as more valuable in terms of providing in depth information on psi research. Like I said, you're the first person to suggest it's seminal. And I'm happy to read it on that basis. In all honesty, out of all the parapsychology books I've read (and what I've read from Phantasms so far), I would put some other books above it, if I were making recommendations for discussion. But I guess "seminal" isn't so much about discussion as it is about what started the ball rolling.

So, again I am going to cut to the chase here, and say here that no Linda, this is not the case at all. You quote me some excerpt from an Ian Stevenson paper, that has/had NOTHING to do with Dr. Satori's hard work and research, pointing to a a few paragraphs of reasoning Ian used to question the evidentiary value of his research methods and gathering of important data, and you seem illogically and irrationally believe that these few lines of reasoning somehow is a valid scientific objection to Dr. Satori's work and the many other NDE studies extant. That's just intellectual nonsense.

You've misunderstood something. I didn't point to Dr. Stevenson's work as a criticism of Dr. Sartori's work. I hold up Dr. Sartori's work as the kind of good quality research which should be pursued by NDE researchers. If anything, her work addresses the concerns raised by Dr. Stevenson.

Linda
 
You know how I translate this Linda? Well this single study doesn't really give me the room to regurgitate all the CSI/Skeptic polemics that have been developed by guys like James Randi who in the past was taken to court so often based on his utter fabrications and libel that CSICOP (then called) had to cut all official ties to him and practically disown him. Not to mention the latest news about James Randi.

That's unfortunate. You seem to have a lot of hate for the skeptic movement. I am not a fan of the movement and have been critical of it, and James Randi, as well. I would be happy if you drop all reference to them, since i have no interest in them, and my discussion of the paper(s) has nothing to do with anything they may want to say.

This really is such bunk. So what? So what if a target wasn't cited?

The targets are used in these studies to serve as a "white crow" - an event that all by itself has some evidentiary value. This is similar to what are called "all-or-none" cases in medicine which serve as high-level evidence, where the occurrence of the event is essentially impossible otherwise. So what? If present, it has good evidentiary value. Its absence doesn't have any more value than yet another sighting of a black crow.

How does that rationally prove or not prove anything? When you have the subject not only describing in detail elements of the rescucitation efforts THAT NOBODY who is generally anethestized, or possesses a flat EEG line could, under any REASONABLE medical explanation, be able to experience, much less provide a cohesive account afterward.

What case are you referring to here? There hasn't been a documented case with the characteristics you describe.

And in addition, a control group that did not have the OBE experience was asked to attempt the same kind of descriptions and were wildly innacurate.

Yes, there have been several studies like that. As I mentioned previously, I think this demonstrates that some subjects are incorporating actual sensory information into their NDEs. The question we want answered is whether this would require separation of "consciousness" from the physical body. The targets are meant to help with that as well.

You want to talk about "cherry picking" Linda. You focus on a single element of the case and COMPLETELY ignore all the rest of it, using what is a well known Skeptic line of polemic, that well, nobody has reported back the "targets" therefore all the rest of the evidentiary data must be false.

No, no, no. It would be wrong to say that. I did not say that, nor would I. It's important to be clear on what can and cannot be concluded from the presence or absence of various experiences.

Again, intellectually dishonest, Skeptically unreasonable and biased. I have no time for this level of unwillingness to engage ALL THE FACTS, not just facts that are spewed out of a Skeptical dictionary concocted by a bunch of fundamentalist non-scientists in an organization that itself has not practiced science on any level even comparable to those who have earnestly devoted their lifetimes to unusual scientific phenomena. And approach the data with fair and open minds - not this, well the single target was not perceived by the subject therefore all the rest of her testimony can't be true, or jeez, that study was published in 1886, how can that possibly be relevant in science today?? OR: gee, Ian Stevenson argues that children can be influenced by what their parents or other people tell them between the time we study them and the time thy first begin describing their past lives - therefore, based on Ian Stevenson's reasoning, it must be true that this is not only the case for all of Ian Stevenson's case studies (I believe at least over 600+ cases) but must also be true regarding NDE research that has taken place over the last number of decades. Heck, even though you have corroborative witnesses at the time the child begin speaking and reporting their past experiences, none of this is psychologically acceptable, because just maybe, just maybe, the tooth fairy came down and made the child say verifiable facts about someone's past life in a village 20 miles away, and we can't be sure if it was the tooth fairy or the witnesses who heard the child themselves, who is more accurate.

Good news. :) None of that describes my approach, so you can safely ignore that kind of an approach. If you think some information is relevant, then mention it for discussion. Just because I haven't mentioned something, doesn't mean I would dismiss it. It just means that I try to remain focused. All I suggest is that you be specific if you are referencing some facts, so we can look at the primary report (so we are on the same page).

Linda
 
Back
Top