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.