Mod+ 262. WILL STORR ON THE ENEMIES OF SCIENCE

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by John Maguire, Dec 9, 2014.

  1. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338

    I did not claim that NDE research does not conform to science.
    Only that it presents serious difficulties and inherent obstacles.

    You persist in completely misunderstanding my points and arguing against things I dont believe or say
    so I wish you well etc; but lets leave it there
     
  2. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    Our discourse is a grand example of you seeing what you want to see. In the areas we've discussed, your conclusions and mine are not even close. I find the opinion that "real" (how's that for objectivity?lol) science is difficult to be ludicrous. Let's leave off here, shall we.
     
  3. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    I guess you just dont understand what I wrote.
    Fine.
     
    malf likes this.
  4. Bertha Huse

    Bertha Huse New

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,239
    >> Scientific objectivity is really a form of inter-subjectivity.
    >> NDEs are not amenable to this kind of 'objective' verification; but this does not detract from their importance imo.

    You persistently make claims and then claim you didn't make the claim. You clearly here are implying somehow 65 scientific studies in NDEs "are not amenable to scientific objectivity". This is not only an ignorant statement regarding NDE research, but will lead to the usual Skeptical rhetoric that whatever scientific methodology used by the scientists (in these studies) was not 'objective' enough. I've been through this a number of times already with "Dawkin's brand" of Skeptics- and in the end, have found a bottomless degree of subjective bias, and a complete unwillingness to even examine the scientific work and data provided.

    My Best,
    Bertha
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2015
    tim likes this.
  5. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Well you guys can insult me if you like. I will not reply in kind.
    You have all completely missed the points I have endeavoured to make
    and I see no need to say any more
     
    Ian Gordon likes this.
  6. Bertha Huse

    Bertha Huse New

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,239
    I imagine if you were knowledgeable regarding the research you would be able to say more.

    My Best,
    Bertha
     
  7. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    So what is the take away from the NDE research? What can we conclude from the studies?
     
  8. Bertha Huse

    Bertha Huse New

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,239
    You don't know?

    My Best,
    Bertha
     
    tim likes this.
  9. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually interested in conversation, or if you are simply here to promote an agenda.

    To answer your question: No. I do not know. I've been a member of the forum for a couple of years. I'm familiar with the names of the people who have studied NDEs. I haven't read the original studies. I am familiar with NDEs in general.

    So. What do you think we are able to conclude from the NDE studies that we have on the books?
     
  10. Bertha Huse

    Bertha Huse New

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,239
    Get back to me when you are more knowledgeable and have read some studies. Until then, have a good day.

    My Best,
    Bertha
     
  11. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    So you have no interest in having a conversation. That's cool. I read some of the Penny Sartori book. I'm probably more knowledgeable about NDE studies than 99% of the population simply having read this forum for 2 years. But evidently that doesn't qualify me to even begin to have a conversation about what conclusions we can draw from the studies.
     
    Ian Gordon likes this.
  12. Bertha Huse

    Bertha Huse New

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,239
    I've grown tired of debating people who have little or no knowledge regarding a subject they have strong opinions about. So you are correct, I have no interest in carrying on a conversation with someone who has read "some of the Penny Sartori book".

    My Best,
    Bertha
     
  13. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Which strong opinions were those please? I've looked but I can't seem to identify which strong opinions in particular are referred to here.
     
  14. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    I agree with Bertha's take. Read some of the studies and form your own conclusions. If you'd requested that she point out some studies she found impressive, I'd see a point. As it is, your post comes across as you simply attempting to stir the pot.
     
  15. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    At what point did I indicate that I wanted to debate anything? I asked you a straightforward question. What can we safely conclude from the NDE research? As someone who is in no way a materialist, as someone who fully accepts the phenomena of non-local information transfer, as someone who is interested in the phenomena of the NDE, I don't know what can be safely concluded from the science of the NDE. I know that lot's of people take "spiritual" ideas away from the NDE anecdotes. And I think that is fine. But what does the science tell us? What are the conclusions? Or maybe they aren't conclusions. Maybe the science has just opened the door for more studies by suggesting something. It's fine if you don't want to actually state your opinion. I'm not here to attack anyone.
     
    Ian Gordon likes this.
  16. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    Do you not get that your questions are coming across as "grilling"? Something in them just does. If that's not your intent then perhaps start by sharing some of your views on the topic. Others will engage if and how they choose to.
     
  17. Bertha Huse

    Bertha Huse New

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,239
    Apologies. I thought you were just another Skeptic here to attack. It seems like it's all they want to do these days.

    My short opinion is NDEs are scientifically well established psychological phenomena, that have been corroborated with more recent shared death studies, and also other older reports of death bed visions. The veridical observations reported in a number of NDE accounts reinforces what parapsychological research has established now for the last 100 years, i.e. certain psychological events can occur with consciousness indicating non-local awareness, and enhanced capabilities - which are still little known in science.

    There have been numerous theories proposed by materialist skeptics regarding NDEs, of which often the many different theories proposed logically conflict with each other, and even the materialists disagree on the validity of one theory over another. In addition, none of the materialist theories have stood up under the scrutiny of scientists who have spent decades researching and publishing papers on NDEs. Currently, the best explanatory hypothesis has been the most obvious: there can be some kind of separation of consciousness from the physical body when near death, and very heightened awareness and engagement of well known paranormal phenomena. The kind of experiences reported are widely variant upon a few core elements such as separation from the body and observation, feelings of peace and love, great light that does not blind, increased awareness and energy, possible meeting of dead friends or relatives, and/or a decision point to return - often against the will of the person experiencing the NDE who is upset having to return to the body. In addition, having the NDE usually has a long lasting impact on the individual years afterward. Most NDE'rs report being absolutely convinced their experience was real and was not a dream.

    My own opinion - well I think it is very likely consciousness does separate at physical death. That the physical reality we experience here is not the only reality. I believe consciousness is probably a fundamental component of reality, and it is not the product of the brain. Consciousness uses the brain much like a broadcast uses a radio, or a human uses a space suit to go into space, for much the same reasons. Beyond this opinion: I really don't know what if anything is beyond the separation of consciousness. Almost 80% of NDE reports indicate overwhelming feelings of love - actually indescribable love. So, I remain hopeful. I don't think NDEs prove there is a "God" or some kind of higher being. But I do believe enough research has now been conducted with NDEs that it is irrational and unreasonable to label the research as "woo" or "pseudo-science" like many materialists do. The Dawkin's class of materialists have become quite a group of dogmatists, and are now just as much religious acolytes of their belief in materialism than any bishops of religion were in christianity. They have abandoned rationality and even science in their worship of materialism.

    My Best,
    Bertha
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
    DasMurmeltier, Ian Gordon and tim like this.
  18. Bertha Huse

    Bertha Huse New

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,239
    There have been a number.

    My Best,
    Bertha
     
  19. tim

    tim New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,396
    Some ridiculous statements there. What can safely be concluded ? You would have to be a bit biased, to say the least, to postulate that zero can be concluded.
     
    Bertha Huse likes this.
  20. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    Thank you. Much to think about there. I look forward to mulling it over this evening. Much appreciated.
     
    DasMurmeltier and Bertha Huse like this.

Share This Page