Dr. John Fischer, Another Philosopher Tries to Debunk NDEs |431|

Agreed. And yes, I have developed charts & methods to allow one to detect fakers along each of the points below. We are rather ignorant. I cannot hope to fathom the depths of all the evidence by myself. So the canned response to this is...

1. We must trust scientists, who have studied the issue.​
But this is Pollyanna, and an appeal to authority when stand-alone. There are several modifiers to this semantic, but not logical, truth. Modifiers which are not merely informal, but rather bear critical merit. These foibles offer the double-edged sword of affording ways to differentiate science which is merely a lab-coated agenda. This is a bit like detecting a toxic employee in your company, they will put on the show of correctness, but in reality have little aside from animus in their heart. Catching these people and getting them out of your organization is key to having happy and long-tenured associates.

a. Scientists are people first, and prone to all the same foibles as is everyone else in humanity. Two thirds of humans are dishonest by my best measures - and I do not anticipate scientists to be too far off that mark, maybe slightly better.​
See The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation - over 2,600 fallacies, errors and methods of corrupted thinking commonly employed to obfuscate and deceive​
b. Science consists of varying degrees of confidence on study and inference - as well, some 'results' or 'facts' are weak compared to others. Most people, to include PhD's, cannot discern the difference between a weak inferential basis and a strong one. And two thirds of the ones who can, use it to ply Nelsonian knowledge instead of alleviating suffering.​
c. Science is influenced by money, corporate profits and desires for power/publishing visibility/celebrity/tenure. This is a 100% pervasive factor. They will do anything, up to and including murder and/or genocide, in order to protect this​
d. Science operates around most issues by means of two points of vulnerability, the Indigo or Inflection Point and the Tau or Tipping Point. Both points result in large whipsawed momentum, yet both points can be tampered with in subtle ways by small groups of people. Another way to express this inside skepticism is under the definition of a Cabal (as distinct from a Mafia or Cartel).​
Indigo - tampering subtly with the terminology and rules of the philosophy of science​
Tau - tampering with the social factors, means of communication, intimidation and public message​
e. Science itself does not speak - there are groups of non-scientists who craft their message and speak on their behalf. This group​
i. critically alters the message of science, in order to slightly shift its meaning in the right direction, and​
ii. crafts completely new messages and bundles them in with science, thereafter promulgating those imposter messages as accepted science​
iii. intimidates scientists into not speaking in dissent on any issue which the Cabal has authorized, from i and ii above.​
So, yes - agreed Super Q - the whole purpose of my site is the life-long mastery of the ability to work the martial art of discernment. You master this, then you die and take it with you... leaving the world in the same hell-hole state it was in originally, for a whole new crop of people to learn this all over again.

Our gadgets and technology stacks do not serve to make us happier, nor better as people. They are a deception in part.

This is part of the reason why I do not think that the spirit realm is as into 'correcting the world', as they are into correcting us. :)

This is why, to me, skepticism is spiritual.
That certainly offers a lot of useful material! My first inclination is to simplify the 2,600 fallacies and errors into common categories. Then I click the link and see that you have done it! Hmm, I wonder if I would come up with grossly similar ones.

On point B, I think you could actually test that idea. Oh right, you seem to have done so intuitively. So I guess that's a path forward for me, sans phd.

Can points C and D be combined into a single idea relevant to this thread? What could shift the paradigm?

Point E: then who are the true experts for the categories we care most about? When their knowledge is discounted, so is their expertise and thus their prestige. But that won't happen in this example, if he is wrong, I bet:


The last few sentences are all too true and they sadden me. Neither knowledge or faith in our paradigm / worldview is an answer to our suffering. But we know this, or at least I do.

The last section is where you convey, indirectly, my primary reason for doubting theistic revelation.

Our lives are too short to see the effects of our mistakes on society or even worse, few people care or plan for such a future. But not only that, in addition, we too quickly forget what happened yesterday let alone carry the wisdom of our age to our descendents. If only their was a mind that could capture it all and learn from it...

it appears there is no caring god at all but instead a god of chaos and caprice. I've lived a lucky life so far. I am fortunate to be able to think these thoughts!
 
Last edited:
Top