|
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
 Posted - 03/06/2003 : 15:37:17
|
This is what I would like to focus on...
Espritch claims;
"There is not a single piece of reproducible or testable evidence to support the existence of 'paranormal' events."
I disagree...Professor Schwarz, is one example that comes to mind (have you finished writing your rebuttal yet Dave W?)
Tokyodreamer asserted;
"Look, this stuff would be so easily demonstrable, that no one would even have to be here posting about it. It just doesn't happen. Accept it and move on already..."
Espricht also posed the question;
"Why would any theory need to account for a phenomenon that has never objectively been proven to exist?"
Has science been able to show a dream...of course we can show brain activity, as with the nde, however have dreams been objectively proven to exist?
Espricht continued;
"Any assumption that the experience related occurred when the patient was flat lining can not be objectively proven since the patient cannot be relied upon under the circumstances to be able to establish any meaningful time line. In general, testimony by the physician and operation room staff is unreliable in this respect as well since at the time a patient is flat lining they tend to have more urgent considerations on their minds."
I completely disagree...how can you claim that the doctors could not objectively determine when the patient was flat lining? That is a very weak argument. I recently saw the Pam Reynolds case featured on a BBC documentary. The neurosurgeon performing the operation was Robert Spetzler. Her body temperature was lowered to between 10-15 degrees centigrade, her heart & breathing stopped, brainwaves flattened & the blood drained from her head. She was clinically dead for a whole hour of the operation. All metabolic activity of her brain was stopped, there was no measurable neural activity whatsoever. Furthermore her eyes had also been taped up prior to the operation. She recalls hearing the sound of unpleasant drilling & that is when she felt herself pop out of the top of her head & begin to look down upon her body. She was able to hear conversations (between dr. spetzler& cardiovascular surgeons) & observe the medical instruments (such as the bone saw) within the theatre. She heard a female voice say, "We have a problem here, her arteries are too small", a surgeon responded, "Try the other side".
Dr. sabom looked at Dr. Spetzlers operative report and what she saw occurring corresponds with what she had heard. Indeed, they had made an incision into the right side of the groinas they were attempting to hook her up to the heart/lung machine, but her arteries were too small.
dr. Spetzlerargues that these observations were not basedon what she experienced as she went into the theatre because the equipment was not readily available but covered up inside their respective packages which aren't opened until the patient is asleep in order to maintain a sterile environment. In his words it is 'inconceivable' that normal senses, such as hearing (she also had clicking modules in her ears) - could function through normal auditory pathways.
This all took place under extremely monitored medical conditions. How was she able to have coherent perception and memory whilst clinically dead?
Furthermore, have you actually read the two independent prospective NDE studies that were carried out in Britain and Holland and published in the medical journal Resuscitation? The study concluded that a number of people have almost certainly had these experiences after they were pronounced clinically dead.
When the heart stops, the brain rhythms are normal for about 6 seconds & then they rapidly decay and you get a flat EEG which in turn means that all our cortical structures which create our world for us are not working.
So if it doesn't occur as your going down & if it doesn't occur while you are in the depth of the experience, (DURING the period when the brain was dead) - because it can't in our science - then perhaps it occurs as your recovering? But if you deprive the brain of oxygen & you recover from it, your thinking is all over the place. Well, the thing about the NDE is it's highly lucid & very clear so it can't be in the confusional arousal. So when did it occur? after one of these experiences [an near-death experience], you come out with clear, lucid memories...This is a real puzzle for science. I have not yet seen any good scientific explanation which can explain that fact.
Dave W - I have no problem with your criteria needed to show a 'decent' NDE in theory, however I believe that this has already been done anyway. Skeptics such as yourself fail to realise what is critical...the evidence of those hands-on medical doctors, specialists and others who were skeptics before they came across NDEs and wrote books about why NDE's are real. These people are highly intelligent & objective. Hands on specialists such as former skeptic Dr Peter Fenwick accepted NDEs and has more than adequately rebutted the objections of materialist Dr S Blackmore. For skeptics to erect artificial voluminous constraints regarding the alleged proof is not acceptable. That is not the way evidence becomes admissible. What you are doing is trying to justify your own closed mindedness. Scientists use the scientific method - and as long as that is strictly adhered to - that is what is required.
Finally, Dave W...I didn't say that the Moon landings cannot be (or have not been) scientifically verified...I was referring to those who doubt the moon landings. I have not seen scientific evidence to support their claim...geez.
With reference to my point, "The idea that machines could fly was also regarded by the majority as foolish' - you stated;
"Which proves my point, thank you very much."
My point being that your quote assumes NDEs are a foolish idea...you have provided no evidence to show that this is the case.
|
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
Edited by - Phantom on 03/10/2003 19:20:58
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 17:11:43 [Permalink]
|
Is anyone ever going to explain how non-physical things can interact with photons and sound waves? Or, if the non-physical things can interact with photons and sound waves, why do we also need physical photon and sound detectors?
We are trying to do science here, are we not? I assume that's why you brought up Schwartz - to lend your musings an air of pseudo-credibility.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
 |
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 17:17:28 [Permalink]
|
| You have still failed to explain-away the points that I raised... |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 18:11:57 [Permalink]
|
I disagree...Professor Schwarz, is one example that comes to mind
I'm sorry but there are dozens of Professor Schwarz's in this country, from Harvard to Scripps. Which Professor Schwarz?
have dreams been objectively proven to exist?
Yes, back in the 40's
how can you claim that the doctors could not objectively determine when the patient was flat lining?
He didn't claim that. He rightly claimed that there was no way for the patient to tell if the NDE (please notice that it isn't the DE) happened before or after flat line. Since the NDE is brain function (had one myself in a Navy fighter jet that was doing a loop) and flat line is no brain function.
She recalls hearing the sound of unpleasant drilling & that is when she felt herself pop out of the top of her head & begin to look down upon her body. She was able to hear conversations (between dr. spetzler& cardiovascular surgeons) & observe the medical instruments (such as the bone saw) within the theatre. She heard a female voice say, "We have a problem here, her arteries are too small", a surgeon responded, "Try the other side".
Says more about the problems with English socialized medicine than with the supernatural.
they were attempting to hook her up to the heart/lung machine, but her arteries were too small.
Since this isn't how heart/lung machines work we can already write this off as a fantasy.
she also had clicking modules in her ears
And ants in her pants?
When the heart stops, the brain rhythms are normal for about 6 seconds & then they rapidly decay
You have much more time than that. I suggest that you take a Red Cross CPR course. That's something everyone should know. Forget about the magic and learn the mechanics, it might come in handy someday.
But if you deprive the brain of oxygen & you recover from it, your thinking is all over the place.
True.
Well, the thing about the NDE is it's highly lucid & very clear so it can't be in the confusional arousal.
False, it's very dreamlike. You would never mistake it for reality. Like so many dreams it's in super sharp focus.
So when did it occur? after one of these experiences [an near-death experience], you come out with clear, lucid memories...
It happens as the blood begins to drain from your brain.
This is a real puzzle for science.
No it's not. The USAF worked all this out right after the Second World War. There's nothing supernatural about it.
Hands on specialists such as former skeptic Dr Peter Fenwick accepted NDEs and has more than adequately rebutted the objections of materialist Dr S Blackmore.
"Former Skeptic?" "Materialist?" In the States these are buzz words that only crack-pots and charlatans use…just to let you know.
Dr Slater had a NDE. I can verify the fact that it contained not a single solitary supernatural element.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 19:34:17 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry but there are dozens of Professor Schwarz's in this country, from Harvard to Scripps. Which Professor Schwarz?
Dr. Gary Schwartz www.openmindsciences.com
Yes, back in the 40's
Show me a dream...
He didn't claim that. He rightly claimed that there was no way for the patient to tell if the NDE (please notice that it isn't the DE) happened before or after flat line. Since the NDE is brain function (had one myself in a Navy fighter jet that was doing a loop) and flat line is no brain function.
Pam Reynolds had her NDE when she was clinically dead...I thought I stated that clearly in my first post...
Since this isn't how heart/lung machines work we can already write this off as a fantasy.
This is indeed what ocurred, cardiologist Dr. Sabom related the incident...fantasy? Are you for real? OK, educate me...how does a heart/lung machine work?
And ants in her pants?
You really are struggling to find flaws...your arguments are simply comical.
You have much more time than that. I suggest that you take a Red Cross CPR course. That's something everyone should know. Forget about the magic and learn the mechanics, it might come in handy someday
OK...so you know more about neuroscience than Dr. Peter Fenwick (A Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Consultant Neurophysiologist at Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, and Honorary Consultant in Neurophysiology to Broadmoor Special Hospital, Vice-President of the Scientific and Medical Network etc...) since this is what he states?
False, it's very dreamlike. You would never mistake it for reality. Like so many dreams it's in super sharp focus.
Not all those who have undergone the NDE would agree with the above point.
It happens as the blood begins to drain from your brain.
*Sigh* With regards to Pam Reynolds case for example, her brain had been drained of blood prior to the operation...before she had her NDE. She was clinically dead & according to our current science, should not have been able to have her experience.
"Former Skeptic?" "Materialist?" In the States these are buzz words that only crack-pots and charlatans use…just to let you know.
Dr Slater had a NDE. I can verify the fact that it contained not a single solitary supernatural element.
So because such incidences threaten your paradigm you refer to such people as 'crack-pots' simply because you cannot refute the claims...very weak. |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
| Edited by - Phantom on 03/06/2003 19:36:49 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 08:33:55 [Permalink]
|
Phantom wrote:quote:
have you finished writing your rebuttal yet Dave W?
Hadn't even started it, but I've got a few mintues now. Let me see if I can do part of it, without getting bogged down in minutae...
Here is Schwartz's Rebuttal of Hyman. I'll just do quotes from Schwartz, and my comments:
quote:
Hyman has chosen not to acknowledge the totality of the findings following Occam's heuristic principle as a means of integrating the total set of findings collected to date.
This is simply wrong, since it's a mis-application of Occam's Razor. The Razor is only applied when two theories explain the same data equally well, it's not a tool for "integrating" large sets of data. That's abuse of the tool.
And if Schwartz thinks that "it's a combination of trickery and bad methodologies" and "survival of the conciousness" both explain the data equally well, he's mistaken. The former relies on no paranormal assumptions, the latter requires them. The assumptions need to be proven before they can be accepted as the basis for Schwartz's tests, which do not test for "survival of the conciousness," but instead test to see if "mediums" can obtain information about the living and the past. "Survival of the conciousness" is precisely the kind of entity being multiplied unnecessarily that William of Occam was talking about.
quote:
This is why I am so sensitive to examining the totality of evidence, the "big picture."
The "big picture" in psychical research is obvious skewed, since only a tiny minority of experiments have been properly conducted or controlled.
quote:
When Hyman states "All language is inherently ambiguous..." he reveals an important philosophical belief - not an empirical fact. If I say "My name is Gary Schwartz" or Hyman says "My name is Ray Hyman" - the meaning is not "inherently ambiguous."
Schwartz is wrong, here. The empirical fact of the matter is that words only have meaning when people agree on what those meanings are. Without that agreement, language is just a bunch of sounds. The words "my," "name," and "is" are all meaningless to people who don't understand English.
quote:
I conclude that cold reading cannot explain the totality of the findings...
That is either Schwartz undermining his own previous arguments, or a strawman. Hyman doesn't think that cold reading explains the totality of the findings, either. And Schwartz knows that there are many other objections to his research than just this one.
quote:
Hence, no single flaw has been discovered that can account for the totality of the findings - not fraud, not cold reading, not rater bias, not chance, etc...
This is a red herring. If numerous different, independent flaws can be shown to discredit all the different "subsets" of the research Schwartz speaks of, the evidence drops to zero. Finding a "single flaw" which discredits all of the evidence is a hurdle invented by Schwartz that no skeptic need worry about leaping.
quote:
However, many scientists will refrain from conducting independent replications if they fear that they will subjected to selective and biased reviewing of the data they publish.
Schwartz ignores Hyman's correct accusation of Schwartz's shifting the burden of proof, and instead makes this lame argument from adverse consequences.
quote:
However, if this strict criterion was required in medicine, for example, no double-blind drug trials would ever be conducted - because the exploratory and single-blind experiments would be dismissed in the first place.
Drug companies aren't claiming something extraordinary, however. They aren't claiming that their drugs work because they contain angels. Schwartz is comparing apples to oranges. And, more importantly, most drugs never get developed to the point where a double-blind test would be required. They fail in earlier single-blind tests, or even in animals testing prior to that. If I remember correctly, of 10,000 drug candidates, only 5 or so will actually make it to market. Going by Schwartz's "big picture" argument, we must conclude that the pharmaceutical industry is incompetent, right?
quote:
Is there any experimental evidence indicating that subtle breathing cues can provide specific and detailed information about initials, names, causes of death, historical facts, etc.? The fact is, no such evidence exists.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case. If Schwartz wants to silence his critics, he can run experiments to demonstrate that the "subtle cues hypothesis" cannot explain anything. Until he does, it is a possibility that it can explain part of his successes.
quote:
If an ultra- skeptic wishes to make the claim that cold readers can do as well as mediums under semi-naturalistic conditions, it behooves them to show us evidence that this is indeed true.
"As well as mediums" is another constraint placed on skeptics by Schwartz which the skeptics can ignore. For example, if the cold-readers do a little bit worse, the flaws in the data analysis portion of Schwartz's experiments might explain the rest of the "positive" findings. Schwartz's use of "ultra-skeptic" is now bordering on name-calling. At least, he certainly seems to use it as a derogatory word.
quote:
The issue here is not the survival of consciousness hypothesis - the issue is Hyman's (and others) claim that cold readers can do what the mediums can do.
No, the issue is, as Hyman says, "The responsibility is yours to first provide us with evidence for your hypothesis of survival of consciousness that is gathered according to the appropriat |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:45:06 [Permalink]
|
Phantom also wrote:quote:
She recalls hearing the sound of unpleasant drilling & that is when she felt herself pop out of the top of her head & begin to look down upon her body.
The important question is: when did she "hear" this drilling? Was it before, during, or after the time when she was clinically dead. Note this isn't a question about when the drilling actually occured, just when did she "hear" it? All we'd need is a look at a transcript of what was said in the operating room. If she recalls that "doctor X said this, then doctor Y said that, then the drilling, then doctor X said this other thing," and that could be matched to the transcript as having happened ten minutes after her blood had been drained, that would be good evidence of a DE, as Slater called it.
If all she can come up with is "I heard drilling at some point," then that's not evidence. She could easily "recall" that from knowing that drilling would be going on (as her doctors should have told her prior to the surgery), and from the mixed-up confusion of simply going into or coming out of unconciousness.
quote:
This all took place under extremely monitored medical conditions.
You have yet to answer my previous question about how those conditions were controlled.quote:
How was she able to have coherent perception and memory whilst clinically dead?
This question assumes that all of the coherent perceptions and memories came from the time she was clinically dead. That is what is lacking in terms of evidence, along with evidence that her coherent perceptions were really perceptions, and not memories themselves. These are the questions that really need to be answered. Anything that assumes their truth, like your question, is jumping the gun.
quote:
Dave W - I have no problem with your criteria needed to show a 'decent' NDE in theory, however I believe that this has already been done anyway.
Find me a citation on that, please.quote:
Skeptics such as yourself fail to realise what is critical...the evidence of those hands-on medical doctors, specialists and others who were skeptics before they came across NDEs and wrote books about why NDE's are real. These people are highly intelligent & objective.
Not at all - what is critical is that arguing for a conclusion on the testimony of an expert is what is called the "argument from authority." In cases where there is substantial disagreement among the experts in the field, no authority can be claimed to be right just because he/she is an expert.
The testimony of the experts is a starting place for investigation, not an end. All people, no matter how intelligent, can fail to be objective at certain times (drunk, for example), or because they wish to believe something. You can't assume that just because these people are tops in their field, they're tops in all fields, or even that they are scientists. An M.D. is not necessarily a scientist.
Being previously-skeptical isn't a good thing, in my book, either. What people really mean who say, "I was once skeptical of thus-and-such, but now I believe it," is that they once dismissed the phenomenon as silly without even thinking about it, and now that they've been shown one piece of possibly-confirming evidence, they've chosen to completely dispense with critical thinking. Neither state, either before or after, can correctly be called "skepticism." In fact, the use of the word "skeptic" in that manner really means "cynic" or "bigot," not "skeptic."
And any shmuck can write a book saying anything they want to. There's no peer-review on popular-press books, and sales aren't a measure of how correct they are (otherwise, all the fad diet books would be about equally correct, which can't be true because some of them are contradictory).
quote:
Hands on specialists such as former skeptic Dr Peter Fenwick accepted NDEs and has more than adequately rebutted the objections of materialist Dr S Blackmore.
Aside from Slater's comments about this, says who? Who's the judge of what is "adequate"?quote:
For skeptics to erect artificial voluminous constraints regarding the alleged proof is not acceptable. That is not the way evidence becomes admissible. What you are doing is trying to justify your own closed mindedness. Scientists use the scientific method - and as long as that is strictly adhered to - that is what is required.
I must say you appear to know nothing of the way clinical testing is done. The scientific method is, indeed, how science begins, but when a question of validity comes up, you've got to control all the variables but one. The protocol I proposed puts no "artifical constraints" on the experiment other than those that are required to determine when and where a piece of information came from, in all likelihood. Because if you don't know where the information came from, the conclusion "she could only know this is she had an NDE" cannot possibly be reached.
Also, you said above that you had "no problem" with my criteria, but now it appears that you do, and you don't even understand why the constraints are required. My protocol presents a minimal level for what might be called - by scientists - a "highly controlled operation." If you strip those controls away, you lose the ability to track the sources of information, and thus destroy your ability to reasonably conclude that an NDE is the only possible explanation.
Let me stress this point further with the same example from above: if you cannot indisputably show that Pam had no knowledge that a drill would be involved at some point, then her "recollection" of a "drilling sound" is not good evidence that anything out-of-the-ordinary occured.
quote:
With reference to my point, "The idea that machines could fly was also regarded by the majority as foolish' - you stated;
"Which proves my point, thank you very much."
My point being that your quote assumes NDEs are a foolish idea...
No, my point was that people who believe things without solid evidence upon which to base those beliefs are often shown to be foolish. The people who believed that machines couldn't possibly fly had no evidence for that. The people who b |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
