[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Skidoo, what a pompous twister you are.

This is just a meaningless personal attack. As I've said, I'm confident that any critical thinker can tell I'm not twisting anything.

In science there is empirical method and experimental method both aspects of the scientific method.

And clearly you don't understand the difference between these, you don't understand the difference between empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence, and you have no interest in becoming educated.

The empirical method has no preconceived ideas, often with no hypotheses as to how it works or should work..

"How it works or should work" has nothing whatsoever to do with empirical evidence.

Ship captain returns from voyage, tells a scientist, "Hey, guess what? My crew ate limes, and they didn't get scurvy!" That's anecdotal evidence. Scientists formulates an hypothesis: Limes prevent scurvy. He puts limes in on some ships, not on others, and sends them off. When they return, he carefully records the correlation between lime-laden ships and scurvy. That's empirical evidence. See the difference?

The empirical method is the correct method to adopt in any unexplored or little understood phenomenon and what any good, thorough scientist naturally does before soon moving onto test hypotheses ('the experimental method') and knows what is a success or failure before trials are done.

This seems to be an incorrect attempt (on your part) to equate the empirical method, empirical evidence, and observational science. Empirical evidence is not just, "Oh, I sat in on a seance, and it was amazing!" That's anecdotal evidence. It's really a very simple concept.

Mr arrogant read this ....

Oh this oughta be rich.

[color="Navy"][i] '.....Empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method, but is often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with the experimental method. .......

Hahaha. Oh man.

Here, you read THIS, from your vaunted Wikipedia:

"Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment.

Why should I communicate with such an confident idiot?

"Idiot?" Nice.

I have communicated enough with you to know that whatever I say you will distort, twist, wind up, lie (as in claiming you didn't say 'slam dunk')

Yeah, that was a "lie." That one single rhetorical misstep was a "lie."

....I would be willing to go through the Near Death Experience and why your faith in silly experiments like viewing one's body from a distant camera is completely meaningless and not evidence that has any proven link with NDEs...... but what is the point?

The point is, I have presented experimental evidence, which provides specific and plausible hypotheses for so-called "out-of-body" and "near-death" experiences. You have provided nothing but anecdotes to counter this evidence.

Your mind is made up, as hard as a rock.

There is no reason for you to presume that my mind is made up. I have repeatedly emphasized that scientific skepticism (like science in general) is about probability and provisional belief, and always open to revision. Again, I would eagerly welcome any actual evidence for psi.

You are annoyed and want to try and score points over semantics

"Score points over semantics?" You must understand the terminology if any discussion is to be meaningful. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't, and futhermore, that you're not interested in education. If I'm genuinely wrong in my interpretation of anything, terminology included, I welcome the opportunity to learn. Truth is far more important to me than prejudice or ego.

No, I just don't think your attitude is worth communicating with.

That's right. Attack the style and not the content. Note that I've never once called you an "idiot."