Response to Skeptics' Guide Host, Dr. Steven Novella (Podcast)

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

It is empirical evidence, empirical means evidence by experience, observation or experiment.

Wrong. In a scientific context, empirical evidence (observational or experimental) is based on a working hypothesis that's falsifiable under properly controlled circumstances. Surely you understand the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence? No? Why am I not surprised?

You want Psychical Research references? I know I am probably wasting my time, since you won't accept lab based evidence, I doubt you will even consider these .......

I'll consider ANY evidence. I've never given any indication otherwise.

like most hard skeptics you are more likely to choose to read a filtered versions (than original reports) through skeptic websites written by non-present debunkers i.e. non-empirical versions.

Have I **ever** cited "filtered versions" of psi claims? No.

Nor am I claiming the below are easy to replicate scientific evidence, just empirical evidence,

No, it's all anecdotal evidence, or "evidence" procured by psi researchers in the early 20th century.

the sort that would be seriously considered evidence in a court of law.

As Venom stated, witness testimony in a court of law has zero to do with scientifically empirical evidence. If you think otherwise, you don't understand science.

Mediumship- Mental Phenomena
(1)Leonora Piper investigated by debunker and hard sceptic Dr Richard Hodgson.and numerous scientists. Eventually Hodgson changed opinion to conclude ' I cannot profess to have any doubt .....the personalities that they claim to be, that they have survived the change we call death, and they have directly communicated with us' .

Hodgson died in 19-frickin-05.

Also investigated by Professor James Hyslop who concluded ' I regard the existence of spirits scientifically proved and I no longer regard the sceptic as having any right to speak on the matter .... and do not propose to argue with him on the supposition he knows anything about the subject'

Hyslop died in 1920! Jesus man, seriously.

(2)Another intriguing claim of mediumship is Eileen Garrett tested by various scientists

Intriguing? More vagueness. She died in 1970.

(3) Controlled experiments on various mediums have had positive results under blind, double blind and triple blind conditions ....including Pratt/Birge (1940s), Professor Scmeidler (1950s), Professor Schwartz (2000s), Professor Roy (2000s),

You'll have to do better than that. Specific references, please.

(4) The Cross-Correspondences .... puzzling, complex and hard to debunk.

Hard to "debunk?" The so-called "cross correspondences" were an early 20th century fad that died out (pardon the pun) in the early 30s.

Unexplained physical or séance phenomena
Note: although I am more sceptical of such claims than above due to many past cases of fraud - yes I know about these cases .... but some remain unresolved and far from clear cut.....for example ..

Oh brother.

(1) The case of Stella Cranshaw – investigated by debunker of many mediums and initially hard skeptic Harry Price, magician friend of Harry Houdini. (Incidentally Harry Price had a letter from Houdini saying he believed one case of another physical medium he investigated was real, suggesting Houdini was less certain in private than in public). Harry Price and others claimed Stella Cranshaw was genuine.

Sources please. Nevertheless, Harry Price died in 1948.

(2) Scole séance circle in 1990s (nothng to do with Colin Fry) investigated by many scientists and a magician, none could detect fraud. Sue Blackmore was invited (she refused the invitation) Richard Wiseman was invited (reportedly he couldn't manage) , others attended from around the world .....after a few years it ended. The leading researchers, all convinced, challenged debunker magicians to replicate the same reported phenomena under the same control conditions – no magicians took up the challenge.

"Leading researchers, all convinced?" Sources please.

Apparitions
Over a 100 documented cases of more than one witness simultaneously perceiving an apparition – GMN Tyrell.

You mean G.N.M. Tyrrell. The psi researcher born in 1879. I assume you're referring to his book Apparitions, published in 1943? Puh-leaze.

Dr Ian Stevenson research
Many cases of young infant children reporting information from the past suggestive of reincarnation, discarnate mind unfleunce or past events.

Yes, the recently deceased Dr. Stevenson (at 90 years old). I'm quite familiar with the man and his work, particularly as he was of local interest (although certainly not a celebrity). Let's see...massive endowment from kooky Xerox inventor Chester Carlson..."studying" children in locales where reincarnation is part and parcel to the indigenous culture, said children supposedly articulating events from past lives at the age of 2 or 3...hmm...reincarnation "research" never taken seriously by any of his contemporaries. Another missed opportunity for a Nobel Prize? And you can't claim conservative conspiracy on Stevenson. Do you know why Stevenson was dismissed as head of psychiatry at UVA? No? LMAO

Near Death Experience Research
Investigated by scientists Parnia, Fenwick, Sabom, Greyson,, Ring, Moody and others .....I might comment on why those experiments you quoted do not invalidate their research.... time permitting... but. this has already been discussed a lot on this forum already ....

Translation: "Skidoo has successfully rebutted this "evidence" with far more plausible mechanisms, and I have no rejoinder."

But here is my 'empirical' experience

Anecdotal evidence. Didn't you claim you are (or used to be) a scientist?

- the reason why I am not a hard skeptic ...... In the 1980s, I was present when my grandmother, by then an old lady crippled with arthritis said she could see my other 'dead' grandmother Kate. I could see nobody there. My grandmothers had only met on a few occasions at weddings etc. in life. My grandmother said Kate (the 'dead' grandmother) was very worried about her son Robert (my uncle - still alive on earth) and she was telling us to get in contact with him as soon as possible. We did phone shortly later, Uncle Robert had just had heart attack a little earlier (had never been seriously ill before) and had been rushed into hospital . ......no one in the family knew, my grandmother had no direct contact with that side of the family. Just an astonishing coincidence?

Ahhh. We finally get to the heart of the matter. Open Mind saw something he couldn't explain. Tell me something. How old were you at the time? Old grandma...1980s....

Skidoo, I am sure you will dismiss these without much consideration.

That's unfounded prejudice. This is the first time you've relayed anything remotely resembling evidence, as far as I can recall. And it's all either anecdotal, or it originates from early 20th century "psychical researchers." Surely you've heard the saying, "The plural of anecdote is not evidence?" My evidence comes from modern neurologists, using modern technology, working under falsifiable hypotheses.

The above references I have selected (and there are many others, possibly better but less well known).

There's that word possibly. The little crack in the door.

Nor am I claiming all these are beyond questioning, open minded scepticism is essential

Whatever that means.

However biased selective reporting on skeptic websites like 'skeptics dictionary' for skeptics to treat like some accurate reference point without reading the original reports really isn't scientific or fair.

Skeptic's Dictionary? I haven't once cited the Skeptic's Dictionary. Who do you think you're talking to? Some two-bit college kid who just discovered scientific skepticism? Hahahaha.

Anyone making a paranormal claim is sooner or later accused of fraud, some people too keen to debunk and too lazy to investigate are apt to think if they can imagine a fraudulent method it must have occurred.

Substitute "more plausible" for "fraudulent" and strike the "debunk" and "too lazy to investigate" pejoratives.

So rumour of fraud or hearsay of fraud isn't decent evidence of fraud.

Sigh. Keep trying. I'd love for you or someone else to present some actual sound evidence of psi. Honestly. Still waiting. And I can't help but notice that none of your compadres have come to your rescue.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by skidoo

Who do you think you're talking to? Some two-bit college kid who just discovered scientific skepticism? Hahahaha.

Skidoo I don't care who you are, you can be window cleaner, the son of Novella or perhaps some egomaniac it makes no difference to the case for scientific evidence of psi in lab based parapsychology or empirical occurrences reported by witnesses in the past up till the present day in field research.

I think we are wasting each others time?

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Skidoo I don't care who you are, you can be window cleaner, the son of Novella or perhaps some egomaniac it makes no difference to the case for scientific evidence of psi in lab based parapsychology or empirical occurrences reported by witnesses in the past up till the present day in field research.

"Empirical occurrences reported by witnesses?" As I've already told you: Witnesses doing "field research" does not constitute empirical evidence. Clearly you don't understand the differences between empirical science, observational science, and anecdotal evidence. Apparently you can't even point out the few examples in your references that actually do utilize empirical data. Once again: empirical science is based on reproducible tests in controlled conditions of a falsifiable hypothesis.

Your refusal to seek to understand the relevant terminology reveals your bias.

I think we are wasting each others time?

Translation: "Skidoo's argument is better, his evidence is better, but my blind faith prevents me from conceding gracefully, so I'll just pretend that my position is at least as strong as his, and run away, with my fingers in my ears, shouting, 'Lalalalalala.' "

It's funny how all of this time you've been willing to carry on this debate while you've been able to get away with being coy and disingenuous. Yet, as soon as you're finally pressed to give some actual supporting evidence, and you're faced with logical arguments against it, you hit the exit door faster than a spooked gazelle.

I countered your rebuttals to my evidence. The evidence suggests that you're unable to counter my rebuttals to yours.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by skidoo

"Empirical occurrences reported by witnesses?" As I've already told you: Witnesses doing "field research" does not constitute empirical evidence. Clearly you don't understand the differences between empirical science, observational science, and anecdotal evidence.

Skidoo, what a pompous twister you are.

In science there is empirical method and experimental method both aspects of the scientific method. The empirical method has no preconceived ideas, often with no hypotheses as to how it works or should work.. 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.

Once again: empirical science is based on reproducible tests in controlled conditions of a falsifiable hypothesis.

Mr arrogant read this ....

'.....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. .....

The empirical method is not sharply defined and is often contrasted with the precision of the experimental method, where data are derived from the systematic manipulation of variables in an experiment

......... The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) further states that an empiric is "one who, either in medicine or in other branches of science, relies solely upon observation and experiment" [emphasis added]. In this case, an empiricist can be someone who conducts an experiment but without using a hypothesis to guide the process, i.e., strictly by the trial-and-error method.

Empirical method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's funny how all of this time you've been willing to carry on this debate while you've been able to get away with being coy and disingenuous. Yet, as soon as you're finally pressed to give some actual supporting evidence, and you're faced with logical arguments against it, you hit the exit door faster than a spooked gazelle.

Why should I communicate with such an confident idiot? 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') ....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? Your mind is made up, as hard as a rock. You are annoyed and want to try and score points over semantics

I countered your rebuttals to my evidence. The evidence suggests that you're unable to counter my rebuttals to yours.

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

[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."

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by skidoo

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

Skidoo, that is no different in essence from trying to annoy people with comments like 'I'll just pretend that my position is at least as strong as his, and run away, with my fingers in my ears, shouting, 'Lalalalalala.' " The tone of your posts seem to be to try and wind people up, whether intentional or not.

If we are both going to post in this forum, how about we treat each other with some respect? Is it a deal?

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?

That is experimental evidence from an experimental method.

There is ambiguity over the word 'empirical', you view the experimental method as the same as the empirical method .... I don't. And the link I provided (nor the Oxford English Dictionary) doesn't either. But hey it is only a term, as long as we both know what each other means

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.

Skidoo, you are missing the point. The links I proved were empirical evidence, the scientists involved were testing and trying their best to rule out alternate hypotheses. I quoted nothing without a degree of evidence . So twisting this to say "Oh, I sat in on a seance, and it was amazing!" is sheer nonsense. That is not acceptable evidence in any shape or form.

Anecdotal means a story, empirical means experienced. So what is anecdotal to you because you were not there and do not trust it, is empirical to those doing the controlled research who experienced and observed it and ruled out alternate explanations as best as they could. .

[DysonSphere]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Like most studies they do not falsify superfluous and untestable hypotheses. The experiments can and do demonstrate that the phenomena that you claim support the brain filter hypothesis (not really a hypothesis yet) can be explained without superfluous supernatural causes.

It is not superfluous. If materialism can be tested and proven (which it can, assuming it is true) then the brain filter hypothesis can be safely ruled out. This is elementary people, come on.

[Open Mind]

Skidoo,
Now we are going to be more respectful, hopefully.

Here is your first link that supposedly explains the NDE ....
---

Rebuttal of Link 1

The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences by H. Henrik Ehrsson

Very briefly this is the guy who is claiming that putting goggles on someone so that they can observe their own body from a distance (via video camera) can give a sense of being out of the body ....... etc. It is bit more involved than that but that is enough to rebut it.

He thinks 'We feel that our self is located where the eyes are'

Overlooking the absurdity of comparing watching yourself from distant video camera with a Near Death Experience ....... this is extremely unlikely to explain the Near Death Experiences .

In 1999, research by Professor Ken Ring using 21 blind patients who had near death type experiences. 10 of them claimed to see their body upon leaving them. 5 of those born blind claimed vision during NDE.

---
Skidoo, I will reply to others, time permitting .... have patience, I have other things to do too.

[Open Mind]

Skidoo,

Rebuttal of Link 2 .

Visualizing Out-of-Body Experience in the Brain - Dirk De Ridder, M.D., Ph.D., Koen Van Laere, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., Patrick Dupont, Ph.D., Tomas Menovsky, M.D., Ph.D., and Paul Van de Heyning, M.D., Ph.D.

(1) I couldn't access the whole article. However this experiment on just a single patient must surely cast doubt on whether proper double blind testing was possible at all, if the patient half knew what to expect, they could imagine or modify the experience. If you stimulate a part of the brain and the person has some idea what is supposed to happen, they will report closer to that. .... experiments should be double blind ideally.

Around 80% of Parapsychology trials are blind or double blind - therefore avoid such bias. If only other areas of science lived up to that too.

(2) I found comments on the above paper by experts in NDE research - the natural spontaneous kind. According to Greyson, Parnia and Fenwick the report does not match natural NDE/OBE that well at all ....

'........ The report by De Ridder and colleagues describing a sense of disembodiment elicited by temporoparietal-junction stimulation in a patient with tinnitus extends similar findings in patients with epilepsy.1 We should be cautious, however, about drawing analogies between an induced sense of disembodiment and spontaneous out-of-body experiences. That they have similar neuroanatomical loci is a plausible hypothesis but an untested one.

The sense of disembodiment induced by electrical stimulation is limited to a fixed location; those in whom this experience is induced by stimulation perceive the environment from the visual perspective of the physical body, and they perceive the event as illusory. Spontaneous out-of-body experiences often involve accurate perception of the environment (including the physical body) from an extracorporeal visual perspective; the disembodied center of consciousness may seem to move about independently of the physical body, and those who have such a spontaneous experience usually perceive the event as profoundly real.2,3 Given the differences in phenomenology and in psychological aftereffects for those who have the experience, it is premature to assume that the mechanism of an induced sense of disembodiment also applies to spontaneous experiences.4


Bruce Greyson, M.D.
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22908-0152
cbg4d@virginia.edu


Sam Parnia, M.D., Ph.D.
Weill Cornell Medical Center
New York, NY 10021


Peter Fenwick, M.D.
King's College Institute of Psychiatry
London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom

References


Blanke O, Ortigue S, Landis T, Seeck M. Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. Nature 2002;419:269-270. [CrossRef][Medline]
Gabbard GO, Twemlow SW, Jones FC. Differential diagnosis of altered
mind/body perception. Psychiatry 1982;45:361-369. [ISI][Medline]
Gabbard GO, Twemlow SW. With the eyes of the mind: an empirical analysis of out-of-body states. New York: Praeger, 1984.
Alvarado CS. Out-of-body experiences. In: Cardeña E, Lynn SJ, Krippner SC, eds. Varieties of anomalous experience: examining the scientific evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2000:183-218.

[Open Mind]

Skidoo,

Rebuttal of Link 3,4,5 & 6

These refer to the magnetic stimulation of the temporal lobes producing OBE or mystical like experiences. I have already commented on this much earlier in this very topic when I wrote ......

Posted by Open Mind earlier ....

This research failed to be replicated in a ‘double blind’ controlled trials by Swedish team lead by Pehr Granqvist who found no discernable effects. (If you put a device on people’s head and they are half expecting to experience something weird, many will report it. If the researcher believes in the effect of what they are reporting they can misinterpret information).

Even if one assumes the effects claimed by Blanke, Persinger, etc. was correct, it still does rule out the brain is a filter of consciousness, such effects could equally be viewed as disruption of the brain filtering.

Also note, even if we assume the effect is real, the discover of the effect Michael Persinger - obtained positive evidence of remote viewing when testing Ingo Swann one of the psychic spies in the US Government's Stargate research.