No evidence for the afterlife?

[gabriel]

Originally Posted by robbiehouston

Another article with the typical skeptic rhetoric (denial and dismissal). Anyone care to break down the problems with this?

The first thing to look at is Stenger's motivation. Ideologue? Damaged childhood? What makes him feel the need to make such statements when there's a wealth of information that should give him pause for thought at the very least.

[Lyander]

Originally Posted by gabriel

The first thing to look at is Stenger's motivation. Ideologue? Damaged childhood? What makes him feel the need to make such statements when there's a wealth of information that should give him pause for thought at the very least.

You are aware that this is an ad hom attack on Stenger, don't you?

His statements stand or fall on their own. I've read a lot of the NDE literature and have hung aroun IANDS, and there is still not enough to carry the day for any person who carefully considers the quality of the evidence.

How, for example, can anyone take Long's book without sucking on a few grains of salt?

[gabriel]

Originally Posted by Lyander

You are aware that this is an ad hom attack on Stenger, don't you?

His statements stand or fall on their own. I've read a lot of the NDE literature and have hung aroun IANDS, and there is still not enough to carry the day for any person who carefully considers the quality of the evidence.

How, for example, can anyone take Long's book without sucking on a few grains of salt?

You'll have to explain how it's an ad hominem. There's a vast global spiritual-religious culture that manifests in a myriad of ways, one aspect of which is the reporting of accounts from clinically dead people. Lyander seems to be ignoring the content and context in which those accounts operate and proclaiming they are all in error. By doing so he is aligning himself with a particular ideological position with clear political overtones.

I want to know why people like Lyander find it necessary to make such neological pronouncements when there's a wealth of data (unless you deny the importance of anecdote - the primary means of human communication and the only one currently available in NDE cases) that the converse is true. I would need to examine the source and motivation for such pronouncements before I consume them piecemeal as empirical truths.

[Arouet]

It's an ad hom if you are looking to his ideology to evaluate the merits of his arguments. The arguments speak for themselves, no matter what Stringer's ideology.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by robbiehouston

I honestly don't understand how otherwise fairly intelligent ppl can act so blindly

I don't need to read the article ... that will sound blind too .. but he is a CSIcop fellow .. I've read countless of their articles ... . So I know what he believes, why he wants to argue against it for political purposes.

[Open Mind]

OK I've read CSIcop fellow Stenger's article now .. what a waste of time .... it is just the same old CSIcop nonsense repeated over and over again.

But I have looked at many, the ones said to be the best. None--not a single one--stands up under the same scrutiny that is applied in any science whenever an extraordinary claim is presented.

This means Victor Stenger obviously hasn't read the original researchers reports or is demanding level of evidence that is impossible to obtain unless directly witnessed himself.

However, the thousands of reports published over four decades are virtually all anecdotal

How could they be anything else but anecdotal to Stenger? He has investigated nothing and is commenting from an armchair on subjects he knows little about. This is not an ad hominen comment ... it is a simple observation of Stengers comments. What cases has Stenger ever directly investigated? Where is it published?

, William Crookes and Oliver Lodge. Since then the history of paranormal studies has been a series of extraordinary claims of evidence for psychic phenomena, enthusiastically reported in the news media and popular books, followed by the collapse of those claims under the intense scrutiny of skeptics. More important, all have failed to be independently replicated.

This is false. Either Stenger hasn't read the original sources (mst likely) or he is a liar ....this is not an ad hom ... it is obvious to anyone who has read the history that Stenger doesn't know ... he may fool those who don't know either but those who read the original reports, the criticisms and rebutals will know Stenger doesn't know what he is talking about.

No properly controlled experiment in almost two centuries of psychic research has provided significant, replicated evidence for the special powers of the mind that you would expect if mind had some non-material aspect.

Yes Stenger clearly doesn't know the details or the history of research. This phrase is evidence of it.

By the same token, considerable evidence does exist supporting the hypothesis that what we call mind and consciousness result from mechanisms in a purely material brain.

The hard problem of consciousness remains unsolved. Non-locality in time/space is hardly 'material' ... just a calling it 'material' as if falsified classical mechanics still explains the mind, isn't good enough.

If life after death exists, then evidence should be there. It is not.

Stenger hasn't looked ... all he has done is to read his fellow CSIcop membersdesperate revision of claims and indoing so prejudiced his own judgement. This is not an ad hominen ...he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[sbu]

Originally Posted by Lyander

Lol, one wonders whether the crew in here actually read the article posted by Really.

Lyander, In my experience the 'religious' group of NDE proponents aren't really interested in evidence that contradicts what they want to believe.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by sbu

Lyander, In my experience the 'religious' group of NDE proponents aren't really interested in evidence that contradicts what they want to believe.

The forum poll in here shows that people are not religious .. ... so your comment is off target on this forum ...

[gabriel]

Originally Posted by Arouet

It's an ad hom if you are looking to his ideology to evaluate the merits of his arguments. The arguments speak for themselves, no matter what Stringer's ideology.

Nonsense. Stringer is presuming to represent abstract scientific disinterest, when in truth he's part of an ideological pressure group. Can you imagine a bishop offering the opposing case and skeptics ignoring his office?

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Arouet

It's an ad hom if you are looking to his ideology to evaluate the merits of his arguments. The arguments speak for themselves, no matter what Stringer's ideology.

What argument did Stenger make that speaks for itself?