162.42.238.174 writes:
“Anecdotal, personal experience does not constitute evidence of the supernatural. Usually, when 'overwhelming evidence' is cited by believers, it refers to some scientific experiments that have taken place. I know of none that are credible, but would be interested to hear if you know of any that are.”
Au contrere, roseweed. The “evidence” argument is a red herring. “Repeatable under controlled conditions” is certainly one standard for evidence – i.e., the standard of experimental science. It isn’t, however, even the only scientific standard. By this standard, how much “evidence” is there for the theory of evolution? Essentially none. Indeed, at the quantum level, can ANY experiment really be said to be “repeatable” – i.e., aren’t experiments “repeatable,” and aren’t the conditions “controlled,” in only the grossest sense? Anyway, for an excellent discussion of the scientific approach to the study of the paranormal, I would refer you to a little publication by the State University of New York Press: Stoeber, CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE PARANORMAL. There are two essays in it that discuss the scientific approach to the study of the paranormal. For a reasonably scientific approach to the study of mediumship, see Berger, THE ARISTOCRACY OF THE DEAD (with a foreword by Antony Flew, who has been very critical of the evidence for life after death). As I recall, this book started out as Berger’s Ph.D thesis. A couple of general discussions of the evidence that are at least fairly scholarly are Hart, THE ENIGMA OF SURVIVAL and Almeder, DEATH AND PERSONAL SURVIVAL. Both authors are university professors (Hart is dead – his book is circa 1959).
The point you make is as old as the study of psychical research. It’s referred to again and again throughout the proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, and again and again the esteemed scientists who were affiliated with the SPR explained why their research did meet the standards of scientific research.
As an attorney, I deal with “anecdotal, personal evidence” pretty much all the time. It certainly is evidence, albeit not evidence by the narrow standard of experimental science. Let’s move away from the afterlife and take something like UFOs. Let’s say that 20,000 different people from widely different backgrounds, on 10,000 different occasions, report observing disc-shaped craft at relatively close range and under conditions favorable for observation. Let’s say that on 5,000 of those occasions there are multiple witnesses who report essentially the same thing; on 2,000 of these occasions, the witnesses are at different vantage points. Let’s say that of the 20,000 witnesses, 7,500 are scientists and other trained observers. Let’s say that 1,000 of the visual sightings are accompanied by radar returns on equipment that is functioning normally. Let’s say that on 50 occasions photographs are taken that withstand scientific scrutiny in the sense of being inexplicable as obvious hoaxes, etc. Actually, this FAR understates the “evidence” for disc-shaped craft – and it is, of course, evidence. What you must do with this evidence is evaluate it according to the possibilities – e.g., misperception by the witnesses, fraud, secret military craft, some unknown natural phenomenon, alien spacecraft, etc. At some point, the evidence accumulates to the point where some of these possibilities fall by the wayside and others become more probable. You then formulate theories based on these probabilities, and revise those theories as necessary as additional evidence accumulates. What you do NOT do, unless you are a debunker such as Phillip Klass, is start with an unalterable premise that “There are no alien spacecraft, so how else can we possibly explain this evidence?” What you do NOT do, unless you are a debunker such as Phillip Klass, is formulate a theory that is consistent with only a tiny portion of the evidence but utterly inconsistent with the vast bulk of it. This is patently unscientific.
This is where I believe we are at with the evidence for an “afterlife” – a sufficient body of evidence has accumulated that probabilities may be assigned and certain theories may be eliminated. The theory that “the mind is coextensive with the body, and consciousness ends with bodily death” is, to me, no longer tenable. You may disagree.
“Skepticism is not a belief system. Nor is atheism. While not all skeptics are atheists, they have in common that their critical attitudes are not guided by a system of beliefs.”
Au contrere, roseweed. This is naive in the extreme. I would again refer you to CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE PARANORMAL, where one of the authors distinguishes between what he calls “Skepticism-a” and “Skepticism-b.” Skepticism-a is the position we hopefully all adopt and is entirely consistent with the scientific approach described above – i.e., one refuses to adopt any theory until evidence accumulates to the point where that theory becomes the most probable. Skepticism-b is the skepticism of the debunker and is most certainly a belief system to the same degree as Catholocism or Buddhism. If you don’t think Phillip Klass, James Randi, et al., are in a belief system up to their necks, I would encourage you to do a great deal more study. Charles Tart and others have distinguished between “science,” which is welcome in any field of study, including the study of the paranormal, and “scientism,” which is a dogmatic religion. I am not “guided by” a belief system – I have formulated a belief system (i.e., theory) on the basis of my assessment of the available evidence, and that belief system is subject to revision if better evidence comes along.
Pierre Responds
Shanks Repsonds
Lance