194.32.45.1 writes:
 

Lance

This appears to me to be the most substantial post of yours on this Board, and I have taken the liberty of re-posting, and I hope riposting (please forgive the puns - I am also engaged in various skirmishes on another, language-related board and the mood sometimes carries over).

"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).

You ask how much evidence there is for evolution if the standard for evidence is 'repeatable under controlled conditions'. I'd say 'overwhelming'. I need not belabour you with talk.origins quotes but simply say that:

1. Observational evidence (as opposed to experimental evidence) can be both controlled and repeated. Eclipse hunting, archeological digs, geological surveys and the like are all examples of this. Evidence from such repeated, controlled observations is rife throughout the field of Biology and provides very strong evidence of evolution.

2. Evolutionary theory also uses experiments - again repeatable (usually repeated ad nauseum) and controlled. The history of study in Drosophila melanogaster (the fruit fly) is that of evolution being explored in the laboratory.

Sequencing the human genome, study of genetic characteristics in families (the hemophilia that Queen Victoria passed on through the royal bloodlines of Europe being the classic instance), modern epidemiology and the increasing ineffectualness of antibiotics are all predictable, repeatable, controlled items of evidence for evolution.

Further, you said, Indeed, at the quantum level, can ANY experiment really be said to be "repeatable". Well yes, actually. It's the reason that quantum physics may claim to be the most mathematically accurate theoretical subject in all of science - it's results are repeatable and confirmed to something like 16 or more decimal places.

Now if psychical research has anything like this body of repeatable evidence obtained under controlled conditions, certainly it would be worth investigating, I simply don't see that it has. Just today a local newspaper (in, thank goodness, an inside page) proclaimed a large headline: "Telepathy demonstrated in experiment" (or something similar). The accompanying picture was in deep red and showed a man with his eyes covered by those plastic hemispheres that people seem to favour these days. The story was about how he had managed to 'read' the minds of volunteers who were staring at a picture in a different room. Only two-thirds of the way through the article did it even mention the fact that the Professor (from a respected university near London) who had conducted the research over a number of trials, despondently admitted "This is the closest thing to a hit in the entire experiment. By any scientific standards, this experiment was a failure."

Just an anecdote, you might think. My guess, however, is that most people reading that article would be left with a sense that 'something' was going on. More's the pity when we do not appreciate, or apply, our hard won understanding of what is evidence and what isn't.

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.

In fact, as Fred and others have shown, scientists there expressed their disappointment at not being allowed to conduct some pretty obvious scientific experiments.

For what it's worth, I met George Dalzell in London on the evening of the big seminar he refers to. I also put money down for, and procured abstracts of the proceedings. Even George admitted at the time that the scientists/sceptics who had been invited left having convinced the meeting that nothing had been demonstrated of a psychic nature. There were interesting indications, and scope for more research, but no incontrovertible evidence for anything beyond the scientifically understandable.

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.

Actually, in most cases where you are studying these things, I believe you must start with the null hypothesis - "there ain't no such thing". From that you can calculate the probabilities of various incidents and occurences. Then you measure those against the reproduced results and see if there are statistically significant anomalies.

For all the sightings and reports of which you speak, it is interesting that almost all who report them have previously been exposed to the notion of UFOs. It is entirely analogous to all those who began to have ADCs or mediumship experiences once those American sisters started the ball rolling 150 years ago. It is entirely analogous to the 'visions' seen by religious mystics, that are invariably in line with the religious imagery to which they have previously been exposed. It is entirely in line with the mass hysteria that swept Salem during the infamous Witch Trials.

Because of this likelihood, in the case of UFOs the Null Hypothesis would include the probability of a large number of sightings, a large number of abduction claims and a large number of faked or misinterpreted photographs. Once you take that into account, the numbers of reports turn out not to be evidence at all.

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.

A large number of reports have collected. The Null Hypothesis must take into account the fact that death is frightening to most people, and the death of a loved one is bitterly painful to most people so that most people are more than happy to: assume there must be an afterlife; be prepared to consider almost any seemingly anomalous occurrence as evidence of the existence of such an afterlife. The minute you take this into account, the Null Hypothesis itself (that there is no afterlife) will predict that there will nevertheless be a huge number of reports of apparent ADCs. What is worth investigating (scientifically please) is the list of factors that might predispose some people to this, and predispose others to pre-dispose the notion itself. I'd love to know what the factors might be that have conspired to make a 'sceptic' of me.

"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.

It's nice to hear that you consider your belief system corrigible. I do too, as do most here (I think). I also agree that there are many who make a faith of some mystical (mythical?) idea of science, which leaves them just as closed to new ideas as other 'people of faith'. I wonder if you recognise, however, that Roseweed was completely right in what he said: that neither scepticism nor atheism are belief systems. Some may try to use them that way, but those who do are perhaps overly enthusiastic about the abilities of science, or scepticism, or atheism. A religion, on the other hand, is by definition a belief system, and that's why it is critical to avoid comparing science with religion.

You can be passionate about science and the need for scientific evidence without being 'a believer'. All you need is the null hypothesis, decent statistical analysis and scientific (not anecdotal) evidence.

cheer

the sunshine warrior