View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Great documentaries on Afterlife and NDE's

Share or recommend interesting films and videos about paranormal phenomena, awakening topics, skepticism, spirituality, metaphysics, science, conspiracies, etc.

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby Arouet » 24 Oct 2011, 01:21

For sure! I mean the Director of General Neurology at Yale? Pfl! What a lightweight! How could anyone take him seriously! I'll bet James Randi paid someone off to get him that post! Amirite?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby craig weiler » 24 Oct 2011, 08:27

Arouet,
Once again, I am horrified by your lack of real skepticism. You have a glaring double standard. Titles are meaningless to you when they are on the other side of the argument, but oh, so important when they appear to back you up.

I'm going to take a wild guess here that you've never done any fact checking of skeptics, ever. Let alone Novella. There is a reason he is unimportant in debates on psi. He gets his facts wrong.

I'm going to keep telling you this. You have to be skeptical of the skeptics. You have not proven to me that you are capable of this.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby Arouet » 24 Oct 2011, 08:54

craig weiler wrote:Arouet,
Once again, I am horrified by your lack of real skepticism. You have a glaring double standard. Titles are meaningless to you when they are on the other side of the argument, but oh, so important when they appear to back you up.


Nonsense. My point in bringing up his credentials was to point out that he is a highly accomplished and respected neurologist - ie: he is someone worthy of being taken seriously - more particularly when he's opining in his field.

If you believe that that means I think we should just accept everything he says - then once again your instincts are misleading you. I don't accept everything he says. Though of course instead of just asking me, you go on and make your assumptions.

I'm going to take a wild guess here that you've never done any fact checking of skeptics, ever.


For a psychic you really don't read people very well do you?

I'm going to keep telling you this. You have to be skeptical of the skeptics. You have not proven to me that you are capable of this.


I'm skeptical of everyone! You seem to think that people are not capable of nuanced opinions. You like to fit them into your little boxes, generally formed on whatever your first impression is. I tried to get into topics in depth with you but you opted out so it is unsurprising that you have no idea how I approach these topics!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby craig weiler » 24 Oct 2011, 09:40

Arouet,
You have not demonstrated any fact checking of skeptics that I've seen. You tell me you are skeptical of everyone, but I don't see it demonstrated in any of your posts. All I see is heavy favoritism towards skeptical opinions.

Novella is a lightweight talking head on parapsychology subjects. He's never been mentioned in any serious parapsychology literature that I'm aware of. He is only mentioned by Radin in his blogs when he commits one of his many factual errors. He's probably a good neurologist, I don't know. But he's very bad at parapsychology. NDE's are not in his field. Neurology is not the study of consciousness.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby Arouet » 24 Oct 2011, 10:05

craig weiler wrote:Arouet,
You have not demonstrated any fact checking of skeptics that I've seen. You tell me you are skeptical of everyone, but I don't see it demonstrated in any of your posts. All I see is heavy favoritism towards skeptical opinions.


Craig, I've offered to get into topics in more detail with you, you've refused. So what do you want from me?

My approach to topics that aren't in my area of expertise is to expose myself to a variety of opinions, then reflect on my position. I'll read Darryl Bem/Radin AND Hyman/Wagenmakers. Do you understand my approach? I'm not an expert in any of these fields and don't have a science background, so I read a variety of opinions then reflect on my belief (I don't believe belief is a choice - we expose ourselves to various sources then reflect on our beliefs).

Your problem is that you find the results of parapsychology so convincing that you can't conceive that any opinion to the contrary of the researchers could be well-reasoned.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby ProfWag » 24 Oct 2011, 21:12

CB,
Could you post an example or two of facts that Dr. Novella has gotten wrong? It might help strengthen your position...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby craig weiler » 29 Oct 2011, 07:37

I already provided those examples on other threads.

I think that part of the problem is that as skeptics, you just don't see the the statements that are blatantly incorrect. You want them to be true.

Novella claims for example, that the autoganzfeld studies have not shown any effect. That is not true. The studies have shown positive effects. Skeptics are free to dispute whether this evidence is meaningful, but are not free to dispute the existence of this evidence. You two have gotten that part right. Neither of you is claiming that the evidence isn't there. You are better skeptics than Novella in this area.

Novella also touted an MRI study which claimed rather audaciously to have proven that psychic ability doesn't exist. He ignored about 4 other MRI studies and about 26 other, similar studies which had positive results. Novella is high profile and is riding his reputation. He therefore must be held to a very high standard. Making these glaring errors is inexcusable.

Again, neither of you make these sorts of errors. You want additional information and I think you can recognize a ridiculous skeptic claim when you see one.

Arouet, given that you are a better skeptic than Novella, I hope you can see that regardless of his position, he has to be held to a very high standard of objectivity.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby Arouet » 29 Oct 2011, 07:52

craig weiler wrote:Arouet, given that you are a better skeptic than Novella, I hope you can see that regardless of his position, he has to be held to a very high standard of objectivity.


Sure.

You probably don't have a link handy but if you do can you link to the two examples you cited? I don't doubt that Novella's made mistakes, but sometimes when we look at the actual quotation its not quite what we thought.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby craig weiler » 30 Oct 2011, 02:34

I do not have time. Perhaps you could research this?
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby Craig Browning » 31 Oct 2011, 21:45

craig weiler wrote:I do not have time. Perhaps you could research this?


:lol: :lol: :lol:

You're being an optimist on that one.

My line is that "I don't play fetch" when they want links to information that I know is available and not that difficult to find. Hell, I find many articles and quasi-official type material just stumbling about when I'm bored. I'm certainly not going to save every interesting site, argument, documentary I come across "just in case" i can use it in a thread of this sort. . . to coin a phrase, "I'm not that Anal". Sadly, this habit is common to most of us that stand on the "believer" side of things and so, we come off weak, fickle, and as so many skeptic's love to say, "Air Headed & Delusional".

:idea: If all these skeptics are so Left Brained and ubber-intelligent believing everything the Church of Science coughs up, why don't they consider the fact that some are born with a Right Brain nature and will see things far different from them? Will this New World Order that's afoot end up persecuting all Right Brained people or attempt reprogramming so we stop believing in Deities, Unicorns, Ghosties, etc. ? Will all people of faith become outlaws in this new society that seem basing it's ethos on Vulcan?

My hope is that wisdom and balance wins out in the long run and I pray that I live long enough to see that happen (I have my doubts however).
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby craig weiler » 31 Oct 2011, 22:38

I've noticed that the skeptics are amazingly bad at examining skeptical positions critically. They need us to do it for them or it won't be done at all. For people who prize their rationality so highly, they just don't seem all that . . . rational.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby Arouet » 31 Oct 2011, 22:52

When I'm quoting someone I try and proide the reference or at least I'll say directly that I don't have it available. The fact is, people misremeber what they hear all the time, or don't catch the subtleties.

Craig W made a specific comment about what Novella said. I suspected that Novella didn't quite say it that way. How can I ever find the quotation that Craig heard?

And Craig B: you make statements about what people say all the time but rarely back it up.

I'm willing to do research, but not spin my wheels trying to search through the haystack to find the actual quotation you guys are referring to.

Also Craig W: for someone who abjectly refuses to engage in any of these topics in any substantive detail, I don't know that you should be criticizing here...
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby craig weiler » 31 Oct 2011, 23:17

Arouet,
I won't engage you because your bias makes the conversation meaningless. And by the way, I found the Novella quote in under a minute using standard search techniques.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby Arouet » 01 Nov 2011, 00:24

Yes, it's much easier to find the quote you had in mind when you already had it in mind! And instead of just posting your link with your quote you of course leave it out.

I know you and I differ on our points of view but that doesn't mean every discussion must be filled with acrimony. I know people like you get off on that on the net, but it's not that much fun for me. So I'll leave you alone again (should have stuck to my plan the first time I said I'd do this!)






Anyhow, you have no idea how my bias will affect any discussion because you don't allow a conversation to get into any depth.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: The Scientific Rationalist Case for Life After Death

Postby Scepcop » 28 Apr 2012, 03:31

Check out this 1978 documentary about Near Death Experiences and evidence of the Afterlife. It's very interesting.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

PreviousNext

Return to Share Interesting Videos and Films

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron