Can you have out of body experiences?

[Morrus]

This is an utterly pointless argument. If people look at the evidence themselves they can make their own minds up. They are quite capable of doing this.

They do. All the time. Millions of people across the world look at evidence and come to their own conclusions. They call themselves "scientists".

While ever people are being discouraged from doing this,

You can keep repeating that phrase over and over and over (I guess you have to, because that appears to be your entire case), but it won't make it true. People are not being discouraged from looking at evidence. The exact opposite is true.

Hey, provide some examples of people discouraging us from looking at evidence? For someone so hot on evidence, you don't seem to be very keen on actually providing any.

 

[Umbran]

Not that I agree with him, but he can flip these arguments and say you are wrong. You are not using pertinent arguments.

Oh, they're pertinent. I just didn't extend to the conclusion. I'd considered this as I was on my way to work this morning, so please allow me to continue....

Upthread, kingius mentioned critical thinking. So, let's consider that. When thinking critically, the first question we apply to a piece of information shouldn't be, "Do I believe this?" The first question is, "Should I believe this?" Has the information been gathered or presented in such a way as to help avoid the foibles and failings of casual human thought? This is what the processes of science do for us - get us information in which we can have some level of confidence, and a way to refine and correct going forward.

Now, my previous statement becomes difficult to flip around. We humans are easy to fool. So, we should take strong precautions against being fooled. What precautions went into the gathering of the evidence he refers to?

Now, perhaps he doesn't want to get into it - that's fine, as EN World isn't a peer reviewed journal or anything. But, this becomes a key point to anyone who does decide to look at the evidence, and make up their own mind. It isn't enough to read a report of an event or events - one should think critically about how that report was prepared and presented, and what it means in the greater context.

 

[Janx]

Many ordinary people have had dreams that contain elements that come true on the following day. But that must be written off as mere coincidence because to do otherwise breaks the materialist world view that there is nothing else out there.

The foundations of science are being able to prove it and repeat it, preferably by another party./

True story:

Over a decade a go, I was sitting at the work lunch table talking with a bunch of coworkers. One of them was an EMT, telling about a run he did the night just past. I suddenly had the strongest sense of deja vu, that I had heard him tell the story, that I interupted him, and asked him if it ended the way I remembered it.

As it turned out, I had it spot on. He was puzzled how I knew the ending, as it has JUST happened to him. Whereas I had this solid memory of the same lunch-gathering of him telling the story before and had insisted that was so. As this event happened over a decade ago, I can barely recall the story, other than he was an ambulance driver, racing to a scene and it was stormy out.

From a science perspective, how do I prove to YOU that this event happened.

How do I repeat it? How does anybody repeat it?

There are plenty of legitimate science people trying to puzzle that out. How to make it testable and provable.

It may still be too early to say it doesn't exist (too many anecdotes), but there hasn't been a soli solid science proof to prove it exists. And that's pretty much the gold standard.

 

[kingius]

True story - the body of work in 'science' is many and varied. It contains, among other things, theories which cannot be tested, never mind repeated, without jumping billions of years into the future (or the past). Much of what is accepted as canon is speculation expressed through mathematics. Quite how parallel universes are accepted, for example, when they are not provable in any way, when paranormal phenomenon like out of body expreience has a huge body of research and evidence to back it up... is what is called a /double standard/.

You'll never agree to this, despite it being true, so this is an utterly pointless discussion.

 

[Janx]

I'd like to say something further, if I may. With all the computing power at an individual's finger tips we really should be examining data on our own and becoming less reliant on someone else telling us what the truth is. That's a digression but is in line with my thinking on these things. For example, statistical anaylis of the evidence for NDEs and out of body experiences could be within reach which could lead to some radically different conclusions than mainstream science currently has.

As for alternative explanations that predate scientific thinking, again, consult the original sources. There have been stories of out of body experiences that go back many thousands of years if you want to take a look then you'll find them.

Do you have any idea how stupid people are?

While I'm not making the case for Scientists are Right very well, my point is half of the population is be is below average intelligence.

People reach wrong conclusions all the time. And they fail to understand data or statistics.

I think everybody agrees that everybody should go look stuff up and come to their own conclusion.

The problem is that a bunch of people aren't good at coming to logically sound conclusions.

That's why scientists, those nerdy people who tend to be smart and like to think and figure out how to prove their conclusions, are the reasonably trusted source for "how stuff works." I'm inclined to let them keep doing their jobs as it's worked out better in the last 500 years or so than the previous 10,000 combined.

 

[Kramodlog]

Oh, they're pertinent.

"I have the truth, you're wrong cause science is great" is not a pertinent argument and no different from his arguments.

 

[Umbran]

"I have the truth, you're wrong cause science is great" is not a pertinent argument and no different from his arguments.

Which is fine, because that's a strawman. I said: "This is what the processes of science do for us - get us information in which we can have some level of confidence, and a way to refine and correct going forward." Which most certainly is pertinent to the discussion at hand.

If you don't acknowledge the difference between that and, "I have the truth, you're wrong cause science is great," we can just stop right here.

 

[Kramodlog]

Which is fine, because that's a strawman.

No, it is what you said.

Yes. But there are two things to note:

1) What you believe does not change the facts. The truth is what it is, no matter what you believe.

He is saying science doesn't lead to truth, but humans can find it. You just say the opposite.

2) It is very easy to fool yourself. Humans are subject to a host of flaws in how they evaluate information. The point of science is to give us discipline to eventually get past human failings, and get at the truth regardless.

You need to change your arguments to be more pertinent and actually say something that could convice him or at least back your affirmation. Right now it is two people who pretty much keep saying the truth is on their side because it is.

 

[Umbran]

You need to change your arguments to be more pertinent and actually say something that could convice him or at least back your affirmation.

Oh, well, I'm not trying to convince him, in particular. I'm giving an alternate view for those in the audience who are sitting on the fence.

I think I've backed my assertion pretty well, by noting how pretty much any technology that's come up after the Renaissance comes out of science. Cars, airplanes, telephones, electrically powered anything, computers, modern medicine... that's not enough affirmation that it works? Geeze, tough crowd.

 

[sabrinathecat]

This is an utterly pointless argument. If people look at the evidence themselves they can make their own minds up. They are quite capable of doing this. An intelligent society benefits us all. While ever people are being discouraged from doing this, and instead looking at theories which do not accurately describe the phenonoma, the truth has been lost and we as a society are being deceived. If you cannot see, and do not take the time to look at the evidence for out of body experiences yourselves, then nothing I can say will change it. Because the only thing that can is /discover it for yourself/.

Has it occurred to you that maybe you are the one being deceived?

If all this paranormal research has reached scientific proof, why is it not in the news. You claim "double standard" is in effect, but why?
Yes, huge volumes of research have been done. Do they Prove the existence of what you are claiming, or simply support the possibility.
Take the occam's razor test. Does it really seem likely that the entire field of science and media are out to suppress what has been folklore for centuries? That all those people are calling it bunk? Or could it be that the phenomenon could not be proven or verified under laboratory conditions, and was therefore shoved aside into at best Fringe science?

Unfortunately, my preferred examples and chain of comments without delve into criticizing religion, which is not allowed on this board.
There are a number of things that science and common culture used to say were just rumors and tall tales that have since been verified. (The concept of White Squall is the first that comes to mind). There are more that just aren't. Sasquatch videos rank pretty high in that. While it is scientifically impossible to prove a negative, every video that has turned up has been dissected and debunked through video analysis.
UFOs: well, what does the U stand for? Unidentified. The second you say "I don't know what that is." you're done. You don't know what it was. This is not proof that you saw an alien space ship--it just means you maybe saw something. That's it. You're done. Anything else is speculation and guesswork.