From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:43:30 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:   
      
   > On Feb 1, 1:39 am, David Mitchell  wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:43:48 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > agreed, but always defaulting and trying to come up with a phsyically   
   >> > based reality answer doesn't mean that somebaody isn't having an obe   
   >> > (or other psychoc experience)   
   >>   
   >> No; but the mundane explanation is by far the most likely, so it makes   
   >> sense to eliminate it first.   
   >>   
   > i politely disagree, and do not find that the mundane is most likely,   
   > only that after we "think" we understand something, then it becomes   
   > mundane, and likely, prior ro that it was an elusive mystery with some   
   > other easy explanation   
      
   Can you give an example of that; because I'm struggling to think what you   
   mean - almost every phenomenon I've seen described in this newsgroup, from   
   UFO events to OBE's via CIA mind-control has an obvious "mundane"   
   explanation; which is, IMO, infinitely more likely than the one I see   
   assigned to it.   
      
   >> > me too, me too, me three - mountains of anecdotes are worth exploring,   
   >>   
   >> "Exploring?" How?   
   >>   
   > delving, repeating, isolating, categorizing, etc.   
      
   So, some kind of "scientific" method, then?   
      
   >> Again, how?  What methodology would you use? What criteria for proof?   
   >> And if you have answers for those questions, how do you know that your   
   >> methods would work - have they been tested, and, if so, how?  If not, how   
   >> do you know they would work?   
   >>   
   > i value non-scientism at least equally to scientism in terms of   
   > evidence, so no criteria, no proof   
      
   I'm sorry, I can't make any sense out of that sentence.   
      
   > the methodology is the way in which people induce the experience,   
   > consciously or not   
      
   Perhaps I wasn't clear - the methodology in my paragraph referred to the   
   methodology you used to explore the phenomena - in your case "delving,   
   repeating, isolating, categorizing, etc."   
      
   >   
   >> If you _can_ answer all of _those_ questions, I rather suspect you'll end   
   >> up with something very like the scientific method.  ;-)   
   >>   
   > maybe!  nothing wrong with the method, unless it's clamping one's   
   > worldview   
   >   
   > i find that all kinds of subjectivity and personality enter into the   
   > scientific method, because people are people!   
      
   Perhaps they try; but it's specifically designed to try to eliminate those   
   elements, and, on the whole, over time, it succeeds.   
      
   Which again, (and I make no apology for going on about this because it's   
   important) is a claim no other methodology can make.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)