From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   Piccolo Pete wrote:   
   > "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   > news:g20daa$nd$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...   
   >>> If   
   >>> you do not make the attempt to verify, your opinion is only a second-   
   >>> hand agreement, and that is not worth much.   
   >> It seems to me, that the person making the claims should provide the   
   >> evidence.   
   >   
   > It may very well "seem" that way to you and you would be correct if the goal   
   > of the claimant was fame and fortune (as in the case of CC).  On the other   
   > hand some of CC's meditative techniques do work and some of the results are   
   > similar.   
      
   What do you mean by "work"?   
   Do they "work" in ways that other meditative techniques do not?   
   If so, what is unique about them, and why it it unique?   
      
   And so on.  Surely you can see that investigating the phenomenon is much   
   more useful than simply accepting it at face value.   
      
   As to why the person making the claims should provide the proof, if you   
   think about it, that's the only way it could work.   
      
   > Since this newsgroup is dedicated to the study of the OOB phenomena.  Any   
   > claims made here do not require evidence.  Even when evidence is given, it   
   > is usually and unnecessarily stomped all over by a skeptic.   
      
   Do you know what "Study" means?   
      
   "research or a detailed examination and analysis of a subject,   
   phenomenon, etc."   
   "application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading,   
   investigation, or reflection"   
      
   And so on.  Skepical analysis is part of that process, or you're wasting   
   your time.   
      
      
   > How do I provide hard evidence for something like that?   
      
   You record your dreams, classify the events in them, and try to identify   
   all the times that the events happen, versus all the times they don't.   
      
   You could also have a third party with a similar lifestyle to yours try   
   to match the dream events against their lives.   
      
   See if the difference in the number of matches is statistically significant.   
      
   Conincidences happen, you have to filter them out somehow.  Trying the   
   above might be a first step (although it's far from usable as is).   
      
    > Why is it necessary?   
      
   You are claiming to have had a precognitive dream.  You simply do not   
   have enough evidence to reasonably make that claim.   
      
   If being believed by non-believers matters to you, then evidence is what   
   you need.  If it doesn't, then you don't.   
      
   But, in general, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.   
      
    > Does my inability to provide evidence prove that it didn't   
   > happen or, at the very most, it was merely a coincidence?   
      
   No; but it doesn't eliminate coincidence as an explanation.   
      
   > The scientific method requires that something can be duplicated to be real.   
   > Snowflakes are unique and cannot be duplicated - but they do exist as a   
   > whole.   
      
   That's a silly argument.  Unique crystals of ice can be duplicated at   
   will; and that's all snowflakes are.   
      
   > Or how about when I was becoming very close to a female poster in another   
   > group.  I described to her an experience of travelling (astrally) to her   
   > place and seeing a boy in a boy scout uniform standing in a fenced backyard.   
   > I also noted there was dog poop in the yard.  She freaked and told me she   
   > had a son in the boy scouts and that they had a dog.  I was unaware of this   
   > prior to my relating the experience to her.   
      
   Without seeing a transcript of all your conversations with her, it's   
   impossible to eliminate that possibility that she mentioned her son, the   
   scout, or the dog.  By far the most likely possibility.   
      
      
      
   And so on.   
      
   > Can I duplicate this stuff?  I doubt it.  I was highly emotionally involved   
   > with her and in a constant state of altered consciousness at the time due to   
   > a divorce.  I don't care to go through that kind of trauma again just to   
   > satisfy some stone-brained skeptics.  They wouldn't believe it anyway and   
   > would say it was all coincidences or lucky guesses.  That's the problem with   
   > this kind of research, because it is of a spiritual nature and skeptics   
   > cannot respect spirituality.   
      
   We believe that there are certain states of mind which convey   
   experiences with emotional and other components which society describes   
   as "spiritual", because there is strong evidence for them.   
      
   But we do not accept that these states have any stronger meaning;   
   because there's no evidence for it.   
      
   > Do I need to prove these claims to anyone?  No, I don't, but they are proof   
   > to me and I will continue to believe in the reality of other dimensions.   
      
   You are free to be as irrational as you wish; my point concerns society   
   in general.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = 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)