From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk
Piccolo Pete wrote:
> "David Mitchell" wrote in message
> news:g47l42$fjv$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Piccolo Pete wrote:
>>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message
>>> news:g20daa$nd$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>> And so on. Surely you can see that investigating the phenomenon is much
>> more useful than simply accepting it at face value.
>
> Of course. That is what this newsgroup is supposed to be about. The
> problem is, in the past this newsgroup was attacked by some insane skeptics
> who were incredibly rude and abusive to the point it destroyed the core of
> the NG. As I continue to read your posts I've come to the conclusion you do
> not fall into that category. There are a lot of misconceptions on the
> subject of OOBE. The very name is, in my opinion, incorrect and misleading.
> It is not "out of body" - it is a shift in consciousness.
Actually, from memory of the charter, the newsgroup was started to
"discuss all aspects of" the experience. Not to investigate it in any
serious way, and that's certainly not what happened. From my point of
view, what happened was that any even semi-serious attempt to add any
rigour at all to the discussions was met with hostility.
>>> 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?
>
> When this NG was in its hayday, the intent was to honestly relate
> experiences and suggest methods. Readers compared notes with the writers.
> This is a form of study.
Without some means of sifting the wheat from the chaff, it was never
going to be very productive, and it wasn't.
Or can you tell me of any significant breakthrough in understanding of
the experience which has been made during all the years this group has
existed?
>
>> "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"
>
> Did I miss something?
Those are dictionary definitions of "Study".
> Certainly, that is why I reject the words of many who seek fame and fortune.
> It is fairly easy to see when they are attempting to lead one astray. It is
> when they start saying that they are a "Master" and that their Way is the
> only way. This NG was not an NG full of blind faith followers. We chased
> off a number of wannabe "Masters" and false prophets.
Yes; but the only antidote to blind faith is questioning, which is not
tolerated.
>
>>> 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.
>
> And who would be the judge as to whether I was lying about the records?
You would be. This isn't about proving it to me, or anyone else. It's
for you.
If you /did/ want to prove it to anyone else, the process would have to
be a lot more rigorous.
>
>> 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.
>
> Is 100% statistically significant? That is the way it was with the woman I
> was talking about.
We can't eliminate mundane explanations in that situation.
> Also, if I have a precognitive dream and move to avoid
> the situation, wouldn't that score a miss? So I could be right 100% of the
> time but my score would be zero because I avoided the trauma...
Depends. If the event predicted still happened, it might still be a
hit (although it might not - suppose you predicted that you would be
mugged on a particular street, and wisely didn't take it. I'd be
willing to accept someone else being mugged on the exact same street at
precisely the time you would have been there as a hit; but not just
someone being mugged nearby).
OTOH, a plane you would have been on crashing, would be a definite hit.
>> You are claiming to have had a precognitive dream. You simply do not have
>> enough evidence to reasonably make that claim.
>
> I related a true story to a newsgroup of interested readers. Do you think I
> am expecting some kind of praise or monetary benefit? No, it is simply food
> for thought on topic in this NG.
Your motive isn't really the point (although being part of a clique is
often a good motivator - see Billy Meier for example).
What matters is whether what you are saying has any factual basis. We
grant you the courtesy of assuming you are telling the truth; but even
then we do not know whether your experience has any objective reality;
which makes it worthless for any serious attempt at study.
>> If being believed by non-believers matters to you, then evidence is what
>> you need. If it doesn't, then you don't.
>
> It doesn't. What does matter, though, is when somebody like PZ comes in
> here and starts ripping the place apart with ignorant demands for proof. It
> destroys the focus and intent of the group.
PZ's demands were hardly ignorant, and, since one of the aspects of the
experience is whether it's objectively real the charter allows it too.
>> But, in general, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>
> If I were to make a claim like this in a skeptic newsgroup I should be
> expected to provide the proper evidence but I don't go near those newsgroups
> because they make me want to puke.
That says more about you than them.
>>> 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.
>
> That was a lot of coincidences with no misses...
It has been shown that people tend to forget their failures, and magnify
their remembered successes. Until you can eliminate that factor, you
can't reliably say how successful it actually was.
>>> 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
