UFOs and deja vu

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Crikey said:

 

Yes, any scientists who don't acknowledge the possible existence of a "superscience" beyond our 5 senses must be a bit closed-minded, but we truthseekers are always striving to see beyond our own small view of the big picture..

https://youtu.be/TBFkjrA1AYY

 

In fact with the quality of controlled experiments out there now in the psi field we can start to say the most resistant scientists are actually science denialists and really just dogmatists stumping a physical created consciousness worldview. Fortunately in the big picture I see the post-materialist side growing slowly but surely.

[+Liquid Gardens]

27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

98% of the paranormal happens as spontaneous and non-reproducible events from our physical-only perspective. Anecdotal data after the event can never be proved. The best tool to understanding all this is a rational analysis of the quantity, quality and consistency of the body of data with all things considered. I am by now 100% certain that things occur that dramatically do not fit into our straightforward materialist model of reality.

I guess I consider things like psychics to be paranormal, so your 98% seems high.  People claim to have paranormal powers and, if real, those should be reproducible, it's not like we are always at the mercy of when a ghost wants to appear or whatever.  Anecdotal data, as I'm sure you know and essentially admit here, is some of the poorest quality of evidence all on its own (and technically anecdotes can be proven after the event, if there is some other evidence).  The best tool to understanding reality is science, but since a lot of this 'evidence' is so poor that it's pointless to try and apply science to it, the standards must be lowered to the far more wide open and less stringent 'rational analysis'.  When science has tried to do real experiments based on actual evidence provided for the paranormal, "98%" of the time the experiments show no effect. 

And as we may have discussed before, I didn't think you could even imagine some kind of theoretical observation that would make you believe less in the paranormal, given the kind of evidence we are working with.  If an observation doesn't support the existence of a paranormal whatever, well that shouldn't make us doubt the existence of it, since it's such an unknown phenomenon it's (conveniently) supposedly 'spontaneous and non-reproducible'.  So you've set it up so that 'paranormal evidence' can only increase the confidence of your belief of leave it the same; it may just be the nature of the beast, but this innate partiality strains how 'rational' any analysis can ultimately be.

Despite this you are 100% certain that paranormal things have occurred.  That's fine, just providing qualification on what your estimation is based on.

47 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

99% of scientists do not study the paranormal evidence and are not knowledgeable in that field. I think if they put more time into it, there would be more believers.

I don't.  99% of scientists would be intensely interested in the paranormal if the 'paranormal evidence' was actually of any quality; again, Nobel prize level stuff.  You don't have to study much of the available 'paranormal evidence' to discover that it's almost all anecdote, that's all the knowledge the need at this point, unless you know of something specific they are not knowledgeable about?

50 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I have learned of other multi-dimensional/realm models (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical, etc.) that do indeed make sense of this so-called paranormal phenomena. 

Models are super-easy when you don't have to tether them to reality.  Everything, normal and paranormal, "makes sense" under a magical leprechauns model, super-powered aliens model, gods model, etc...

[+Liquid Gardens]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In fact with the quality of controlled experiments out there now in the psi field we can start to say the most resistant scientists are actually science denialists and really just dogmatists stumping a physical created consciousness worldview.

What 'controlled experiments' are you referring to?  I think last year I asked you for the very best evidence of anything paranormal and you sent me to a video of a statistician talking about her meta-analysis of paranormal studies, which is obviously not really very good quality considering what could be available and is available for other things that exist.  Have there been some better quality psi findings since then?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What 'controlled experiments' are you referring to?  I think last year I asked you for the very best evidence of anything paranormal and you sent me to a video of a statistician talking about her meta-analysis of paranormal studies, which is obviously not really very good quality considering what could be available and is available for other things that exist.  Have there been some better quality psi findings since then?

Asking for a miracle are we? 

[papageorge1]

6 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What 'controlled experiments' are you referring to?  I think last year I asked you for the very best evidence of anything paranormal and you sent me to a video of a statistician talking about her meta-analysis of paranormal studies, which is obviously not really very good quality considering what could be available and is available for other things that exist.  Have there been some better quality psi findings since then?

I think the quality evidence already exists and we are down to obfuscators that don't like it. We can disagree forever but in the end it comes down to our judgment of who is playing fairest with the facts and who has what agenda to support. Science can be obfuscated with emotional bias.

[+Liquid Gardens]

51 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I think the quality evidence already exists and we are down to obfuscators that don't like it. 

Then I don't know why we are talking so much about the idea that quality evidence exists instead of talking about the quality evidence itself, that is far more interesting if it exists.  Why are you so evasive when asked for this quality evidence and instead prefer to just mention that it exists?

52 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

We can disagree forever but in the end it comes down to our judgment of who is playing fairest with the facts and who has what agenda to support. Science can be obfuscated with emotional bias.

It's going to take a lot of emotional bias to obfuscate evolution, rocket science, cardiology, etc, because there are large parts of the support and evidence for those ideas which does not depend on much interpretation or judgment.  Flip to paranormal topics and it's entirely the opposite, there is very little that doesn't depend on judgment, on one trusting the validity and interpretations of people we don't know concerning events we were not present at and for which there is almost no other non-testimonial evidence.  You admit as such when you note how spontaneous and non-reproducible it is when explaining why science can't study it, although you don't seem to account for how this hurts your position too; yes, the nature of this evidence makes it difficult for science to study, but it subsequently weakens the basis for your confidence, which is supposedly this same 'evidence'.  Why do you know how to properly and rationally evaluate this kind of evidence and science does not?

I definitely disagree that it comes down to agendas and who's playing fairest 'in the end'; in the end it comes down to one thing:  the evidence and argument.  There aren't that many real sciences where it comes down to what you are implying here, that it comes down not to an evaluation of the evidence itself, but to an evaluation of those evaluating that evidence.  I think the only reason it gets mentioned so often with paranormal topics is because the evidence is very weak, so we have to resort to tangential arguments about biases and agendas which are unfortunately also evidence-free.

[papageorge1]

50 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Then I don't know why we are talking so much about the idea that quality evidence exists instead of talking about the quality evidence itself, that is far more interesting if it exists.  Why are you so evasive when asked for this quality evidence and instead prefer to just mention that it exists?

 

For anecdotal evidence a huge number of cases are required to be persuasive and that is not possible to present in a reply post nor is it stored in any one place I know. However in places like this forum I do discuss individual cases when they are the topic.

55 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

It's going to take a lot of emotional bias to obfuscate evolution, rocket science, cardiology, etc, because there are large parts of the support and evidence for those ideas which does not depend on much interpretation or judgment.  Flip to paranormal topics and it's entirely the opposite, there is very little that doesn't depend on judgment, on one trusting the validity and interpretations of people we don't know concerning events we were not present at and for which there is almost no other non-testimonial evidence.  You admit as such when you note how spontaneous and non-reproducible it is when explaining why science can't study it, although you don't seem to account for how this hurts your position too; yes, the nature of this evidence makes it difficult for science to study, but it subsequently weakens the basis for your confidence, which is supposedly this same 'evidence'.  Why do you know how to properly and rationally evaluate this kind of evidence and science does not?

I definitely disagree that it comes down to agendas and who's playing fairest 'in the end'; in the end it comes down to one thing:  the evidence and argument.  There aren't that many real sciences where it comes down to what you are implying here, that it comes down not to an evaluation of the evidence itself, but to an evaluation of those evaluating that evidence.  I think the only reason it gets mentioned so often with paranormal topics is because the evidence is very weak, so we have to resort to tangential arguments about biases and agendas which are unfortunately also evidence-free.

Well my point would be that on some things traditional science can not yet be done. In those areas a rational assessment of what is most reasonable to believe is the best we got. If you are only interested in traditional science then just be neutral on the subjects of the paranormal and consciousness at this point in time. 

I believe science is great but limited in what it can know and that there are other methods of learning about reality and other types of wisdom traditions too.

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

For anecdotal evidence a huge number of cases are required to be persuasive and that is not possible to present in a reply post nor is it stored in any one place I know.

Fair enough, although a mere one person who can consistently score significantly above chance on an ESP test or someone who verifiably can appear to communicate with the dead by repeatedly demonstrating things they could not know otherwise, properly controlled to the level of any other science, would be worth more than a million anecdotes.

19 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In those areas a rational assessment of what is most reasonable to believe is the best we got.

Agreed, I would just disagree that this is a sound basis for 100% certainty.  100% certainty based on even science is philosophically debatable, and science is the best we've got available.

22 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

If you are only interested in traditional science then just be neutral on the subjects of the paranormal and consciousness at this point in time. 

I'm interested in all science but there's enough content in the 'traditional' (which to me just means 'very well supported') sciences, and actual productive research ongoing, to keep my interest.  Depending on which kind of paranormal you are talking about and definitely consciousness, no, I don't think the rational position is 'neutral' unless you think everyone should be agnostic about everything and nothing is false.  If you are talking about the idea that consciousness somehow survives the death of our physical brain or is exterior to it, no, I'd argue that we already have evidence against that idea (exactly how we determine something to be false in most other circumstances) due to what we know already about the physical brain and its obvious effect on what we know of as consciousness. 

I have explanations already why there are so many anecdotes about the paranormal despite the paranormal likely not existing, and evidence to support those explanations.  Thus, I shouldn't be neutral, I know of no paranormal anything that is verified and has no reasonable non-paranormal explanation.  I don't think that if one reads enough anecdotes with nothing else to support them that the truth of its existence emerges somehow; as we all learned in elementary school, a million multiplied by zero is still zero.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Fair enough, although a mere one person who can consistently score significantly above chance on an ESP test or someone who verifiably can appear to communicate with the dead by repeatedly demonstrating things they could not know otherwise, properly controlled to the level of any other science, would be worth more than a million anecdotes.

 

Well I believe there are ESP tests and gifted mediums that can blow away the odds against chance to the point of essentially proving something real is occurring that has no normal explanation. Now if you want a near omniscient person in their psychic abilities then you are probably not going to find that. Psychic abilities are to believers like me considered a weak but real human ability. It's kind of like you are not going to find a baseball batter that gets a hit every time but you can find good hitters.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

I'm interested in all science but there's enough content in the 'traditional' (which to me just means 'very well supported') sciences, and actual productive research ongoing, to keep my interest.  Depending on which kind of paranormal you are talking about and definitely consciousness, no, I don't think the rational position is 'neutral' unless you think everyone should be agnostic about everything and nothing is false.  If you are talking about the idea that consciousness somehow survives the death of our physical brain or is exterior to it, no, I'd argue that we already have evidence against that idea (exactly how we determine something to be false in most other circumstances) due to what we know already about the physical brain and its obvious effect on what we know of as consciousness. 

 Well, our assessments differ on consciousness and life after death. To go on a tangent here I subscribe to a model (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical, etc.) that holds there are multiple dimensions to us and reality (physical, etheric, astral, mental, causal, etc.). To me, if you hold to a materialist/physicalist view then the very concept of an afterlife would make no sense.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I have explanations already why there are so many anecdotes about the paranormal despite the paranormal likely not existing, and evidence to support those explanations.  Thus, I shouldn't be neutral, I know of no paranormal anything that is verified and has no reasonable non-paranormal explanation.  I don't think that if one reads enough anecdotes with nothing else to support them that the truth of its existence emerges somehow; as we all learned in elementary school, a million multiplied by zero is still zero.

Again our assessments differ. I see a lot of consistent anecdotes that are explainable as part and parcel of the multi-dimensional/realms worldview I mentioned above. And I believe the stronger cases defy any reasonable inside the box explanation.

[+Liquid Gardens]

49 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well I believe there are ESP tests and gifted mediums that can blow away the odds against chance to the point of essentially proving something real is occurring that has no normal explanation.

Again:  Nobel prize.  Why are scientists and people so blind to this?  To me this is a glaring hole, one that is not addressed by the idea that they haven't really looked at the evidence or mass bias, there are many scientists who have studied it. People blow away the odds against chance near daily, I've lost count of how many lotteries/lottos are currently running in Michigan and the winners of them, it's such a regular occurrence.  And people blowing away the odds conflicts with the idea of a 'weak but real' ability, 'blowing away' is the opposite of 'weak'.

With full acknowledgment of course that one is free to believe and say pretty much anything they wish, there's a difference between your position and some others who believe in the paranormal.  Some believe in the paranormal more as a belief, or because they believe they've had an experience, but you seem to take a more interesting approach: the paranormal definitely exists and is shown to be so by a rational analysis of the evidence.  It's not just a 'belief' or experience where you just had to be there, a proper review of the data shows it to be true presumably by anyone who's capable of rational analysis.  It's definitely a stronger claim and as I said interesting, but pretty plainly incorrect.  I'd need to see lots more evidence of the mass ignorance or bias of scientists and their inability to rationally analyze the data, if we're not going to review at all the specific quality evidence itself that supposedly exists but that requires so much work to uncover.

52 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Now if you want a near omniscient person in their psychic abilities then you are probably not going to find that. Psychic abilities are to believers like me considered a weak but real human ability.

No, I don't think we're anywhere near talking about a near omniscient person, that's not the demand.  To continue the batter analogy, I'd settle with a psychic who is as proficient with their powers as a decent little leaguer is at batting.  So far, we can't even tell if the psychics are taking a swing or if there's a ball to hit.

59 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

To go on a tangent here I subscribe to a model (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical, etc.) that holds there are multiple dimensions to us and reality (physical, etheric, astral, mental, causal, etc.). To me, if you hold to a materialist/physicalist view then the very concept of an afterlife would make no sense.

Depends on what you mean, even though I don't believe in any of them I'm able to comprehend the concept of an afterlife.  I hold to a materialist/physicalist view in the same way I hold to a non-gremlin view, as soon as I see some evidence for non-materialism or gremlins, I'd be happy and excited actually to incorporate them into my worldview.  Both ideas have the same problems though currently, I assume you don't think though that I should remain neutral on gremlins?

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Depends on what you mean, even though I don't believe in any of them I'm able to comprehend the concept of an afterlife.

Really ? Perhaps you might enlarge on that.

[papageorge1]

30 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Again:  Nobel prize.  Why are scientists and people so blind to this?  To me this is a glaring hole, one that is not addressed by the idea that they haven't really looked at the evidence or mass bias, there are many scientists who have studied it. People blow away the odds against chance near daily, I've lost count of how many lotteries/lottos are currently running in Michigan and the winners of them, it's such a regular occurrence.  And people blowing away the odds conflicts with the idea of a 'weak but real' ability, 'blowing away' is the opposite of 'weak'.

 

I’m on my phone but will respond one paragraph at a time.

First of all I think the claim that all these scientists have looked for the psychic/paranormal and failed is a skeptic’s pipe dream claim. All I ever see is the same old skeptics with the same old attacks.

Also I doesn’t appear you understand that a large sample size is required to do odds against chance meta-analysis. A single lottery win is likely chance. 
 

Nobel Prizes would require an explanation of the processes involved. Nobody is there yet but they are saying no known factor can explain the consistent above chance results.

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

With full acknowledgment of course that one is free to believe and say pretty much anything they wish, there's a difference between your position and some others who believe in the paranormal.  Some believe in the paranormal more as a belief, or because they believe they've had an experience, but you seem to take a more interesting approach: the paranormal definitely exists and is shown to be so by a rational analysis of the evidence.  It's not just a 'belief' or experience where you just had to be there, a proper review of the data shows it to be true presumably by anyone who's capable of rational analysis.  It's definitely a stronger claim and as I said interesting, but pretty plainly incorrect.  I'd need to see lots more evidence of the mass ignorance or bias of scientists and their inability to rationally analyze the data, if we're not going to review at all the specific quality evidence itself that supposedly exists but that requires so much work to uncover.

Thanks for calling my claim interesting. Again I’m saying I don’t see many scientists that are seriously knowledgeable in the paranormal/psychic. It’s not part of any curriculum they’ve ever studied. Just like in the general population there is probably a healthy number of believers and nonbelievers.

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

No, I don't think we're anywhere near talking about a near omniscient person, that's not the demand.  To continue the batter analogy, I'd settle withis as proficient with their powers as a decent little leaguer is at batting.  So far, we can't even tell if the psychics are taking a swing or if there's a ball to hit

Again I challenge your claim. Gifted mediums have astounded in triple-blind (not even seeing the person read) controlled experiments by people like Dr. Gary Schwartz. Regular people can produce only slightly above chance in precognition testing.

[papageorge1]

17 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

Depends on what you mean, even though I don't believe in any of them I'm able to comprehend the concept of an afterlife.  I hold to a materialist/physicalist view in the same way I hold to a non-gremlin view, as soon as I see some evidence for non-materialism or gremlins, I'd be happy and excited actually to incorporate them into my worldview.  Both ideas have the same problems though currently, I assume you don't think though that I should remain neutral on gremlins?

Somehow I feel the evidence against the materialist/physicalist position is stronger than the gremlin evidence. I'll quote respected parapsychologist Dr, Dean Radin:

 

“After a century of increasingly sophisticated investigations and more than a thousand controlled studies with combined odds against chance of 10 to the 104th power to 1, there is now strong evidence that psi phenomena exist. While this is an impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of these experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We’ve considered other common explanations like selective reporting and variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be no little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. It seems increasingly likely that as physics continues to redefine our understanding of the fabric of reality, a theoretical outlook for a rational explanation for psi will eventually be established 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

First of all I think the claim that all these scientists have looked for the psychic/paranormal and failed is a skeptic’s pipe dream claim.

I don't think anyone is expecting 'all' scientists to look for the psychic/paranormal, there are obviously different disciplines and specialties within the realm of 'scientists'.  Some obviously have though, and I have no reason to think that there are people that are as knowledgeable if not more than the expert parapsychologists about these topics and don't think they actually exist.  

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Also I doesn’t appear you understand that a large sample size is required to do odds against chance meta-analysis. A single lottery win is likely chance. 

I'm aware of that, but your comment concerned ESP tests and gifted mediums who could blow away the odds against chance, and meta-analysis does not apply to either of those tiny sample sizes.  I'd bet that the odds against just a person winning the Powerball are greater than any occurrence of any 'gifted medium's powers just being due to chance.

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Nobel Prizes would require an explanation of the processes involved. Nobody is there yet but they are saying no known factor can explain the consistent above chance results.

I think the simple discovery of a paranormal anything may qualify, since being able to really prove it exists has been so elusive.  Maybe you are too close to it or are just used to believing in it but let's be clear:  the discovery that ghosts exists, that our consciousness lives on, that people can move things with their minds, that people can see the future, etc, would be pretty much the greatest discovery in history.  The reason then that scientists are not clamoring to this field is not adequately explained by disinterest or bias (which is usually a lame accusation anyway, tons if not most people want there to be something paranormal).  And we need an explanation why most scientists, if it is so certain, do not take the position that the paranormal certainly exists but we don't have the tools to study it which is why there is so little research or progress in the field.

17 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

All I ever see is the same old skeptics with the same old attacks.

Ha, dude, you just mentioned Radin and Schwartz in your posts, speaking of same old, same old; we just need a mention of Sheldrake and we'll have the trifecta.  So back at you, why do we always see these same characters?  In what other discipline has the truth of something been proven by someone and after decades they still fail to attract many more experts who agree with them?

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Again I challenge your claim. Gifted mediums have astounded in triple-blind (not even seeing the person read) controlled experiments by people like Dr. Gary Schwartz.

Great, then I challenge your claim, simply provide your evidence that they have astounded and how you know; that kind of topic is always far more interesting than our meta one where we talk around the evidence and vaguely about the overall 'case'.  Where will I find these gifted mediums, where are they currently demonstrating their skills?  I'm not impressed that they supposedly participated in an experiment where they did something with a low probability, see above concerning the lottery.

Whoops, just realized this thread has something to do with UFOs and deja vu so we should wrap up on this thread.  I obviously think the idea that the paranormal has been proven and disbelief is only a result of ignorance or bias is ludicrous, and is shown to be so by the response when the obvious is requested: specific evidence and examples.  Then the certainty starts flaking out, we have to account that this effect is very weak yet real, the evidence is largely anecdote-based, and we somehow need to break out of materialistic thinking in order to realize the truth of it.  That's an entirely different situation than anything I say I'm certain about; if you ask me why I'm certain about the germ theory of disease I wouldn't give any of your responses, I can just point you to the evidence.

Lastly, just curious, at a high level exactly where am I not being rational in my explanations and arguments with you?  Where have I not made the case of why I'm not rationally justified in not believing in the paranormal?  I shouldn't need anything more than testimonials concerning something, 'scientifically', the best we can say about is that there might be something there depending on what statistical analysis is done?  Again, I don't think reading all the same anecdotes you have is required, I'll bet I could read all those and still be able argue against it. As far as the statistics stuff, who knows, maybe. There are definitely criticisms of it, especially Radin, if you're not aware of that.  Again, curious why the lack of professional interest if the case is so solid, makes no sense and requires a lot of evidence of ignorance and bias to explain adequately.

[+Liquid Gardens]

18 hours ago, Habitat said:

Really ? Perhaps you might enlarge on that.

Feel free to ask if you have a specific question, but careful not to project the word 'fully' or 'totally' before 'comprehension' in my quote.  It's a spectrum, I can comprehend the concept of an afterlife far more than I can comprehend that 2+2=5, if that helps.  

[papageorge1]

6 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Again, curious why the lack of professional interest if the case is so solid, makes no sense and requires a lot of evidence of ignorance and bias to explain adequately.

As you said we might need to wrap up our tangents here. There so much to discuss with no end in sight.

I’ll just respond here to your final question above. If we continue we should stick to one thing at a time. 

Well I think you overestimate the serious interest in the scientific community last century in a subject traditionally scorned. There is no educational tradition or curriculum. I do see post-materialist thinking on the ascent and that is often how change happens. I predict in each upcoming decade a growth in interest. And that’s where it is at. Pooh-poohing and dismissal has indeed been the approach of academic science most of last century. Historically there has been a sense of ‘science versus religion’ and we are finally starting to see some serious ‘science and religion’.

[ChrLzs]

On 2/12/2020 at 4:02 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't.  99% of scientists would be intensely interested in the paranormal if the 'paranormal evidence' was actually of any quality

THIS.  A thousand times, shouted loudly at papa..

Consistently, papageorge goes strangely and TOTALLY quiet when asked to present the very best evidenced case.  Just point to the one that is convincing, papa.

And yes, you should be terrified of doing that, because the quality of even the absolute best paranormal case is worse than awful..

Given that we can easily explain these unevidenced fairy tales with our intense cultural desire to tell stories and our want for 'magic' and also to be 'special', it is LUDICROUS to claim that lots of anecdotes means anything.

[ChrLzs]

BTW, just to prevent wasting further time with papa's META-discussions, may I point out that META-statistical studies are worse than useless, and EXTREMELY misleading, UNLESS the researchers explain the methodology, their choice of studies, and also include a full discussion of the methodology used in each of the included studies.

Naturally, there are badly done studies out there.  People who claim paranormal powers are often quite skilled in their abilities to deceive others and themselves, so proper scientific controls are absolutely essential.

Naturally, if you get to choose the studies (which is what these meta-'analysts' do) then you can pretty much get any result you want.

Will papageorge address that really obvious logic, do you think?  No, just more anecdotes and references to the usual suspects - charlatans or self-deluded tinfoilers like Sheldrake.

Here, I've begun a review on one of Sheldrake's books:

I apologise for the huge delays in getting back to it, but if you read through what I've done so far, you can see where it is headed.....  One of dese days I'll get back to it...

[Habitat]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Feel free to ask if you have a specific question, but careful not to project the word 'fully' or 'totally' before 'comprehension' in my quote.  It's a spectrum, I can comprehend the concept of an afterlife far more than I can comprehend that 2+2=5, if that helps.  

Doesn't help at all, 2+2 not being equal to 5 is simply a convention, you give 0 (zero) indication of how your afterlife "concept" is comprehended.

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Doesn't help at all, 2+2 not being equal to 5 is simply a convention...

Convention?  No, the concepts of basic arithmetic are axioms.

Edited February 13, 2020 by ChrLzs

[+Liquid Gardens]

15 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Well I think you overestimate the serious interest in the scientific community last century in a subject traditionally scorned. There is no educational tradition or curriculum.

That's why this conversation is a challenge and partly why your position is interesting and a little extreme, because this is as deep we seem to be able to get because the next obvious questions aren't addressed, because all roads concerning our meta-statements on this subject lead to the evidence and case for the paranormal.  The obvious next question here is, why is there no educational tradition or curriculum?  The answer is because there isn't much to study, or else of course you'd be pointing it out.  Name your curriculum, what classes do you want taught, can you provide a brief outline of the subjects and most importantly what the content actually is?  From a scientific point of view you can pretty much cover all the real science that concerns the paranormal in one term, it's more like a special interest history class more than a science class.

I think we've mentioned this in the past but I entirely disagree with the idea that something like the paranormal needs a ton of special expertise to determine the truth of.  We don't need advanced mathematical training to ascertain most of the arguments; it's not like we need particle colliders for this research, if ESP or psychics were real, all we'd theoretically need was a deck of cards.

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I predict in each upcoming decade a growth in interest.

The study of the paranormal has been going on for I believe multiple centuries now, I haven't seen any uptick in the growth of scientific interest so I'm not sure what your prediction is based on, although obviously the advent of the internet may have spread interest among laypeople.

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Pooh-poohing and dismissal has indeed been the approach of academic science most of last century.

Agreed, but you leave out the relevant question, whether that dismissal is justified or not.  That can't be addressed without naming and showing that there's something that shouldn't be dismissed. There is no onus on scientists to look at every single claim made by astrologers in order to be justified in dismissing astrology.  Paranormal scientists don't get to cheat and certainly haven't earned any special relaxed rules, they have to do the work that all other scholars and scientists need to in order to show their conclusions are valid.  The current explanations why they haven't had much traction in the scientific community that are along the lines of psychological projections are unsupported evidence-wise and are counter to basic psychology and motivations, and are just excuses without also specifying what evidence is being overlooked by them.

[+Liquid Gardens]

12 hours ago, Habitat said:

Doesn't help at all, 2+2 not being equal to 5 is simply a convention, you give 0 (zero) indication of how your afterlife "concept" is comprehended.

2+2=5 is a non-convention that I cannot comprehend because of how necessary logic is in order for me to make any sense of anything, I can't tell you anything at all really about it if it were actually true.  One afterlife concept is that after we die our spirits travel to 'the beyond' (you may have heard of this theory, you know, since you've spent years here tolerating nothing but agnosticism concerning it? ), our consciousness and memory carries on and we hang out in heaven and occasionally apparently send beyond-crude messages to still living people for who knows what purpose.  What part of that is not comprehensible and unimaginable?

[+Liquid Gardens]

15 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

it is LUDICROUS to claim that lots of anecdotes means anything.

Yes, or if anecdotes do then let's see the work supporting this new method.  We have the scientific method and other related methods (which perhaps don't meet all the strict requirements of the scientific method; the Tunguska event can be scientifically studied although it's not repeatable), these methods have proven themselves.  What is taught in non-religious schools as being certainly true for example that is based on nothing but anecdotes? 

I need to see how this anecdote-based method works and where it has been shown to be reliable since what I see is the opposite. For example, if we set aside what science has said on this subject like we are concerning the paranormal here, how does this anecdote-based method not show that vaccines cause autism?