by zulumoose wrote:
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'.
You can call anecdotes weighty, well documented, or numerous all you want, they remain lacking in the features that would qualify them as evidence. Anecdotes can be a great motivation to go searching for evidence, to explain what they APPEAR to illustrate, but until such evidence is found and tested, there is no explanation that qualifies as a theory rather than a hypothesis.
Hang on a minute! Where is he citing anecdotal evidence? I may be thick as a very thick thing but the research he is referring to is perfectly scientific double blinded and peer reviewed: Archie Roy, David Fontana, Bernard Carr, etc, etc are not fools. Nor Gauld, Cornell, or I assume the NDE crowd though I have little knowledge of their work. In the past we have discussed these things pleasantly, at length, and many forum members have read the papers - we have even experimented to test (and falsified) Colvin's poltergeist raps hypothesis. Please, let this not fall to ad hominems. I am VERY familiar with the academic literature on some of this; as is Sunchime, another SPR member and forum member (though she just plays forum games like Winter Bells!) who has just submitted her PHD in apparitonal research. Attack the individual pieces of research presented, not Dr P.
j x
I think Dr Pariseti needs to concentrate on presenting decent papers rather than an overview of the entire issue, but his choice not mine. I simply think it is wrong headed to dismiss him without examining the actual science. Beast Rabban also has a fantastic knowledge of the literature, and could contribute.
They're the core philosophies of science itself, which, last time I checked, seemed to work pretty well.