"Given your comments, what criteria should we use to distinguish between unfounded claims?

Get her done's list isn't 1/2 bad

"Do we treat all claims equally?

No.

Do we judge them according to our desire for them to be real?

We try not to but sometimes fail, desire is both powerful and at times not self evident.

Do we need standards of evidence at all when it comes to unproven conceivable ideas?

Yes.

"If enough people see vampires, should we accept supernatural lore based on hearsay, anecdotal or personal experience?

No.

Should we sit tight knowing eventually reliable sound evidence will likely surface and not jump to conclusions that are more exciting than not knowing?

I'm big on not knowing. Sometimes I think "I don't know" is the most profound answer. But our desire to be thought knowledgable can compel us to answer.

And sometimes circumstances compel us to choose. Usual cancer treatment with, say, 20% cure rate, or experimental treatment that might have better cure rate? Or I'm old, tired and will die from something soon anyway, so no treatment. One does not have the luxuary of waiting an eternity to decide.

"I'm all for accepting that we do not know everything and that there are plenty of mysteries. Considering that metaphysical explanations have fizzled over time under scientific scrutiny time and again, I think science is the prudent strategy for gaining information that is most accurate.

I agree. But will science in the by and by be able to explain everything? I don't know. To answer yes, would be a leap of faith.

"That doesn't mean in the future there won't be the kind of evidence that supports metaphysical claims. It just doesn't seem necessary to resort to the supernatural because it is the default way non-scientists tend to respond to mystery or the unknown.

But one does need to deal with the unknown unknown in someway.

"I don't find it useful to make up conclusions because then anything goes. To be consistent I would expect you to have the same low standards for evidence for any other whimsical claim."

We can agree that one should not make things up. But sorting things out can be a complex dance between personal physcology and societal norms.

Thanks to everyone for their input.

I wanted to make a comment or two about Reed's response in steve benson's thread about my questions.

The reason I used vampires for an example, Reed, it because at one time there reports of vampires in the lore (just like there were reports of angels, etc.). If you are bored, read about the the history of the vampire mythology. Whether it was inspired by rabies or TB or what, I can't say. Consider this scenario and maybe you will see why I used it as an example comparable to some of the NDE evidence.

Hundreds of years ago, people did not understand much about tuberculosis. TB patients sometimes would look very pale and would cough up blood. If someone hears about someone drinking blood and runs across a corpse with blood coming out of the mouth, would they think it was TB? No. They didn't know the disease process. Instead they came up with an elaborate explanation (vampires) that accounted for all the experiences.

Another disease common in royal lines that was not then understood is Porphyria. It involves a disorder in the manufacture of heme (which makes up hemoglobin in red blood cells). People with this disorder tend to be light sensitive and possibly pale. So, imagine not knowing about the illness and seeing this person out at night, but not in the day.

Anyway, you get my drift. I didn't arbitrarily pick vampires, because it mirrors the kind of evidence and conclusions we see today with "paranormal" claims.

Reed also said in his post:

"Also, please note that many, very many, materialist theories have "fizzled" as well."

To this I would agree but I'd like to point out that never has a failed "materialist" theory been replaced by a verified paranormal one successfully. They were replaced by corrected (and still correcting) further "materialist" hypotheses. The failed scientific hypotheses generally go back to the drawing board or are refined. The conclusion must follow the course of the evidence. Paranormal "theories" are generally replaced by scientific hypothesis when the evidence surfaces, not the other way around.

Reed doesn't like the word supernatural. I don't like the word materialist. I think we can follow the arguments with either.

And to Elder Berry, I agree with your criticism. I did not intend to word that statement as an appeal to authority. Your version, "what criteria should be used to distinguish an unfounded claims?" is better.

So, how do we distinguish a NDE claim from a religious claim, or any other claim that has lots of similar non verifiable evidence? Reading the replies, it looks like individuals tend to have their own standards. I still think it has to do with what they want to believe. What I see is inconsistency in how we pick and choose whimsey.

They've been predicted in the field, replicated in the lab and observed under real-time conditions known to produce them. Their essential and fundamentally physical nature has been ascertained and confirmed using reliable scientific methods of authentication and falsification.

In short, they're known.

One less thing to be "big on not knowing" about.

:)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2011 11:18PM by steve benson.

in my opinion.

So called NDE's are a nuerological event caused by the brain shutting down.

Whatever happened before the Big Bang, there was no former human, polygamous man near Kolob pulling the strings.

And if we find out what happened before the Big Bang, it won't be religion that tells us.

But I'm not quite a Bensonian atheist, yet.

Both above post are done very well. Thanks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2011 10:10PM by get her done.

But not every detail has to be explained or fully understood to conclude that certain things are most probably correct and other things are most probably not correct.

For example, there is plenty of evidence available to conclude that consciousness is a function tied to the human brain. Do we know everything there is to know about consciousness? No. But we can conclude that most probably, virtually a certainty, consciousness is tied to the brain.

There is, as of yet, no evidence of mechanism for a consciousness to exist without a brain. Based on the concept that the brain is most likely tied to consciousness and that there is no known mechanism for consciousness to exist, is it reasonable to conclude that consciousness can exist without a brain? No, it is not reasonable to conclude such things.

So, is it being a 'fool rushing in' to state the following?

"Based on what we know today, it is reasonable to conclude with reasonable certainty that consciousness exists only in the brain and dies with the brain. Those that want to claim that consciousness can exist without the brain (as in OBE's or NDE's) need to show a mechanism that would allow for a consciousness to exist without a brain.

Even though we don't know everything about consciousness, the brain, OBE's and NDE's that the above statement is reasonable.

To tie this back to a point lulu was making, I to have no problem with not knowing, but that does not exclude making reasonable conclusions based on available evidence. Not knowing does not mean we can not make conclusions unless every detail is known.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2011 10:41PM by MJ.

To illustrate the point I am making in the post above, I reference the link below which is a picture representing a puzzle with one piece missing.

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/dancelav/dancelav1011/dancelav101100093/8330186-puzzle-on-red-wine-glasses-background-with-one-piece-missing.jpg

Now, would I be a fool rushing in to say the subject of that puzzle is two wine classes half full of wine with a wine bottle in the background? Is it possible that the one missing piece could contain a bit of information that might change the meaning of the image? Yes, but it would be a very, very remote possibility, so remote that it would be foolish to say "I can not draw some conclusions as to what this puzzle is about because I don't have all the information".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2011 11:02PM by MJ.

It illustrated exactly what I tried to explain in a previous post. Each piece represents a fact that fits. Like you said, the missing pieces could hold a surprise but it would be pretty unlikely.

This is the same analogy I have used before for explaining evolution when people complain about a few details that are missing. The big picture is fairly clear.