This seems typical of your posts. I am always left astounded by the amount of data you put into your posts. I am intimidated by the amount of time and effort I would have to put into going through all of this and reviewing its importance, accuracy, and relevance to your stance on the subject. I am tempted to simply ignore it and give into that intimidation but I will instead contribute at least 1.5 hrs to this single post. I would however like to give you the opportunity to highlight on two to four of the most important articles that do the most to prove your point so that I do not miss them.
I would also like to direct you toward the documentary "An Honest Liar". I feel that this provides strong evidence that we should remain strongly skeptical of paranormal studies and the researchers ability to discern truth from deception or simply avoid misinterpretation of the evidence.
1. Contrary to popular belief, uncertainty of the cause is not evidence that the cause is supernatural. The cause is still only uncertain.
2. Determining cause and effect through statistics: For example. Finding out if prayer heals by determining the stats on how many who pray are healed vs those who don't pray. The results need to be consistent and there needs to be an obvious difference in variation between the two results or there is not adequate evidence to support the idea that praying contributes to healing.
3. Witnesses are generally not substantial enough evidence on its own by scientific standards or even in law because they are often incorrect in memory or subject to bias. (Out of body exeriences are not measrueable by any other standards) ( They also fail to explain how memory can be stored in the body if the spirit is experiencing the event outside the body)
Those are just the things I want to keep rooted in my own mind while evaluating these studies.
Last edited:
