A book for the cynics and skeptics. The AfterLife Experiments -Gary Schwartz Phd.

[diamond]

u kids need to read the damn book

 

[mtoreilly]

I'm afraid you really haven't convinced me it's worth spending time and money on this book.

 

[beli]

You haven't provided one good reason (that I value) for me to read it. You go ahead and enjoy it though.

 

[diamond]

mtoreilly
it will solidify your beliefs.



beli



you have the right apitude to appreciate the data cotained within the pages.

db9

 

[diamond]

Originally posted by BonosSaint . That being said, Diamond, I'll look at the book if I can find it in the library. [/B]

now that's the attitude i was looking for.

db9

 

[mtoreilly]

It won't solidify my beliefs - they do not need solidifying. Apart from that, something which is on very shakey scientific ground would not solidify anything for me.

 

[diamond]

how can u call it 'shaky' having never read the book?

db9

 

[A_Wanderer]

Question, is the data peer reviewed?

 

[anitram]

Question, is the data peer reviewed?

If it was, it would be up on PubMed, not in a self-gratifying book...

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not to mention the obvious accolades afforded to the discoverer of conclusive proof of the supernatural.

 

[diamond]

So if someone said, "I don't believe that Neptune exists" but then did lots of tests and finally, reluctantly says, "Ok, Neptune does exist" and then wrote a book about it you'd believe it more?

Because, as I read it, that is essentially what you're saying here.

The context of your question is wrong.

If somebody said-
Im not sure that Neptune exists and would like to explore that possiblity using new science , and then went on to painsakingly show how his new science was impartial, unbiased, with checks and balances and after putting his credibility on the line, using the strictest protocol...

...I would applaud the researcher and not ridicule the messenger, no matter what the results.

And I would be willing to review the data before commenting on it's accuracy.

upon completion of the review I would then be able to comment on a validation of a long held belief based on the methodology of the researcher.


db9

 

[trevster2k]

Ummm, pass. I am judging this book by its cover.

BTW diamond, does he mention in the book if the people being read by the mediums are believers or cynics?

 

[diamond]

Ummm, pass. I am judging this book by its cover.

BTW diamond, does he mention in the book if the people being read by the mediums are believers or cynics?

both non believers and believers are read.

pretty chilling stuff too.

db9

 

[Rono]

Legitimate medium? That's an oxymoron in MY book.

Legitimate mediums are mediums that tells me what i want to hear .

 

[beli]

And I would be willing to review the data before commenting on it's accuracy.

I wouldnt. I would review the accuracy before reading the data. I would only read the data if I believed it to be accurate (or I'm stuck on Wedge Island and the only book in the building is by Van Donegan (sp?) )

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

if your mind is too open, your brains might fall out.

 

[mtoreilly]

The context of your question is wrong.

If somebody said-
Im not sure that Neptune exists and would like to explore that possiblity using new science , and then went on to painsakingly show how his new science was impartial, unbiased, with checks and balances and after putting his credibility on the line, using the strictest protocol...

...I would applaud the researcher and not ridicule the messenger, no matter what the results.

And I would be willing to review the data before commenting on it's accuracy.

upon completion of the review I would then be able to comment on a validation of a long held belief based on the methodology of the researcher.


db9

So, that was my comment, albeit stretched out somewhat. My problem is, everything I have ever read about Mediums and Psychics has shown them to be, at best, misguided in their views and at worst, out to make money from conning people. I was really questioning how you could doubt the existence of the planet Neptune, despite there being 160 years of facts to show there is, and moreover, say there were more facts showing that there is an afterlife, when clearly there aren't.

As I said before; existence of Neptune irrefutable, existence of an afterlife, refutable.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not to mention selective use of data, in fact reading up on the book only the last experiment is actually conducted in a double blind manner.

 

[mtoreilly]

Not to mention selective use of data, in fact reading up on the book only the last experiment is actually conducted in a double blind manner.

Perhaps I'll google this later, if I have time to spare. For now I think I've spent enough time on this argument.

 

[diamond]

So, that was my comment, albeit stretched out somewhat. My problem is, everything I have ever read about Mediums and Psychics has shown them to be, at best, misguided in their views and at worst, out to make money from conning people.

As I said before; existence of Neptune irrefutable, existence of an afterlife, refutable.

that's why you need to read the book to see the safegards that were put in the experiments, and then judge the integerty of the results.


i think most put precedence over the existence of the afterlife than having knowledge of an existence of a far away planet.

db9

 

[diamond]

I wouldnt. I would review the accuracy before reading the data. (sp?) )

now that seems like a gullible statement.
don't you think one would have to examine the data to determine if it was accurate or not ?

how could you accept any results without knowing how the results came into being?

db9

 

[diamond]

Not to mention selective use of data, in fact reading up on the book only the last experiment is actually conducted in a double blind manner.

selective use of data? please explain.



and results were astonishing, as as astonising as the first experiments showing the renowned mediums were on the up and up the whole time, before the stricter controls were implemented.

db9

 

[Rono]

why is the afterlife so importiant ? Can you only do good for other people because you will get a reward ?

 

[diamond]

Rono,
Do you believe in an afterlife?

db9

 

[Rono]

Yes, i am a cristian but i refuse to accept afterlife as reward . Only dictators rewards followers.

 

[diamond]

haha

db9

 

[mtoreilly]

i think most put precedence over the existence of the afterlife than having knowledge of an existence of a far away planet.

That's not what I was questioning!

I've already said that!

 

[mtoreilly]

how could you accept any results without knowing how the results came into being?

Do you question gravity? How a light works? How your car moves? Etc, etc, etc...

 

[diamond]

the point is:

when new science is used to confirm the existence of an already held belief it should not be arbitrarily dismissed.

db9

 

[mtoreilly]

No it shouldn't - if it is science.

I've only ever questioned how legitimate this book is. If I had hours of my life to waste on reading this book, and I could get hold of a free copy, I would. But I don't, I have exams in things that you can prove which I need to work for.

And my point is this: you are not convincing me to spend valuable time reading this book. There is absolutely nothing you have said that makes this book seem worthwhile reading.