Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EvilMudge · 04-21-2003, 05:34 PM

If you're interested in the scientific method I suggest you have a read of 'The Two Dogma's of Empiricism' by W.V. Quine. It'll probably leave you with more questions than answers, but it's a good start.

As to how it relates to NDEs, since any and all plausible theories are equally valid in Quine's epistemology, you are free to choose whichever suits your beleif system best.

MortalWombat · 04-22-2003, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
I was talking from my viewpoint. For me, NDEs are the proof of life after death; although there are others, none is so convincing as NDEs. My whole belief in life after death rests nearly solely on the evidence of NDEs.

So what do you think about the fact that near death experiences can be induced by dissociative anaesthetics such as ketamine?

dbporter · 04-23-2003, 06:37 AM

There appears to be some confusion between 'ordinary' skepticism and critical thinking/common sense/wisdom/experience. I consider myself to be a critical thinker in addition to hopefully having gathered some common sense from life. It would be dangerous, if not foolish, for anyone to be trusting or gullible. I think we all have some degree of both. But to call questioning skepticism seems to me to distort skepticism into something else by a mere reconstruction of its meaning. For example look at some of these comments:

Quote:

"No, unfortunately I've never had an NDE myself. I content myself with taking by faith those accounts of other people who have had NDEs. If I'd had an NDE myself, I'd have no doubt about life after death, and my fear of death would have vanished. Currently all I have now is faith, mixed with a lot of doubt I'm trying to eradicate."

Or, the one by Quine:

Quote:

"you are free to choose whichever suits your belief system best."

Come on folks, there is absolutely no evidence of critical thinking here, much less common sense. Skepticism?

dbporter · 04-23-2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

But if science is as arbitrary as the religion it replaced, arbitrariness wins!

Sorry! I meant to say, "tried to replace." The point is a person has the right to question anything, and to resist evil under whatever name: dogma/dogmatism, arbitrariness, closed-mindedness, whatever.

Jesse · 04-23-2003, 07:45 AM

dbporter, not everyone who posts here is a skeptic, nor do they claim to be. For example, emotional, who you quoted above, said on this thread that he has a psychological need to believe in an afterlife and that he is therefore not willing to think too much about brain-based explanations for NDEs because, as he said, "I risk losing my belief in life after death (which is all-important for me and I can't live peacefully without it)".

Corona688 · 04-23-2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dbporter
There appears to be some confusion between 'ordinary' skepticism and critical thinking/common sense/wisdom/experience. I consider myself to be a critical thinker in addition to hopefully having gathered some common sense from life. It would be dangerous, if not foolish, for anyone to be trusting or gullible. I think we all have some degree of both. But to call questioning skepticism seems to me to distort skepticism into something else by a mere reconstruction of its meaning. For example look at some of these comments: Or, the one by Quine: Come on folks, there is absolutely no evidence of critical thinking here, much less common sense. Skepticism?

Ad hominem. Because we're human beings, science is wrong?

dbporter · 04-26-2003, 05:44 AM

If anybody is still in this discussion after my outburst, I apologize.

Corona688 · 04-26-2003, 09:11 AM

Pleased to see your apology.

Takes guts to say that sort of thing in a forum like this.

Hm... I still don't get how you think the scientific method is presuppositional. It is a method for forming hypotheses, and testing these hypotheses to see how they fit up against reality. What's so presuppositional about that? For that matter, what's so strange about that? It's something that people do every day, albeit not as rigorously as scientific research. It assumes that inductive logic works; whoop de doo.

For there is only ONE real arbiter of what's correct and what's not, and that is reality itself. It has a nasty habit of doing whatever it pleases, no matter what you or I believe...

04-26-2003, 05:44 AM	#37
dbporter Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: USA Posts: 35	apology If anybody is still in this discussion after my outburst, I apologize.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2003, 05:34 PM	#31
EvilMudge Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: UK Posts: 5	If you're interested in the scientific method I suggest you have a read of 'The Two Dogma's of Empiricism' by W.V. Quine. It'll probably leave you with more questions than answers, but it's a good start. As to how it relates to NDEs, since any and all plausible theories are equally valid in Quine's epistemology, you are free to choose whichever suits your beleif system best.

04-23-2003, 07:45 AM	#35
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	dbporter, not everyone who posts here is a skeptic, nor do they claim to be. For example, emotional, who you quoted above, said on this thread that he has a psychological need to believe in an afterlife and that he is therefore not willing to think too much about brain-based explanations for NDEs because, as he said, "I risk losing my belief in life after death (which is all-important for me and I can't live peacefully without it)".

04-26-2003, 09:11 AM	#38
Corona688 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Hiding from Julian ;) Posts: 5,368	Pleased to see your apology. Takes guts to say that sort of thing in a forum like this. Hm... I still don't get how you think the scientific method is presuppositional. It is a method for forming hypotheses, and testing these hypotheses to see how they fit up against reality. What's so presuppositional about that? For that matter, what's so strange about that? It's something that people do every day, albeit not as rigorously as scientific research. It assumes that inductive logic works; whoop de doo. For there is only ONE real arbiter of what's correct and what's not, and that is reality itself. It has a nasty habit of doing whatever it pleases, no matter what you or I believe...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.