As A Scientist, I Didn’t Believe In Psychic Powers. Then I Experienced Something That Changed My Life.

[Subduction Zone]

And to me you are an example how rational skepticism (a good thing) becomes an attitude and eventually leads to 'irrational resistance to claims of the paranormal'.

Arguing rationally that the article was only meant to give us a quick gist of a case and not be a full report is not going to fix irrational resistance. A person with irrational feelings will then only double-down unable to be really honest with themselves. Do they have the courage to ask themselves 'Why?'.

Don't be silly. I am applying the same standards that I would to any new major scientific discovery. Any new scientific discovery that was based upon one, and only one source, would be laughed at. This would be a very major discovery if true and all that he has is that some undecipherable babble is the word of one, now dead, interpreter. If I said that I had refuted gravity with a single test that no one could replicate I would be laughed at as well.

Your projection is HUGE here. The question is, why are you not advocating for this to be tested properly. It sounds as if there are recordings of her. Find interpreters that speak the languages claimed. Mix in her tapes with various others as I laid out and see what they say.

I helped you by laying out the basics for a proper double blind test and all that you could do was to make false claims about me. That is being highly irrational on your part. You are ready to believe anything that smacks of woo woo. Me, I simply say: Show me some reliable evidence and I will change my mind. Demanding reliable evidence is the opposite of being irrational.

 

[George-ananda]

There seems to be a fundamental double standard being presented here. He criticises the principles he (says he was) taught in his psychologically training were "atheistic" (which isn't exactly true), "logical and rational" (which is perfectly valid and what he claims he is still applying). He also said "belief in the paranormal" was dismissed, which is probably true but largely justified in the concept of it being belief in specific causes of observed phenomena.

That is distinct from scientific study of unexplained or emerging phenomena and considering the possibility of novel explanations. That is always valid in science - after all, it is how pretty much every scientific discovery and understanding once was. The problems come up when working in the areas of those beliefs and when efforts are made to confirm to established beliefs rather than being open to all possibilities, including misunderstanding, confirmation bias or outright fraud. And yes, "conventional" science can be just as guilty of that kind of blinkered approach.

The scientific observations he reports here are presumably perfectly valid and legitimate, but he seems to be making unjustified logical leaps to specific conclusions to account for them. I'd say it is perfectly possible (even likely) that our brains and bodies are capable of more than we currently understand, but that doesn't mean that will turn out to be anything like any of the massive range of different "paranormal beliefs" people have held. Indeed, anything that is demonstrated to be a real, explainable physical phenomena won't be "paranormal" by definition.

So ironically, I'd suggest this shouldn't have been posted in a "Paranormal Discussion Only" but actually the exact opposite.

He presents his data and argues for what he holds to be his leading hypothesis. Sounds like a valid approach to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He presents his data and argues for what he holds to be his leading hypothesis. Sounds like a valid approach to me.

But that is only because you refuse to learn what the scientific method is.

Major discoveries need strong strong evidence. He only presented very weak evidence.

Once again, this could be true. You act as if you know that it is not but you want to believe anyway. I would like to believe, but only if the idea is properly supported.

We know a possible name for her noises. Whether babbling or language we do not know since we do not have any scientific evidence either way right now. Why not? Because the doctor did not even put his idea into the form of a testable hypothesis.

Here is a simple question: What observation would show that the doctor was wrong?

 

[George-ananda]

But that is only because you refuse to learn what the scientific method is.

Major discoveries need strong strong evidence. He only presented very weak evidence.

Once again, this could be true. You act as if you know that it is not but you want to believe anyway. I would like to believe, but only if the idea is properly supported.

We know a possible name for her noises. Whether babbling or language we do not know since we do not have any scientific evidence either way right now. Why not? Because the doctor did not even put his idea into the form of a testable hypothesis.

Here is a simple question: What observation would show that the doctor was wrong?

Let's back up.

We have an article that gives an example of one case that helped flip the scientist's mind about the materialist paradigm. You are trying to move the goalposts to he needs to prove a testable scientific theory. We would all love to see that but science is not there yet.

But in the meantime, a serious scientist can make observations (like xenoglossy) and study brain activity during the event and make some very interesting observations. This is part of good science too and may someday lead to formal proof and acceptance.

The issue between us is that you want to claim the scientist needs to produce a testable scientific theory before this becomes important. For me, I add this scientist's work to my overall consideration which implies neither blind acceptance nor dismissal. My general impression is that this is most likely a smart guy making interesting observations that have no explanation yet in mainstream science. My leading theory is that it suggests telepathy and an area of the physical brain that correlates with that activity. I may be ultimately right or wrong but we are at the stage where new thinking is welcomed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's back up.

We have an article that gives an example of one case that helped flip the scientist's mind about the materialist paradigm. You are trying to move the goalposts to he needs to prove a testable scientific theory. We would all love to see that but science is not there yet.

What makes you think that the man is a scientist? He does not appear to be one. He was not a scientist in how he approached this problem. And you never "prove" a theory. What you do is find evidence for one's idea. He does not even have any scientific evidence for his beliefs.

The problem is that this is just more unsubstantiated woo woo. When I explain to you how they could go past that why are you not supporting that?

But in the meantime, a serious scientist can make observations (like xenoglossy) and study brain activity during the event and make some very interesting observations. This is part of good science too and may someday lead to formal proof and acceptance.

Once again, no. You cannot claim that he is a "serious scientist" when he does not properly follow the scientific method. He had the bare beginnings of a scientific project but he failed to verify the chief claim. And that should have been relatively easy to do. Why didn't he do that?

The issue between us is that you want to claim the scientist needs to produce a testable scientific theory before this becomes important. For me, I add this scientist's work to my overall consideration which implies neither blind acceptance nor dismissal. My general impression is that this is most likely a smart guy making interesting observations that have no explanation yet in mainstream science. My leading theory is that it suggests telepathy and an area of the physical brain that correlates with that activity. I may be ultimately right or wrong but we are at the stage where new thinking is welcomed.

No, not a theory. One needs a testable hypothesis. You want to try to claim that this is scientific when it is not. The fact that it is still in the woo woo stage is because even though it was possible for the man to have properly tested it he did not.

If you want to back off and admit that it is not a properly tested claim, but it is interesting, I would agree with you. And what you do not understand is that this is a claim that is properly testable with what we have right now.

There are claimed to be tapes of her speaking. Great! That could be evidence. Once again, in the world of the sciences it is not evidence until one has a testable hypothesis. But we do have an observation that could form the basis of a hypothesis. The rather obvious one is that she is speaking in a language that she had no way of learning after a specific event happened to her. We have a claimed language from a known area of the world. That is great too. So now it is testable. As I said, since due to the human element behind this one must go out of one's way to remove possible biases. One cannot just hand a tape to someone and say "translate it". You would need more than one expert on this language. You would need multiple tapes of people speaking different languages or even faking it. And the original. No clues can be given as to what tape is what, which is why double blind is best. Record the interpretations or comments given and compare them to each other. If you get a general consensus on her tapes and none for the ones that are not of that language, then you will actually have evidence since if it was nonsense it would have been refuted.

And even that evidence is not "proof" but one could claim to have strong evidence for one's claims. Why would you not want to do this? You have to know that there are countless fakes and frauds in the business. Fakes and fraud make it hard to find any real events, if there even are any. You should be supporting this sort of research.

Why are you content with just leaving it in a state of woo woo?

 

[HonestJoe]

He presents his data and argues for what he holds to be his leading hypothesis. Sounds like a valid approach to me.

Well, this isn't a scientific article but an opinion piece (primarily to promote his book), but there certainly seem to be a major leap of logic as he presents it here (my emphasis);

Somehow, it appeared Janet was able to temporarily disrupt the functioning of her [right parietal lobe], presumably allowing her to shift her consciousness in a way that some would claim allowed other forms of consciousness to speak through her. Despite what I thought I knew about reality, and as crazy as it sounded, I was left with the conclusion that Janet was somehow channeling several people, beings, or entities.

The only data presented was the apparent ability of the woman to speak particular languages and the unusual brain activity detected while she was doing so. There was literally zero evidence presented here to support the involvement of any external "beings or entities" or any kind of "channelling" from the anywhere. That doesn't mean that can't be the case, but treating that as a conclusion on the basis of what is reported here is unjustified. It's also not presented as a formal hypothesis in any way.

It's also worth noting that he says they presented their findings at the "Forever Family Foundation Conference" (which seems to be a classic example of starting with beliefs and then looking for support for them) rather than in any kind of vaguely conventional scientific forum.

 

[sun rise]

I just went over the article again. Nothing about confirming the languages.

After four years of searching, Janet eventually found someone who could help. The late Dr. Bernardo Peixoto, an anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution and a shaman was originally from the Urueu-Wau-Wau tribe in Northern Brazil, where he was known as Ipupiara or Ipu. He recognized something in Janet’s recordings and indicated that she was speaking Yanomami, a South American tribal language. This was the confirmation Janet had been looking for.

Even though she didn’t know what she was saying, she always felt that there was a meaning behind the sounds — that they weren’t just nonsense. When her exact words were translated, they generally took the form of prayers and teachings related to honoring Mother Earth. Over time, Ipu translated several tapes and reported that Janet sometimes spoke other South American tribal dialects, including Fulnio, Tukano, and Kanamari.

 

[sun rise]

Any new scientific discovery that was based upon one, and only one source,

I agree that replication along with more data is needed.

One needs a testable hypothesis.

That can follow observation as you noted below:

But we do have an observation that could form the basis of a hypothesis.

Yes, I agree.

As to his scientific background: Google Scholar

 

[Subduction Zone]

After four years of searching, Janet eventually found someone who could help. The late Dr. Bernardo Peixoto, an anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution and a shaman was originally from the Urueu-Wau-Wau tribe in Northern Brazil, where he was known as Ipupiara or Ipu. He recognized something in Janet’s recordings and indicated that she was speaking Yanomami, a South American tribal language. This was the confirmation Janet had been looking for.

Even though she didn’t know what she was saying, she always felt that there was a meaning behind the sounds — that they weren’t just nonsense. When her exact words were translated, they generally took the form of prayers and teachings related to honoring Mother Earth. Over time, Ipu translated several tapes and reported that Janet sometimes spoke other South American tribal dialects, including Fulnio, Tukano, and Kanamari.

Yes, that was the claim. Where is the confirmation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that replication along with more data is needed.



That can follow observation as you noted below:

Yes, I agree.

As to his scientific background: Google Scholar

Very soft as far as sciences go. My complaint is that he did not even begin to follow the scientific method.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Our group of experts here are a spiritual medium, a spiritual psychologist and a shaman.

I can think of a number of ways they could have gone about verifying their claims which didn't seem to happen.

A shaman, a spiritual medium and a spiritual psychologist walk into a bar.
"What will it be? Perhaps a whiskey?", asks the bartender.

"NO!", shout all three together. "We've had our fill of spirits at work..."

Boom Tish.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

A shaman, a spiritual medium and a spiritual psychologist walk into a bar.
"What will it be? Perhaps a whiskey?", asks the bartender.

"NO!", shout all three together. "We've had our fill of spirits at work..."

Boom Tish.

Where's that *groan* button?

 

[sun rise]

Very soft as far as sciences go. My complaint is that he did not even begin to follow the scientific method.

You don't know that because you expected to read a peer-reviewed paper published in a journal but object to a story in the media.

Now if you had said you want to see the finding published and another researcher replicate the brain scan, that would be a request in the realm of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know that because you expected to read a peer-reviewed paper published in a journal but object to a story in the media.

Now if you had said you want to see the finding published and another researcher replicate the brain scan, that would be a request in the realm of science.

No, not at all. I just expect that he would do the bare minimum of at least confirming the claim of one loan, and a little bit loony looking interpreter.

 

[sayak83]

Note that this is not about whether or not a God or gods exist, but about the capabilities of the human brain. It is to me about testing some claims using the tools of science and demonstrating that what we're capable of goes beyond our ordinary awareness. Thus I've started this thread under "paranormal discussion only"

As A Scientist, I Didn’t Believe In Psychic Powers. Then I Experienced Something That Changed My Life.

...
I began reading magazines like The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic, which used critical thinking to debunk extraordinary claims. From this perspective, humans were simply viewed as very good at deluding and fooling ourselves. Rational and logical thinking dictates that we see belief in ghosts and paranormal abilities as psychological reactions and tricks of the mind.

Meanwhile, my psychology training program was shaping a particular way of viewing the world — that an atheistic, logical, and rational approach was the only one with validity. Belief in the paranormal was associated with immaturity (at best) and psychopathology (at worst). Consciousness was seen as arising from the neural connections of the brain. When we stop breathing and the brain ceases its functions, consciousness is lost, and the body decays. There is no God. There are no ghosts. Nothing is real unless science can prove it. I was no longer open to experiences and possibilities outside the realm of what was considered “normal,” but that was all about to change.
...
Apparently, Janet began spontaneously speaking South American tribal languages after participating in a holotropic breathwork session. What a relief! No bad news after all. Wait, what!? Spontaneously speaking South American tribal languages? I can see why he would be cautious about sharing this news. It sounded ridiculous.
...
Janet knew that I conducted EEG brain imaging and was open to participating in a series of experiments to measure what was happening in her brain when she allowed the languages to come through. One of the first things I noticed was a significant change in the EEG signals coming from sensor locations in the back right quadrant of the brain. Instead of the normal, nice, neat patterns we expect to see, these signals jumped off the screen and almost looked like seizure activity. After double and triple-checking my equipment and finding the same change in activity on several testing occasions, I had to accept that something dramatic was happening in Janet’s brain.
It turns out that the specific location involved was in the right parietal lobe (RPL). This part of the brain is involved in defining and perceiving the self, self-related thoughts, perception of the body, and autobiographical memory. Basically, when this part of the brain is doing its job, it creates an understanding of the “self” as a separate and discrete entity associated with the definition of “me.” When this part of the brain is damaged or goes “off-line,” like it did with Janet, it is associated with feelings of spiritual transcendence and a softening of boundaries between “self” and “other.”

Somehow, it appeared Janet was able to temporarily disrupt the functioning of her RPL, presumably allowing her to shift her consciousness in a way that some would claim allowed other forms of consciousness to speak through her. Despite what I thought I knew about reality, and as crazy as it sounded, I was left with the conclusion that Janet was somehow channeling several people, beings, or entities.
...
However, I have seen enough to make me believe that our minds are capable of much more than most of us dare to imagine. While we may not fully understand how or why, it seems clear to me now that psi abilities are a natural and normal part of human experience, and that scientists should dedicate more time and resources to exploring them.
...
Personally, this exploration has opened my mind to a whole new world of possibility. Having witnessed “the impossible” on numerous occasions — in scientific settings, no less — I have come to accept that consciousness can extend far beyond the physical body. ...

FYI - his scientific papers: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeff-Tarrant

Based on the following discussions I would say
1) We need audio evidence of what the person was saying and verification from linguist that they are a meaningful set of sentences in a tribal language.
Does the associated paper give that? Otherwise this becomes a "speaking in tongues" phenomena which, while interesting, is of a different genre.

 

[George-ananda]

You don't know that because you expected to read a peer-reviewed paper published in a journal but object to a story in the media.

Now if you had said you want to see the finding published and another researcher replicate the brain scan, that would be a request in the realm of science.

Yes, @Subduction Zone is trying to move the goal post from an article describing how a once materialist scientist become a believer in psychic abilities due to an extraordinary case he encountered to an article claiming 'here is the full evidence to conclusively prove one particular case'.

I read that article and assume the scientist likely did his due diligence being a skeptic at the time of encountering the case and this article was an overview of his philosophical development. A dogmatic skeptic will want to claim incompetence without knowing the details.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, @Subduction Zone is trying to move the goal post from an article describing how a once materialist scientist become a believer in psychic abilities due to an extraordinary case he encountered to an article claiming 'here is the full evidence to conclusively prove one particular case'.

I read that article and assume the scientist likely did his due diligence being a skeptic at the time of encountering the case and this article was an overview of his philosophical development. A dogmatic skeptic will want to claim incompetence without knowing the details.

You should insert "possible corruption &" before "incompetence".
This is the skeptic's position.

 

[George-ananda]

You should insert "possible corruption &" before "incompetence".
This is the skeptic's position.

Sure, I can add 'competent but corrupt' to my comment. Maybe we are getting at a difference between the hard skeptic and the believers with this point. To me I see corruption as possible, but I find it not likely at all that a guy like this would throw his professional and personal life away on something like this where little fame or fortune seems likely.

And then I go to the next stage and consider that this guy's claims of the paranormal do not stand alone and xenoglossy has been claimed many times before.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, I can add 'competent but corrupt' to my comment. Maybe we are getting at a difference between the hard skeptic and the believers with this point. To me I see corruption as possible, but I find it not likely at all that a guy like this would throw his professional and personal life away on something like this where little fame or fortune seems likely.

And then I go to the next stage and consider that this guy's claims of the paranormal do not stand alone and xenoglossy has been claimed many times before.

One needn't be a "hard skeptic" (whatever that is)
to be skeptical of astounding claims with such
limited evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

One needn't be a "hard skeptic" (whatever that is)
to be skeptical of astoundingclaims with such
limited evidence.

But at what point should a body of astounding claims with all the accumulated claimed evidence cause a change of paradigm? That actually gets to the point of what the author of the OP article is saying. He saw enough to flip his paradigm and gave just one lead case that he experienced as an example.