Odd comments directed at science!

[Dr B]

I have been reading a few OBE / NDE papers and books recently as i am writing a paper. I have encountered the same odd argument against psychological and neuroscientific accounts of the OBE / NDE and wondered what you all thought here.

Now, these comments are not necessarily coming from total woo's - but are coming from people which seem to have an odd idea about what science is and how it works. The comments go something like...

"...well, the psychological accounts and neuroscientific theories are all very well but a major limitation in them is that not one of these single accounts can explain the wide plethora of experiences reported by OBEers. No accounts can explain every aspect of the experience"

Bloody hell, what a very odd thing to say. Firstly, when a scientist proposes a theory for some aspects of the experience - it is relevant to those aspects and cannot really be criticised for not explaining that which it never set out to explain in the first bloody place. :wnw: Of course the idea might be limited, but it might be a totally excellent account for what it is trying to explain. Secondly, why would anyone argue that OBEs and NDEs have a single explanation? Why is having more than one explanation (for different aspects) against the scientific method? It is not. Obviously we do not want an 'anything goes' situation (Occam and all that) - but experiences, their content and likelihood to occur will be dependent on many factors. Principles have been established by psychology and neuroscience and these seem very powerful indeed...

Or is it just me? :D

[Dr B]

In fact - I think one principle and mechanism does underlie these experiences - that principle is neural-disinhibition. I would go further to state that depending on where this takes place, how it propogates, how intense it is, duration etc, would all combine to provide a good account for the experiential content of the OBE.

Severe disinhibition in the visual cortex can explain tunnel experiences (Blackmore etc), a similar process in the temporal / hippocampal / anterior cingulate regions - can explain the odd views, seeing ones own body / space from another perspective etc. Again if this spreads to the amygdala one gets deeply meaningful and almost spiritual content.

Of course we need to know more, but this is hardly an argument against a principle we have above for what we do know....OK rant over....

[Mojo]

Now, these comments are not necessarily coming from total woo's - but are coming from people which seem to have an odd idea about what science is and how it works. The comments go something like...

"...well, the psychological accounts and neuroscientific theories are all very well but a major limitation in them is that not one of these single accounts can explain the wide plethora of experiences reported by OBEers. No accounts can explain every aspect of the experience"

It looks a bit like trying to shift the goalposts. A particular aspect of the phenomenon is offered as proof that OBEs are real, and when an explanation is found, attention is shifted to a different aspect. A bit like the examples of irreducible complexity that IDers come up with: however many of them are shown not to be irreducibly complex, they can always come up with another...

[vbloke]

http://www.badhomeopath.com//images/goalposts.gif

/bad attempt at a goalposts shifting smiley

[Dr B]

Actually its a very good attempt!!!!!

What amazed me was that the people making these comments were actually not out-out woo's but well respected scientists (well parapsychologists ;D). I just find it a very odd criticism indeed to make against the psychological account. You could make that argument against any account - though it would mean nothing in any case.

[Admin]

It does seem rather odd coming from scientists. It's almost the "science can't explain everything" quip we get from believers.

Perhaps the problem is that the theory does explain things well but it also contradicts the belief in a separate mind/spirit from the physical body.

Something's gotta give and it isn't usually the belief!!

[median]

"...well, the psychological accounts and neuroscientific theories are all very well but a major limitation in them is that not one of these single accounts can explain the wide plethora of experiences reported by OBEers. No accounts can explain every aspect of the experience"


These same people probably wouldn't argue if you stated that a headache can be ascribed to multiple causes. One wonders how much science they really know or practice


What amazed me was that the people making these comments were actually not out-out woo's but well respected scientists (well parapsychologists ). I just find it a very odd criticism indeed to make against the psychological account

Maybe it's a pre-requisite for parapsychologists to lean towards a paranormal conclusion nowadays. ???

[Dr B]

I am dealing with these sorts of mistakes in a new document on errors in reasoning...will keep you all posted.. O0

[wollery]

http://www.badhomeopath.com//images/goalposts.gif

/bad attempt at a goalposts shifting smiley
Why would we want a smiley to represent a bad attempt at goalpost shifting? :confused:


Oh, I see what you mean! Sorry. :eek:

[Dr B]

It seems parapsychologists argue that as no brain account can explain all facets of the OBE / NDE (from start to finish) then brain-based accounts are false.

No - they are not false - they are just limited. It does not mean that brain-based accounts are not true for the the bits they do explain. Gaps in knowledge do not necessarily mean we need to throw out what we do know (unless future evidence suggests it). Indeed, although they are limited, they are no where near as useless as parapsychological interpretations - so its not really evidence for anything else either.

In addition, i am not so sure it is true that there is any aspect of the OBE / NDE which does not have a proposed neuro-cognitive mechanism (a plausible one) to account for it. So as well as being something of a fallacy in parts, it is actually untrue as well. Now, I am not saying there is not much to learn, as clearly there is and there are many questions remaining. What I am saying is that some who have claimed that psychological and brain-based accounts might not be right because they are limited - are on shaky grounds with apparently no foundations.....

Its just so frustrating as while parapsychologists go around in circles trying to reinvent the wheel - the crucial and important questions go unasked and unanswered. O0 O0

[median]

These people must be easy to distinguish though, with their big flowing beards.
They've probably never even heard of Occams Razor :D

[Admin]

This type of reasoning seems to be prevalent with paranormal believers. It’s probably because to leave room for a PSI explanation there has to be doubt.

Where there’s doubt there’s room for the PSI hypothesis. So the reasoning is not to entirely dismiss the science but to claim that it does not explain everything; hence the doubt.

This is more sophisticated than, for example, those who believe in orbs being the first signs of spirit manifestation (99% of orbs are dust/moisture/insects but they can’t all be explained that way!!) but the reasoning behind it is the same.


Gaps in knowledge do not necessarily mean we need to throw out what we do know (unless future evidence suggests it). Indeed, although they are limited, they are no where near as useless as parapsychological interpretations - so its not really evidence for anything else either.

Classic Argument to Ignorance (or PSI assumption). When there’s doubt (whether genuine or assumed via fallacious reasoning) it means the PSI hypothesis hasn’t been ruled out; therefore, the reasoning goes, it is a valid hypothesis. Of course, unless there’s a reason to rule it in (ignorance of something is not a valid reason), it is not a valid hypothesis.

The problem when dealing with amateurs is that they don’t seem to understand the fallacy. Professionally trained scientists, even those who are interested in parapsychology, should understand the fallacy yet they rely on it as much as amateur ghost-hunters.

[Dr B]

Great points John O0

I was just so taken back that this was the best, that the best researchers could come up with against psychological and brain-based approaches. It is quite poor. I am thinking of writing a comment to a journal (just a short one) pointing this out....more work.... ;D