Why do otherwise clever people often believe in nonsense?

[Dr B]

I know Shermer has written a book on why people believe weird things and he gives his version for why this is. Basically, he argues its because they are good at making elegant arguments and expressing them in an accessible fashion - so they appear plausible.

However, is this a complete explanation? Seems to me it might be more relevant for why they can convince others of their nonsense ideas rather than why they hold them in the first place.....hhhmmmmm :-\

What do people here think? Any further suggestions for why well educated and otherwise know to be clever people can come over all woo on certain subjects (Sheldrake being one example / Fenwick being another) and abandon reason?

[vbloke]

I think there's also a need to believe.

Even the most intelligent of us want to believe in things that make us "special" or stand out, or even that we could be the one who discovers the afterlife or telepathy.

[tkingdoll]

A friend said something interesting the other day. He stated something that he thought was a fact (a bit of trivia about skate wings), but when it was Googled, he found out it was in fact an urban myth.

And he said something along the lines of "I'm happy to admit I was wrong, but I'll also admit that it doesn't feel good."

I agreed with that, and added that the buzz of being proved right is a very attractive and addictive thing, a physical sensation, for me, akin to receiving a compliment or flirting.

And being proved right is another way of saying someone agrees with you. If the person agreeing with you is an authority, then the buzz is even bigger!

So, perhaps that is a factor. People come up with woo theories, and get so addicted to the buzz of being agreed with by their followers (who WANT to believe), that they just can't let it go.

Is that just a long-winded way of saying they've invested their ego in it?

[vbloke]

argumentum ad ego?

[Sgt Badass]

I've just been part of a massive thread on a business networking forum about the ability to see into the future. It is stunning what people say to back up their ideas, especially when their income depends on it.

[kath23]

People believe bollox for emotional reasons.

For instance I know a lady who had ME as a teen, now she hangs out with a group of 'druids' some of whom have faux-life-threatening illnesses whilst never having been diagnosed with anything physical despite years of tests. The fact some of their diets are practically calorie-free probably has something to do with it :)

Anyway she believes her guru is dying of an illness never before known to science- though it looks like she has anorexia to anyone looking at her.

Her argument was that science didn't acknowledge illnesses such as ME for years- I didn't even get into that one :D What with it being a physical illness treated by therapy and anti-depressants.

Anyway do you see what I mean that she can't look at these people critically without having to acknowledge some of her own past emotional 'stuff'- so it's easier for these women to exist in a malinger-friendly subculture?
Love
Kath

P.S. I don't mean to be nasty to anyone with mental health conditions or with genuine ME by saying this :-\ Hope no-one's upset by my post.

[Allo Allo]

I don’t think woo has anything to do with intelligence – I think it’s a different inner view of what’s “out there”.

Being your current (well behaved) woo resistance representative I have put this together for a bit of fun…don’t take it personally.

Woos believe in love not hate. Someone who is arrogantly judgemental will be considered ignorant and spiritually unenlightened. Those who exhibit humility, empathy and understanding are more likely to be heard. Woos have ears that only pick up certain frequencies of sound – gentle, soft, musical.

Woos believe that science does NOT know it all. Ordinary woos are bemused by the arrogance of the scientific world where they might suspect “reason” is a status behaviour not meaning wisdom.

Woos work from observation of the human condition rather than what is proved in a laboratory. Many woo activities are carried on because it has been observed to assist their loved ones by themselves, older members of the community and their ancestors. EBM will not change a woos’ belief system. Outcome Trials might.

Despite randomised control trials “proving” their healing methods do not work – a woo understands the impossibility of demonstrating the opposite in a way that satisfies the scientific community. Any scientist doing so would be committing academic suicide. Peer Review to a woo simply means a whole lot of scientists who are worried about political correctness and their own status trying to pick each other to pieces.

Woos believe in tenderness. The clinical coldness of the medical system seems alien and counter productive because all woos know the healing process accelerates with the gentle touch. Violent ways of making people “well” seem aggressive. Woos know that there must be a better way and they look for it. Woos use therapeutic healing techniques because for them, they seem better.

Woos would accept it if some of their theories were investigated with a scientific motive of “proving” something. However, they would think it strange to attempt exploding a concept or theory “by hurling it against the wall and examining the pieces”. They would presume that some bits of wall might get mixed up in the debris. Woos think in terms of possibilities. And that would be one possibility.

Remember woos have eternity and many lifetimes to observe how things will pan out. They are equipped with an inner conviction that is there in spite of science. Science is slowly revealing a lot of what they have believed all along and many scientific terms fit their concepts perfectly – but in a “modern” way. Woos will simply be “meek” for they know they will inherit the earth. It’s no good torturing a woo – they are immune!


Compiled with some assistance from http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html and other sites.

M ^-^

[tkingdoll]

But science doesn't think it knows it all either! Otherwise there would be no science!

Science starts with saying "I don't know" - that's how society has managed to progress. Reject that, and you condemn us to the dark ages. If science thinks it has all the answers, then there would be no new science. That's one of the worst ways in which woos misrepresent science.

I disagree about the intelligence of woos. From the forums I have seen, there is a clear correlation between irrational belief and low intelligence, evidenced in their poor writing skills, incoherent arguments and inability to understand evidence or rationalise their own beliefs.

You really should understand that the word 'woo' is something skeptics came up with to disparage people who allow irrational beliefs to dictate their actions. You can try and put a positive spin on it all you like but the word 'woo' is intended to be, and used as, an insult.

[Sgt Badass]

I've tried many ways of talking to woos and neither works. On the Randi forums I've ranted and shouted and sworn. Nothing, they just back up and call skeptics unthinking harsh etc. So, in the recent discussion I had on the business network forum I went into cotton wool mode.

They still thought I was an un-enlightened ignoramus. I'll give you some examples:

The thread was started by someone who gives tarot readings. It started off with the title "Can I really see into the future.. I think I can".

All I said was "Can you provide evidence". Now this went on for a bit citing Sheldrake and then asking me for evidence that 'psi' was not possible. I said :

"You were the one that made the claim, the burden is on you to provide the evidence"

She replied :

"Did I? Did I really?"

Another person said "Have you ever thought that you might be wrong?" (to me).

I double checked the thread, I'd not actually said that I didn't believe in Psi. Not at any point. I'd simply said "show me the evidence". So I asked "Wrong about what?" I'm still waiting...

You see, here's the difficulty. You think you can talk to woos, but you really can't. They're so entrenched in their own little world that they can't see what's going on around them. Now, whether this is anything to do with intelligence I don't know, I think it's more to do with lack of common sense. It's also a lot to do with money.

Another example. I posted in another thread a question about psychometric testing which I'm currently looking into. A guy trying to sell a course based on it was quite put out that I announced that Carl Jung's techniques were nonsense. Their business is essentially based on it. And so is their income stream.

The upshot is, I think woo+money from woo = switch off brain to all other ideas, regardless of intelligence.

Makes me wanna puke.

[boffin]

I have thought in the past about why intelligent people are religious, which appears to me a special case of "Why do otherwise clever often people believe in nonsense?"
The conclusions that I came to were summarized as
1) Religious Indoctrination When Young
2) An Inability to Reason
3) Ignorance
4) Fear of Permanent Loss Arising From Death

I feel that religious indoctrination is the most important and most damaging. It can result in even the most intelligent individuals having ridiculous and primitive beliefs, which cannot be altered or discarded, even when those individuals have developed the ability to reason and evaluate evidence. I have met scientists who flounder when asked to justify their belief in a god – their attempts to rationalize what, to their scientific mind, is irrational and absurd, are not convincing to other scientific minds that have either not been exposed to religious indoctrination or have managed to break free of its constraining effects.

I wounder how many intelligent (or thick) people with generally irrational beliefs (not just religious) developed these beliefs following religious indoctrination when very young - what proportion of homeopaths, crystal wavers, quacks, aura readers, etc. were exposed to religious indoctrination?

Once the mind has been encouraged to accept religious nonsense at a very young age, is it open to accepting other irrational nonsense?

[wollery]

I disagree about the intelligence of woos. From the forums I have seen, there is a clear correlation between irrational belief and low intelligence, evidenced in their poor writing skills, incoherent arguments and inability to understand evidence or rationalise their own beliefs.

I disagree to a certain extent. I think that a lot of these people aren't necessarily stupid, but very poorly educated. Writing is a skill which requires training and practice, so are logical thought and construction of arguments.

My sister is a perfect example of this, she left school at 16 because she hated it. She found her vocation as a hair stylist, and she's very good, she part owned and ran a Toni & Guy salon successfully for several years, but hated the politics. Last year she sold her interest in it and left, and later this year she's going out to Florida because hair stylists can earn far more money there. In order to get her work visa she has to have an official qualification, so she's doing an NVQ. The practical side is no problem, but she has to word process her coursework, which really is a problem, because she hasn't a clue how to construct a grammatically correct sentence. She never made much of an effort in school, and she hasn't written like that in almost 25 years.

She reads the Daily Mirror, Heat and other such rags, so her source of information is rather limited in scope and research. She holds some woo beliefs, although she is willing to admit she's wrong, so she's not hardcore woo. But I can easily see how she could become hardcore woo without me and the rest of our family to tell her when she's talking bollocks. She knows us (obviously) and trusts us, and she knows what our qualifications are and that we know what we're talking about, so when we correct her she accepts it. But she might not accept it from a stranger, particularly if that person was being dismissive or aggressive, she's extremely stubborn.

In summary, my sister is highly intelligent, but poorly educated, and if you encountered her on an internet forum she'd come across pretty much as the woos you described.

[Eileen]

I disagree with that. What about all the doctors who train in homeopathy? They have had a good education and a scientific education in med school and can string a sentence together.

[Sgt Badass]

I disagree with that. What about all the doctors who train in homeopathy? They have had a good education and a scientific education in med school and can string a sentence together.


Money. For example, not only has homeopathy been shown to be bunk, the very basis for it is bunk. Doctors that turned up to their lectures and passed their exams surely know this? But the markup on water is pretty good, so why not sell it?

Obviously that's being harsh on doctors, I'm willing to concede that a lot of doctors do it fully knowing it's placebo and when people buy something, regardless of the fact it's bunk, they'll feel better.

Doctors who do this should still be flailed alive however.

[Jocky]

Thanks to our

current (well behaved) woo resistance representative
for the definition of the "woo" position :)

An off-topic observation: I can sort of empathise with your position here, Michelle. In another forum far, far away, Median and I are the "current skeptic resistance representatives" (althought I've been getting a bit less well-behaved of late :-[). I do it because I feel it makes some small contribution towards disseminating the ideas of critical thinking, but there are times when it is a lonely and annoying business. Although I disagree with some of what you post, I welcome your presence and your input O0

Back on topic, I think you touch on the most important difference between the classic "woo" and "skeptic" positions:


Woos work from observation of the human condition rather than what is proved in a laboratory.

In my experience, hard-core woos are totally convinced of the validity of their own individual subjective perception, and consider this to be the primary source of evidence for drawing any conclusion. They are unable to deal with dissonance between what they think they have observed, and what they are told are the conclusions of properly conducted research. Skeptics on the other hand regard subjective perception (including their own) as potentially misleading, and require evidential corroboration of it rather than accepting it at face value.

This fundamental difference leads directly to a differing approaches to the classic woo issues: non-evidence based medical treatments, supernatural entities, paranormal powers (such as psychics, ESP, dowsing etc) and dramatic conspiracy theories. Woos are credulous of their own experiences, and by extension to non-corroborated experiences claimed by others: skeptics are doubtful of the credibility of any subjective experience unless backed up by reproducible evidence.


As for the apparent intellectual differences between skeptics and woos - I am inclined to agree with wollery. People who think in this way are not necessarily stupid - they simply have not acknowledged the potential fallibility of personal experience. It is possible to change peoples' approach to this question if you can catch them early enough, before their position becomes entrenched and climbing down starts to look unnacceptably humiliating. The trouble is that this argument is mostly conducted between people who are in entrenched positions - and for some of them, there seems to be no hope :(

[tkingdoll]

I disagree that lack of education can appear as low intelligence. Basic reasoning ability has nothing to do education - I should know, I left school at 12 years old, yet who would know?

However, there is no doubt that education levels are usually a reflection of intelligence in the first place. There are obviously exceptions, but largely, smarter people go to university and less intelligent people do not.

I urge you to check out woo boards and see what I mean. There is a very low level of intelligence demonstrated pretty consistently in the writing there.

Now, I'm not talking about the PhD believers who invent and promote the theories, I'm talking about the followers. And I'm pretty sure it's harder to convince a bunch of smart people of your wacky anti-science than a bunch of less intelligent people.

[Eileen]

I have had a look around the homeopathy boards that I can find and a lot of the posts seem to be intelligent and well written. Quite a lot seem to be written by doctors.

The only posts I have come across that appear otherwise are posts by someone called Kayveeh.

I did go to university myself and have a BSc (Hons) Biomedical Sciences, a BSc (Hons) Nutrition and an MSc Nutrition.

[Allo Allo]

General Reply to interesting views from everyone!

I thought my post covered a lot of what the PROBLEMS are with woo. I think woo goes in grades -
1 Full woo 2. Part woo, 3 wooskep 4 skepwoo 5 skep.
Furthermore it goes in more complex grades taking edication into account . E=Education..
1/E Full woo 2/E. Part woo, 3/E wooskep 4/E skepwoo 5/E skep
I think I’m at grade 4/E. I think I deserve a STAR for that post ~ I thought it out carefully and I hope it was well written – and entertaining. :trumpet:

I have to mention the rubbish talked on JRF by uneducated sceptics! Not to mention James Randi himself!!! A 5/E !

Dare I say, MOST folk, have never been trained in critical thinking. A critical thinker to them means someone with a sour attitude who spoils parties and disrupts meetings. Sceptcism as practised by academics seems a mental gymnastic routine inherited from our ancestors and practised by a few “egg heads” in universities. It’s obscure like fencing, or bell ringing. Sceptics on the internet or media exposes a lot of people shouting other people down. Strife, arguing and outright condemnation is not a woo activity.

Critical thinking is NOT taught in schools - but SHOULD be as long as it doesn't repress imagination....but sees imagination as an important faculty too.

To Median and Jocky – keep up the good work. O0
Remember – to woo a woo you must
Talk softly.
Relinquish disdain.
Relinquish Arrogance
Abandon “Proving “everything scientifically to a woo – suggest they “research” it
Give them “links” – eg memes and other protoscience
Practise patience and humility
Become alluring - how do you do that!?The divide between woo and sceptic is wide. The journey to woo is scenic and fringed with trees, streams, flowers and softly swaying grasses not to mention a butterfly or two. The journey to sceptic is harsh, searing, frightening, and dangerous. Where is the imagination so appealing to woo? Expose the wonder of modern scientific knowledge, take woos on a scenic tour. Be excited, enthusiastic and delighted by those things which are scientifically known – they are intricately amazing. Introduce them to Nanotechnology to show science actually does “think ahead” – good link at http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/nano/

M

[Mojo]

I have had a look around the homeopathy boards that I can find and a lot of the posts seem to be intelligent and well written. Quite a lot seem to be written by doctors.

The only posts I have come across that appear otherwise are posts by someone called Kayveeh.

Good old Kumar!

[boffin]

I teach chemistry, biology and mathematics at 'A' level and the majority of my students are asian and want to study medicine or dentistry at university. Sadly, the majority also believe in gods, that statues drink milk and that prayer works. It's frightening. They are brought up in very religious families and also, due to the lowering standards of G.C.S.E and 'A' level science, more of these students are able to achieve high grades and yet not be able to reason. It does not surprise me that there are now medical doctors who believe in homeopathy - I've taught the would-be doctors and heard their strange beliefs for myself.
They have little understanding of moles and chemical principles but these principles are not thoroughly tested anymore at G.C.S.E. or 'A' level.

I do try my best though and although they eventually understand the scientific principles, some still can't shift those irrational beliefs. This brings me nicely back to my earlier post today about religious indoctrination.

[seren]

Hmmmm...just a few thoughts as they cross my mind


...."soft" ailments...the modern malaise....perhaps it's a kind of decadence that leads us to weird "treatments".....

....scientists make money out of their work too...pharmaceutical companies are at times unethical...can't say woo-ness is the only thing that's money-driven, we live in a market economy.

....self-empowerment and self-importance...you ain't just an NHS number to a woo practitioner. For an hour or so of the Reiki healer's life, you are their centre of attention...can't imagine the harried NHS consultant could provide that...and all for a fraction of the price of therapy....taking the place of relationships and family?

...it bucks the system. General low level paranoia about science and what it does....look at the state of the environment...look at the bomb....GM...it's all so unnatural....we've "lost touch" with nature....lets do something warm and fuzzy and friendly.

....wish-fulfilment. Science can't bring old granny back, but Shirley Ghostman can.

....the desparate ache of a life lived with no purpose....no heaven, no enlightenment...this is it...wouldn't it be better if we could find some evidence...ANY evidence...that's there's more to life than this? Personal evidence, something meaningful to me.

I wonder whether it just comes with our level of self-awareness. If you evolve into a state as self-aware as us, maybe you have to have this reflex of belief; a barrier in case you just slip into total nihilism and self-destruction.

*shrug*

I dunno.

[Jocky]

They have little understanding of moles and chemical principles but these principles are not thoroughly tested anymore at G.C.S.E. or 'A' level.


Are you serious - you don't have to know what a mole is to pass A level Chemistry these days :o

Say it isn't so :'( No wonder so meany people believe in Homeopathy ...

[tkingdoll]

I have had a look around the homeopathy boards that I can find and a lot of the posts seem to be intelligent and well written. Quite a lot seem to be written by doctors.

The only posts I have come across that appear otherwise are posts by someone called Kayveeh.

I did go to university myself and have a BSc (Hons) Biomedical Sciences, a BSc (Hons) Nutrition and an MSc Nutrition.



I was thinking more like the Paranormal Awareness boards, psychics, ghost hunters etc. Fan believers rather than people who are involved in (albeit alt) medicine. Sorry, I should have made that distinction, but as the OP was talking about Sheldrake I just automatically thought about that kind of woo rather than the more mainstream pseudosciences like homeopathy.

[vbloke]

Wow.

I had moles drummed into me during my GCSE and A Level Chemistry - you had to be able to work out these things on paper (no calculators allowed).

[Jocky]

Talk softly.
Relinquish disdain.
Relinquish Arrogance
Abandon “Proving “everything
Give them “links”
Practise patience and humility

Believe me Michelle, I have come across a few woos who could do with having the same advice given to them >:( Rudeness is very rarely a one-way street.

To continue your classification, I think there are subdivisions of woo other than their degree of skepticism and level of education. There are many flavours. The sort you describe is a soft and gentle soul - a kind of "Hippy-Woo". But Woo-World is wide and wild, and also populated by the Fundie-Woo, the Guru-woo, the PropellerHead-Woo, the MeToo-Woo and other assorted varieties.

The same is true of Skeptic-City, of course. Me, I'm a Pedant-Skep 8) :)

You make a fair point about basic human civility - debate should never stoop to shouting and arrogance. However, it takes two to tango, and I think it rash to assume that the fault in these matters always lies on one side.

[Allo Allo]

Believe me Michelle, I have come across a few woos who could do with having the same advice given to them >:( Rudeness is very rarely a one-way street.

Oh I DO believe you! I have never had an experience of arguing with woos. Sorry - could have thought about that a minute.



To continue your classification, I think there are subdivisions of woo other than their degree of skepticism and level of education. There are many flavours. The sort you describe is a soft and gentle soul - a kind of "Hippy-Woo". But Woo-World is wide and wild, and also populated by the Fundie-Woo, the Guru-woo, the PropellerHead-Woo, the MeToo-Woo and other assorted varieties.

The same is true of Skeptic-City, of course. Me, I'm a Pedant-Skep 8) :)

;D Hippie Woo would probably be about MY age group? Someone has just pointed out to me that an example of dangerous woo was "Weapons of Mass Distruction" .



You make a fair point about basic human civility - debate should never stoop to shouting and arrogance. However, it takes two to tango, and I think it rash to assume that the fault in these matters always lies on one side.


Apologies!

M

[Jocky]

Hippie Woo would probably be about MY age group?

'twould be ungallant of me to say ;)


Someone has just pointed out to me that an example of dangerous woo was "Weapons of Mass Distruction"

Don't get me started on Iraq >:( Actually, that farce did have something of the pseudoscientific about it - there was a lot of fallacious thinking, and not a little falsification of data and confirmation bias, in all of that.


Apologies

No need - no offence taken! Just making the point :)

[Eileen]

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' being woo?

[Admin]

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' being woo?


We went to war based on the belief that they existed.

There was no evidence to support WMD, and indeed the lack of evidence should have been telling, but the government, and the US government, knew that WMD were there so off to war we went.

Woos believe in things without evidence - the Iraq war and WMD illustrate just how wrong that approach is.

[Mojo]

Are you serious - you don't have to know what a mole is to pass A level Chemistry these days :o

Surely that would be zoology.

:eek:

[median]

Mole?

Mmm, possibly dermatology :o

[median]

To Median and Jocky – keep up the good work.


Michelle, er...what have we done now :-\

[boffin]

To vbloke and Jocky....sorry I haven't replied...very busy today.

I'll be more specific. Moles appear in the 'A' level and G.C.S.E. syllabuses but these examinations test only a rudimentary understanding. Students are generally guided through the most elementary questions - modern 'A' level questions are often easier than old 'O' level questions when it comes to calculations. Actually - for a thorough review see my site on standards in science and mathematics at http://members.aol.com/sciencestandards/
The articles have been co-written with other science and mathematics tutors. It's got all the facts and some will make you weep. The level of mathematical ability of some 'A' level science students is appalling. Some of the articles have been published on the Campaign for Real Education website and one has been published in the Swiss journal Current Concerns.

[Jocky]

To Median and Jocky – keep up the good work.


Michelle, er...what have we done now :-\


Don't blame Michelle, median - I mentioned our journeys through the strange land of PA earlier in this thread :-[ my point being that we are foreigners there, just as a woo might feel rather foriegn here.

Plenty of people there who believe in nonsense. n-dimensional physics [ab]used to explain EVP, anyone ...

[boffin]

vbloke...the reason why you did lots on moles is that you were at the transition between 'O' level and G.C.S.E. (from your age it looks like you were in the first generation to do G.C.S.E.)
Therefore you would have still done the same on moles as the previous 'O' level the year before :). - hence the fact that you were drilled in it.
Syllabuses changed more dramatically in the early nineties and I and the nation are reaping the rewards.

[Jocky]

Moles appear in the 'A' level and G.C.S.E. syllabuses but these examinations test only a rudimentary understanding.

Thanks for the link, Boffin. Very interesting - and not a little worrying ??? Hope you won't mind if I ask a couple of further questions:

Is there a place where past papers are readily available? I'd like to compare some questions for myself.
Do you know how the Scottish Higher has fared in this respect in recent years?

[wollery]

vbloke...the reason why you did lots on moles is that you were at the transition between 'O' level and G.C.S.E. (from your age it looks like you were in the first generation to do G.C.S.E.)
Therefore you would have still done the same on moles as the previous 'O' level the year before :). - hence the fact that you were drilled in it.
Syllabuses changed more dramatically in the early nineties and I and the nation are reaping the rewards.


I was in the last year to do 'O' levels, although they were called 16+, we got 'O' level and CSE grades for every subject.

I remember doing lots of work on moles as well, titrating one liquid into another until the indicator in it changed colour, and then working out the molarity of the titrated liquid.

[vbloke]

vbloke...the reason why you did lots on moles is that you were at the transition between 'O' level and G.C.S.E. (from your age it looks like you were in the first generation to do G.C.S.E.)
Therefore you would have still done the same on moles as the previous 'O' level the year before :). - hence the fact that you were drilled in it.
Syllabuses changed more dramatically in the early nineties and I and the nation are reaping the rewards.

this is very true - I think I was in the first year of GCSE's and from memory, we only had old O Level papers to practice against and there was very little difference. I'm willing to be that won't be the case now though.

[boffin]

I don't know about Scottish highers. However, a friend of mine has 'o' level and 'A' level papers all the way back to the 1950s - that's how we know about the changes in standards. Maths papers from the 1960s are far more difficult than those of 2000s.

In fact there are topics in the Further Maths 'A' level of today that used to be on the old C.S.E. of the 1970s!!!!

In modern-day G.C.S.E. chemistry, moles are covered very superficially and the level of knowledge is usually embarrisingly low. The questions are very childish and one of my students of many years ago said after her G.C.S.E. chemistry paper, "My mum could have passed that paper." My student was disappoined because the exam was too easy. This was one of the reasons why I stopped teaching G.C.S.E. science and concentrated on 'A' level only. The G.C.S.E. became too easy.

Also, more private schools want to give their students the I.G.C.S.E. (I for international) because it's far superior to our own G.C.S.E. It's interesting that the I.G.C.S.E. exam that our exam boards sell overseas students is superior to the one they sell our own students (G.C.S.E.).

This explains why there is an increasing gap between the standards of science and maths competence between international students and english students - the international students' scientific and mathematical abilities are superior to our own now.

[Eileen]

I did 'O' levels in the 1970's and I think they were harder that what is on offer today.

If the standards for GCSE and 'A' levels have dropped so low, then how do some students still get into med school if this is what they want to do? Surely, med schools would not drop their standards?

[Jocky]

I remember doing lots of work on moles as well, titrating one liquid into another until the indicator in it changed colour, and then working out the molarity of the titrated liquid.

Yes, I remember doing that too - with the result that 25 years after I last darkened the doors of a school Chemistry lab, I know what a mole is.

Boffin - IYO has the amount of experimental work required also decreased? There is no substitute for doing it yourself and proving it - and as well as the immediate educational value there is a major benefit in crtical thinking, and understanding the nature of evidence.

[Cuddles]

I only did A-levels 5 years ago, and we did plenty of titration and moling (I'm sure thats a word ???). People always say exams were harder in their day, but there's something very wrong when I can draw a line the year after I finished school and say things went to hell right there. AS maths and physics exams now are easier than GCSEs were 7 years ago.

[Eileen]

If they are that much easier then, how on earth do people still manage to get into University?

[Sgt Badass]

We were in the funny situation of being one of the first schools to do GCSEs. We actually started off doing O levels, then in the second year we did GCSE. I can honestly say, hand on heart that the second year was a doddle.

I kid you not, the 'high' level physics practical exam that I took had us all shaking our heads wondering what had gone wrong. One question was a clamp holding a bit of string with a weight on the end. We were given a metre rule and asked to measure the floor to the base of the weight. That's it. 6 points.

Another was a conical flask with water in it. "Estimate the amount of water". No need to estimate, it had markings on the side.

Dread to think what the lower level exam entailed. Join the dots I reckon.

Quite bonkers.

[Sgt Badass]

If they are that much easier then, how on earth do people still manage to get into University?


I didn't go to Uni, the trip from GCSE to 'A' level was utterly terrifying and I bombed out. However I went to a technical college to do a business course. One of the lecturers was a sociology guy and he said the quality of people joining to do 'A' level was appalling. They were starting to do three month warm up sessions to bring people up to the 'A' level standard. I guess from then on the course to Uni is the same.

I guess now that 'A' level quality may have dropped a bit too to bring it into line with GCSE, but I've not seen an A level exam so I can't say for sure.

[kath23]

If they are that much easier then, how on earth do people still manage to get into University?


Erm, because that goes on your grades for the A-level and GCSE and that's the only markers they have to assess people's 'brilliance.'

Except Oxbridge where on top of that they have an entrance exam which I think is simply marked pass or fail.

You see how many more people are going to Uni nowadays, because they are getting the grades.(regardless of whether the exams are as good.)

Also those with poorer grades can also go, as new Universities are springing up everywhere to cater for them.

Plus most Universities now are not doing it for love, :) there are financial perks to having a student, so they want to attract them.

Also the grades awarded at universities have dropped. Most people get at least a 2:1, whereas years ago that was rare.

This is because people are funding their own way through Uni via loans or real money. No one is going to want to be left several thousand pounds in debt only for a 2:2 or less which to most employers would not count for much.

So the Universities have to make it good odds that people would get a 2:1 or a lot of people wouldn't fork out.

In my year and department at Uni only one person got a 2:2, everyone else got a 2:1 or above. A third of us got firsts! (our year was said to be exceptional though- but I bet they say that to all the girls :))
Love
Kath

[Ginger Rogers]

I don't think it's fair to say that Woo's are all a bit thick, what about those folk who are supposedly so brainy theyre bordering on insanity anyway?
I think it's more about eccentricity somtimes..

on the subject of GSCE's I did mine in 1995, I got mostly B's - never heard of this 'mole' business. we did something called 'double award' science ???

[tkingdoll]

I don't think it's fair to say that Woo's are all a bit thick, what about those folk who are supposedly so brainy theyre bordering on insanity anyway?
I think it's more about eccentricity somtimes..





Well then it's a good job no-one said that.

[Allo Allo]

I don't think it's fair to say that Woo's are all a bit thick, what about those folk who are supposedly so brainy theyre bordering on insanity anyway?
I think it's more about eccentricity somtimes..


>:( :ponder:

Wow! or should I say Woo! What has not been taken into account is that SOME woos - not all - and even scientists, philosophers, psychologists and highy educated woos got knocked off their skeptic perches by some inexplicable inner "revelation" - a "spiritual experience" of some kind. I would accept they had some form of "awareness altering episode" due to something unusual happenning in their temporal lobes - whatever - whether this leaves them eccentric I couldn't say. But for THEM their experience was real. I am watching with interest further experiments in altering our state of conciousness artificially via the application of magnetic fields to the brain - if those experiments can be replicated properly - see Persinger. I think there is a HUGE difference between commercial "new age" poppycock woodom and very sincere people who have experienced "woo".

Anyway - it's a point....

M ::)

[wollery]

on the subject of GSCE's I did mine in 1995, I got mostly B's - never heard of this 'mole' business. we did something called 'double award' science ???

Ah yes, 'double award' science. >:(

This was yet another genius move by the morons at the top. "Look," they said, "lots of kids are doing okay in biology, but badly in physics and chemistry, and others do well in phys & chem, but not in bio, and so on. If we taught them all as one subject it would even out these inconsistencies." Thus was born the general science GCSE. Sadly it didn't stop there. "Hang on a mo," said the timetablers, "we've got students here who are spending 6 lessons a week with 3 different teachers on one subject. It's 'double award' science, so it should get double what a single subject gets. Right, that's 4 lessons a week with 2 teachers."

So now we have the situation where the vast majority of students, even those wanting to go on to study science at University (and some do know before they even start their GCSEs) are studying a science course that combines Physics, Chemistry and Biology in one, is taught by only two teachers (so each class is being taught at least one subject by non-specialists), in 2/3rds of the time it used to be taught. And they want us to believe that it's just as rigorous and difficult as it used to be, when each subject was taught seperately by specialist teachers, taking up a total of 6 lesson slots a week, and 'combined science' course was a CSE that the thickies took.

Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! >:(




Ahem, sorry, rant over.

[Eileen]

Combined science CSE didn't exist in my day. You either took the science 'O' levels or CSE separately - Biology, Physics and Chemistry and that was it.

[Cuddles]

If they are that much easier then, how on earth do people still manage to get into University?


Getting in is the easy part, it's getting a degree that's harder. Most universities accept people based on their grades, and since they generally get paid per student it's in their interest to take as many as possible. In addition, for many degrees previous knowledge is largely irrelevant, all that matters is that you have shown to be intelligent and willing to learn, law and medicine are good examples of this.

Of course, the universities have realised just how bad exams are now, which is why many of the top ones are introducing their own entrance exams, or at least threatening to do so. They have also issued a list of A-levels that will not be considered for offers because they are essentially worthless, like media studies and general studies. When it comes down to it, employers demand a certain level of knowledge and universities need to supply it. If the government doesn't sort out the education system, the universities will be forced to out of simple self-interest.

[Ginger Rogers]

If they are that much easier then, how on earth do people still manage to get into University?


Getting in is the easy part, it's getting a degree that's harder. Most universities accept people based on their grades, and since they generally get paid per student it's in their interest to take as many as possible. In addition, for many degrees previous knowledge is largely irrelevant, all that matters is that you have shown to be intelligent and willing to learn, law and medicine are good examples of this.

Of course, the universities have realised just how bad exams are now, which is why many of the top ones are introducing their own entrance exams, or at least threatening to do so. They have also issued a list of A-levels that will not be considered for offers because they are essentially worthless, like media studies and general studies. When it comes down to it, employers demand a certain level of knowledge and universities need to supply it. If the government doesn't sort out the education system, the universities will be forced to out of simple self-interest.


Well all I think is that university always has been and always will be more accessible to rich people or people who are reasonably well off/ middle class whatever you want to call it.
And I think it's unfair that really bright kids who want to do really well - and indeed have the intelligence and motivation to do well, but simply can't go to uni because they're parent's practically tell them no because it's too expensive or whatever because they're from a poor family
My friends got grants to go to uni but then they stopped all that, some people find it really hard to get loans or simplyl don't want those kinds of debts hanging over them.
I don't blame them! but why should that mean they don't get to where they want to be? Not saying it does mean that but I know I was strongly discouraged from doing Uni, so I didn't and now I bitterly regret it as I can't afford it now and I wonder where I could be now if I had gone :(

[huw-l]

The way my high school handled combined science was to have the different modules taught by different teachers. So you got taught physics by an actual physics teacher rather than a biologist or chemist (or worse a non-scientist).

i thought it worked quite well, and since then have always been of the opinion that the teachers matter much more than the curriculum.

[Allo Allo]

Not saying it does mean that but I know I was strongly discouraged from doing Uni, so I didn't and now I bitterly regret it as I can't afford it now and I wonder where I could be now if I had gone :(


Never give up - never! (Churchill) It's not too late - there IS funding avaliable - look for it - you live on the Isle of Wight - you could do Open University there - or go to Oxford! http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/finance/bursaries/ ::)

Kids, husbands and the like might be a problem however - but you can still study at home with these "drawbacks"!!!

M

[Eileen]

If studying full time at Uni is a problem, there is always the Open University.

[Dr B]

I think we are getting off track a little here. I hope to put some posts up soon to get things back to the OP. I think it is really interesting what people have said - I have listened and learned a great deal -hhhhmmm plenty to think about.

More to follow.... 8)

[Dr B]

Some comments meant in the spirit of open debate.

Michelle;



I don’t think woo has anything to do with intelligence – I think it’s a different inner view of what’s “out there”.

I totally agree with you. That is why I asked - "why is it that otherwise clever people hold odd ideas". Critical thinking has nothing much to do with intelligence per-se, and it seems that many woos have little to do with critical thinking....I think I am on to something with this observation. Some people are very clever, others less so, but woo ideas only work if we ignore the sound evidence to the contrary and enter the realms of fallacious reasoning to make it work. As you rightly say, to some degree this has little to do with intelligence O0 Woos see things the way they are because their reasoning is unsound.



Woos believe in love not hate. Someone who is arrogantly judgemental will be considered ignorant and spiritually unenlightened. Those who exhibit humility, empathy and understanding are more likely to be heard. Woos have ears that only pick up certain frequencies of sound – gentle, soft, musical.

I know this was meant to be fun - but its also fun to show why it is nonsense. Firstly, its all so fluffy and general "woo's believe in love..." So skeptics / scientists are not in love with their wives / husbands then (or even their work!!!)? Also, who said anything about arrogant and judgemental? Thats dogmatic and I am sure all here would point out the errors in that approach as well. Dont confuse skepticism with dogmatism. As for the picking up on certain sounds etc, thats clearly nonsense. Experiments and studies on believers has shown that it is their interpretations and not their sensitivities that differ. They see signals in noise - when no signals are present. Interestingly so do schizophrenics (look at the stuff on chance-baseline shifts, the work of Chris French, Peter Brugger, Richard Bentall, my own stuff). This is well known.


Woos believe that science does NOT know it all. Ordinary woos are bemused by the arrogance of the scientific world where they might suspect “reason” is a status behaviour not meaning wisdom.

So do scientists. This is a fallacy and I have written a document on why this is so (I can PM it to you). Science never claimed to know it all - but even though science does not know it all how does that mean that woo's know it all? or know aything better at all? It does not - and this lies at the heart of this mistake in reason. The limitations of one system add no support to the merits of another. Wooism is still nonsense.

I would also add that, scientists are not, on the whole, arrogant at all and this represents yet another fallacy - ad hominem (this is not directed at you Michelle - just these types of arguments per-se).


Woos work from observation of the human condition rather than what is proved in a laboratory.

Scientists work from observation as well, so thats another error. Also, woo's only deal with anecdotes and not evidence - which is the theme of your point - why? Anecdotes are terrible sources of evidence on their own. Whats wrong with what has been shown to be true from the laboratory?


Despite randomised control trials “proving” their healing methods do not work – a woo understands the impossibility of demonstrating the opposite in a way that satisfies the scientific community.

Meaning a woo knows they cannot prove / demonstrate the existence of any ability - so why should we accept it as being true?


Any scientist doing so would be committing academic suicide.

Wrong - any scientist able to demonstrate these areas as truths would get the highest prizes science has to offer and be an instant celeb overnight. Trust me, scientists would love to show it be the case.


Peer Review to a woo simply means a whole lot of scientists who are worried about political correctness and their own status trying to pick each other to pieces.

Thats because they dont understand it and have no (or little) experience of it. By slagging off peer-review they try to liberate themselves from the standards good science has to meet - its a fudge and an unwelcome one 8)



Woos would accept it if some of their theories were investigated with a scientific motive of “proving” something. However, they would think it strange to attempt exploding a concept or theory “by hurling it against the wall and examining the pieces”. They would presume that some bits of wall might get mixed up in the debris. Woos think in terms of possibilities. And that would be one possibility.

Scientists do as well. But scientists think of plausibility and probability. In your example we would also through control conditions at the wall - and if there were an issue of mild contamination - it would impact on all conditions - so it could not explain systematic effects at all. It simply does not work.


Science is slowly revealing a lot of what they have believed all along and many scientific terms fit their concepts perfectly – but in a “modern” way.

Bollocks.....sorry, but it is ;D

Its just a bit of fun - but i have tried to highlight why these ideas are nonsense....hope it helps... O0

[Dr B]

I think just about everyone has highlighted the crucial point - the role of critical thinking.

People can be intelligent - yet still cannot reason. I have had arguments with other scientists (during the peer-review process) where they are making logically unsound arguments. I highlight it and the editor (usually :D) accepts my position. So clever people get it wrong all the time. The point is a commitment to critical thinking is a commitment to at least try to get it right, or at least be less wrong than one would be without it.

Woo's typically do not have this stance as a mental attitude. When you invest so much time and effort into an idea it becomes hard to abandon it...but abandon it you must in the presence of good quality evidence and argument to the contrary.... O0

[Dr B]

In addition, woo's set out with the conclusion and then try to find 'evidence' to support it. This is, shall we say, something of a problem.

There seem to be a number of reasons as to why clever people hold odd beliefs. You can almost spot the point at which their arguments - which might start out ok, then deviate into the realms of woo. For some reason, they cannot spot the point at which the argument falls down. 8)

[Admin]

I think Michelle has hit on an important point. Woos tend to think about what could be and rather than look for proper evidence to support ideas they look to personal experience.

That way of thinking is so obvious with their defence of their particular belief. Whenever a skeptic says a woo belief (homeopathy or whatever) has no proof to back it up they tend to respond with, “have you tried it yourself?”

Their argument is basically that if you try something and it works for you then science must be wrong. Personal experience is what matters to them.

Of course, skeptics know that we are all too fallible and very prone to reaching false conclusions based on a multitude of errors of reasoning and cognitive biases. That’s why we do not accept personal testimony as being reliable.

Double blind testing was developed to remove human biases from influencing the results of testing. Here’s a basic introduction to Double Blind Trials (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=double_blind_trials.php)

It’s interesting to note that medical trials like the one done last year at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital are actually ‘open trials’ – now we know why they always give positive results. ;)

So, in summary, woos tend to believe in things for the wrong reasons. They rely on personal experience to reach conclusions about things. Without knowing what confounding factors are and how they lead us to false conclusions, woos inevitably reach those false conclusions.

There’s a reason why homeopathy works in open trials and fails to work in double blind trials. The reason has nothing to do with science being wrong however.

[Jocky]

Seconded!

Placing trust in subjective experience seems to be a touchstone difference between skeptics and woos. Some people are very reluctant to accept that their own perceptions may be mistaken. The lengths to which they will go to hang onto this delusion are quite extraordinary :-\

The usual complaint seems to be something along the lines of
"Why should the diktats of science \ big pharma \ closed-minded skeptics be any better than the evidence of my own eyes?"
and then not taking any notice (or taking umbrage >:( ) when a rational answer to this question is proffered.

[Dr B]

So, in summary, woos tend to believe in things for the wrong reasons.

Yes - but the reason they end with the wrong reason, is because they cannot reason about complex issues :D :D

Again - not an intelligence issue - just one of, if you have not been trained or trained yourself (or your mind does not naturally work that way) - then you are unlikely to ask the right questions. If you cannot ask the right questions - what hope do you have of arriving at the right answers? :D :D ooohhh thats sounds profound.....note to self...grow beard...

[Dr B]

Let me give an example of woo idea proposed by Fenwick.

Fenwick is a very clever neuropsychiatrist who is also interested in Near-death Experiences (NDEs). However, he argues for survival and that we all survive bodily death (the mind survives brain death etc).

So what is the evidence? Well, its mainly argument but it goes like this: People have reported NDEs while their brains were inactive (as measured via an EEG). One would expect that if these experiences were due to hallucination, then one would measure increased activation. The fact we measured nothing, Fenwick argues, means the mind is separate from the brain and can exist independent of it. According to Fenwick, the mind can support human experience without the brain.

He also states that hallucination cannot be an explanation because most patients who hallucinate do not treat their perceptions as real - whereas NDEers do.

There are other points but they are even worse than these ones.

Have a think about these issues, especially those of you not well versed in these arguments and those who do not practice critical thinking....how convincing do you find them? I will post my responses to these later....feel free to chip in your concerns. or support for Fenwick, in the interests of education.... O0

[Admin]

A hypothesis is formed from ideas/observations/reasoning/etc. but it is not considered as true.

The hypothesis is tested and if it passes the tests then it is considered a theory. This is a provisional truth and will remain so unless it is falsified or a better theory replaces it.

That's different to beginning with a conclusion. Many hypotheses fail at the testing stage.

[Allo Allo]

Some comments meant in the spirit of open debate.

Its just a bit of fun - but i have tried to highlight why these ideas are nonsense....hope it helps... O0


I wrote this as a lighthearted piece of "froth".

M

[Dr B]

Michelle

I know - thats exactly what i said. However, i responded as to why it is froth.....my points were directed at the errors in the common reasoning and not at any one person.

I felt it needed balance adding to it - which is what i did. O0

I think you raised some excellent points

[Allo Allo]

Ok - I forgive you!

M :angel:

[Allo Allo]

Let me give an example of woo idea proposed by Fenwick.

Have a think about these issues, especially those of you not well versed in these arguments and those who do not practice critical thinking....how convincing do you find them? I will post my responses to these later....feel free to chip in your concerns. or support for Fenwick, in the interests of education.... O0


My bold

Are you meaning ME ? >:(

M

[Dr B]

Let me give an example of woo idea proposed by Fenwick.

Fenwick is a very clever neuropsychiatrist who is also interested in Near-death Experiences (NDEs). However, he argues for survival and that we all survive bodily death (the mind survives brain death etc).

So what is the evidence? Well, its mainly argument but it goes like this: People have reported NDEs while their brains were inactive (as measured via an EEG). One would expect that if these experiences were due to hallucination, then one would measure increased activation. The fact we measured nothing, Fenwick argues, means the mind is separate from the brain and can exist independent of it. According to Fenwick, the mind can support human experience without the brain.

He also states that hallucination cannot be an explanation because most patients who hallucinate do not treat their perceptions as real - whereas NDEers do.

There are other points but they are even worse than these ones.

Have a think about these issues, especially those of you not well versed in these arguments and those who do not practice critical thinking....how convincing do you find them? I will post my responses to these later....feel free to chip in your concerns. or support for Fenwick, in the interests of education.... O0


OK here are some issues with the above example - though the principles are the same with any similar argument.

Firstly, EEG is not a reliable indicator of complete neural activity. The electrodes are placed on the scalp and measure signals from the surface of the cortex. There could well be lots of sub-cortical activity taking place without the EEG picking any of it up. So, claiming that the flat EEG shows the brain was dead - is plainly wrong.

Secondly, how does Fenwick know that at that precise time, patients were having the NDE? Clearly he does not. He is making this entire claim on the back of anecdotal reports from recovering patients. It is more likely that patients were confused and memory-biases are impacting on the accuracy of reports.

Also, surely the fact that patients can remember the NDE means that memory was actually working in the brain. In order to remember an event it has to be encoded and stored - this takes neural processing. Fenwick claims there was no neural processing (which we know is untrue) so how can patients remember anything? The reasoning is unsound and contradictory.

Of course, one could evoke woo-type ideas for an astral-memory but this is clearly nonsense and falls into the trap of explaining one mystery with another.

Finally, on the reality of hallucination Fenwick here makes a mistake. Patients can and do experience some hallucinations as real - particularly when they start happening. They learn to recognise them as part of a condition when they see clinicians etc. However, sensory quality of the hallucination can be very real and reality can be distorted in many cases. This argument of his only works if you look at experienced hallucinators.

Any person reporting an NDE is unlikely to have been in those situations regularly and are unlikely to be familiar with such contexts.

In addition, many people experience hallucination in conjunction with incoming sensory (i.e., visual) information. NDEs occur in the absence of this - so internal imagery is much more likely to represent reality to these people.

[Dr B]

Ok - I forgive you!

M :angel:


thank you....kiss...kiss :-*

[Dr B]

Let me give an example of woo idea proposed by Fenwick.

Have a think about these issues, especially those of you not well versed in these arguments and those who do not practice critical thinking....how convincing do you find them? I will post my responses to these later....feel free to chip in your concerns. or support for Fenwick, in the interests of education.... O0


My bold

Are you meaning ME ? >:(

M


dont get ya dream catcher in a twist.....no, i mean others in general. Many people lurk here.....

[Jocky]

People have reported NDEs while their brains were inactive (as measured via an EEG).

How does Fenwick establish the simultaneity of the NDE with the EEG measurement? Or didn't he ...

edit: written while Dr B was posting the above - glad to see I spotted one of the flaws straightaway 8)

[Dr B]

Thats my point - see above....

Its all based on the content of the experience...anecdotal reports. He basically sees if the patient reports an event perceived in the NDE (operating room) and says ahhhh that happened when the brain was dead!!!!!

It is nonsense of course.

make sense (my comments that is - not Fenwick ;D)

[median]

How does Fenwick establish the simultaneity of the NDE with the EEG measurement? Or didn't he ...

edit: written while Dr B was posting the above - glad to see I spotted one of the flaws straightaway

Perhaps I'll pass that over to the other scientific forum, see how they fare? >:D

[Jocky]

Go for it, I'm there >:D >:D

[Dr B]

Let me know how you both get on......they may come here to check up on you ;D

If they start talking sense you know they have been here.... :D

[Dr B]

If you want to really get their brains going another great nonsense argument was given some years ago that NDEs were actually memories - but a specific memory - that of being born!!!!

The suggestion was that the last experience the brain throws out is the first memory of the world that the human would have experienced :D

So the 'travelling down a tunnel' becomes the birth canal, the 'white-light' becomes the hospital room, the 'beings in the light' are the doctors / nurses, entering the 'light' is comming out into the world and so on.

So the brain not only throws out a memory but a specific memory of being born!

You may begin your assessment..... 8)

[Admin]

Let me give an example of woo idea proposed by Fenwick.

Have a think about these issues, especially those of you not well versed in these arguments and those who do not practice critical thinking....how convincing do you find them? I will post my responses to these later....feel free to chip in your concerns. or support for Fenwick, in the interests of education.... O0


My bold

Are you meaning ME ? >:(

M


;D ;D ;D

I think he was meaning anyone really. Except me I hope!! >:(

It's a great example of how what appears to be a sound argument falls flat on its face when scrutinised.

Just a couple of examples:

The first is that there's an assumption there - that flat lining the EEG means that no brain activity exists. Always look out for assumptions in arguments.

Secondly, this assumption relies on the perceived continuum of operation range of the EEG equipment. All equipment only works within certain parameters. An EEG will give an output within a certain range of inputs. If the input level falls below its operating threshold, the output will drop to zero.

If you see this particular argument (and similar) on other forums look out for just how often it is asserted that brain death occurs because the EEG flat-lined.

It's a false premise to the argument; and a false premise always results in an unsound conclusion.

[Cuddles]

If you want to really get their brains going another great nonsense argument was given some years ago that NDEs were actually memories - but a specific memory - that of being born!!!!

The suggestion was that the last experience the brain throws out is the first memory of the world that the human would have experienced :D

So the 'travelling down a tunnel' becomes the birth canal, the 'white-light' becomes the hospital room, the 'beings in the light' are the doctors / nurses, entering the 'light' is comming out into the world and so on.

So the brain not only throws out a memory but a specific memory of being born!

You may begin your assessment..... 8)

I suppose this is like the idea of your whole life flashing before your eyes. Most of us just call it living. :)

[Dr B]

If you want to really get their brains going another great nonsense argument was given some years ago that NDEs were actually memories - but a specific memory - that of being born!!!!

The suggestion was that the last experience the brain throws out is the first memory of the world that the human would have experienced :D

So the 'travelling down a tunnel' becomes the birth canal, the 'white-light' becomes the hospital room, the 'beings in the light' are the doctors / nurses, entering the 'light' is comming out into the world and so on.

So the brain not only throws out a memory but a specific memory of being born!

You may begin your assessment..... 8)


Sue Blackmore did an excellent study of this idea. However, first the logic of why it does not work. One - the child's head is not orientated towards the exit of the birth canal - so the child would not, in any way, experience the travelling down a tunnel into a white light. Two - the visual system would be so underdeveloped that even if the head was pointing in the right direction - forms and shapes would not be identifiable. Three, the memory system would not be developed and a major reorganisation of memory structures occurs at around 24 months so it is unlikely, even if such a memory could be encoded and stored - that it could be retrieved.

Blackmore said the idea also makes a clear prediction and she tested it. The prediction was, even if we ignored the above, people born by natural means would experience more OBEs than those born by Cesarean section - because they would have travelled down a birth canal. She found no difference, those born by Cesarean were just as likely to report OBEs as those born naturally (and were just as likely to report tunnel experiences). The idea now - is largely discredited - though like many ideas - watch out for a reemergence of it.

Edit - even some hallucinatory accounts are nonsense - we should not accept them just because they are marginally less fanciful than an after-life hypothesis. Accounts still need to be plausible, probable, and have supportive evidence.

[seren]

Am I the only one who found it most amusing that Fenwick said that people who report NDEs are brain-dead? ;D

Are you sure he wasn't taking the piss?!

[Dr B]

;D ;D unfortunately - quite sure..... :D