After Death

[Sriram]

Real scientists? Jim Tucker has BA in psychology.

Its not about how things are seen but about the definition of a word used and whether it is being used correctly.

Jim Tucker is a qualified psychiatrist. He is clearly sufficiently qualified to be a Asst Prof in the university and to be given a grant for his research.  You think a Phd with blinkers on is more suitable?  I don't think so. 

Its not about a word. Its about a fresh perspective. An ability to think laterally. 

Words evolve and lot depends on how narrowly or broadly they are used and the context in which they are used.

I am talking about a way of thinking. 

[Stranger]

What do you mean 'couple of scientists'?  Einstein was just one scientist proposing the ToR.  Are you trying to dismiss a proposition based on the number of people who are for or against it?!

Einstein presented a well argued case, based on known and tested science (notably Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism) and his conclusions were testable and falsifiable.

Those claiming an afterlife haven't presented such a case and their ideas are not testable and falsifiable.

Medical records of these patients does suggest that they were actually dead at the time they had the experiences. Just do through the cases.

• They may have had no brain activity and a stopped heart but they obviously weren't dead (actual cell death in the brain, for example), otherwise they'd never have got to report it.

• How can they possibly know when the experience was formed in the brain?

[jeremyp]

The number of  people who do not come back from the dead does not suggest the absence of an After-life. What kind of an argument is that?  The number of people who  come back and give their experiences, does suggest it however.

You can't name anybody who has verifiably come back from the dead. Nobody who went through an NDE was actually dead at the time.

Medical records of these patients does suggest that they were actually dead at the time they had the experiences.

False.

[Maeght]

Jim Tucker is a qualified psychiatrist. He is clearly sufficiently qualified to be a Asst Prof in the university and to be given a grant for his research.  You think a Phd with blinkers on is more suitable?  I don't think so. 

Its not about a word. Its about a fresh perspective. An ability to think laterally. 

Words evolve and lot depends on how narrowly or broadly they are used and the context in which they are used.

I am talking about a way of thinking.

He has BA not a BsC and his research is not into the methodolgy of this.

It is about the meaning of the word of you are dealing with real science. Words evolve in common parlance but true science rewuires clear definitions and accuracy of meaning.

[Sriram]

He has BA not a BsC and his research is not into the methodolgy of this.

It is about the meaning of the word of you are dealing with real science. Words evolve in common parlance but true science rewuires clear definitions and accuracy of meaning.

There is nothing called 'real' science. There is hard science and soft science. Psychology and such matters are part of the soft sciences....and obviously their methodologies  will be somewhat different from those of the hard sciences.

[Gordon]

There is nothing called 'real' science. There is hard science and soft science. Psychology and such matters are part of the soft sciences....and obviously their methodologies  will be somewhat different from those of the hard sciences.

Wrong: it is all science, where methods will be suited to what is being studied, and if it is indeed 'science' it will involve an approach using the discipline of the scientific method since, if not, then it isn't 'science' - it would then be 'pseudo-science', which is no good to anyone except those who use it to exploit the gullible.

Thus psychology, as would be studied by academic institutions and documented in accredited peer-reviewed journals, is no less a 'science' than, say, physics even if professional psychologists rarely require access to the Large Hadron Collider. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong: it is all science, where methods will be suited to what is being studied, and if it is indeed 'science' it will involve an approach using the discipline of the scientific method since, if not, then it isn't 'science' - it would then be 'pseudo-science', which is no good to anyone except those who use it to exploit the gullible.

Thus psychology, as would be studied by academic institutions and documented in accredited peer-reviewed journals, is no less a 'science' than, say, physics even if professional psychologists rarely require access to the Large Hadron Collider.

I'm sure Chomsky would disagree with you Gordon. I think you might be confusing psychology with neuroscience. This sort of confusion I would move is common in the New Atheism which is partly comprised of a hefty dollop of scientism.

[Maeght]

Hard and soft science are just terms commonly used and are criticised by many as just a way of trying to make things which aren't following the scientific method sound like they are. Its either science, if it follows the scientific method, or its not.

[Gordon]

I'm sure Chomsky would disagree with you Gordon.

In what way?

I think you might be confusing psychology with neuroscience. This sort of confusion I would move is common in the New Atheism which is partly comprised of a hefty dollop of scientism.

Nope: not confused at all, given my career background involved both these areas.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way?

Nope: not confused at all, given my career background involved both these areas.

Psychology is not a pure science. Neuroscience is purer.

[Gordon]

Psychology is not a pure science. Neuroscience is purer.

On what basis, and what to you mean by your use of 'purer'?

[Gordon]

Bumped for Vlad.

[jeremyp]

Thus psychology, as would be studied by academic institutions and documented in accredited peer-reviewed journals, is no less a 'science' than, say, physics even if professional psychologists rarely require access to the Large Hadron Collider.

It was in relation to psychology that Richard Feynman coined the term "cargo cult science". His complaint was that psychologists were not being scrupulous in their approach to experiments, rendering them worthless on the whole. Of course,, this was thirty or forty years ago, so things might have improved.

[Sriram]

Your arguments show the dangers of defining Science too narrowly!   

[Maeght]

Your arguments show the dangers of defining Science too narrowly!   

Disagree.

[Harrowby Hall]

Real scientists? Jim Tucker has BA in psychology.

I have a BA in Psychology. Are you (and Floo!) telling me that I am not a scientist? Or are telling me that you are clueless about the nature of academic psychology?

[Harrowby Hall]

Psychology is not a pure science. Neuroscience is purer.

So, Vlad, what is a "pure science"?

[Harrowby Hall]

According to Wikipedia, Jim B Tucker has a BA in Psychology "and a medical degree". He is employed as a professor of psychiatry. It is strange that his medical qualification has been ignored by Maeght and Vlad in their discussions about him.

I would suggest that psychiatry rather than psychology has been the major intellectual device involved in his investigations into recovered memories relating to "resurrection" and that his religious beliefs are possibly most powerful. It may even be that his BA is of historic interest only and was used to gain entrance to medical school.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, Vlad, what is a "pure science"?

er, those areas of science which do not entertain opinion or feeling. Unfortunately psychology somewhere along the line has to include both. I'm not saying pure science isn't part of psychology but it is pure sciences in an applied context.

[Harrowby Hall]

er, those areas of science which do not entertain opinion or feeling. Unfortunately psychology somewhere along the line has to include both. I'm not saying pure science isn't part of psychology but it is pure sciences in an applied context.

Just as I thought. You are totally ignorant of the nature of psychology. Psychology is a biological science specifically concerned with behaviour.

Questionnaires in women's magazines have little to do with genuine psychology.

[Maeght]

I have a BA in Psychology. Are you (and Floo!) telling me that I am not a scientist? Or are telling me that you are clueless about the nature of academic psychology?

Do you follow the scientific method in academic psychology?

[Maeght]

I have a BA in Psychology. Are you (and Floo!) telling me that I am not a scientist? Or are telling me that you are clueless about the nature of academic psychology?

http://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/faq/what-are-the-differences-between-a-bachelor-of-arts-and-a-bachelor-of-science-in-psychology/

[Harrowby Hall]

Do you follow the scientific method in academic psychology?

Yes.

[Harrowby Hall]

http://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/faq/what-are-the-differences-between-a-bachelor-of-arts-and-a-bachelor-of-science-in-psychology/

Why do you choose an American website concerned with on-line courses to investigate the nature of degrees obtained from British universities?

Where British universities offer degrees in Psychology awarded from both Arts and Science faculties the content of the degree courses are identical. Students attend the same classes, practical sessions and sit the same examinations. The difference between a BA and a BSc is the matriculation qualification of the student.

[Maeght]

Why do you choose an American website concerned with on-line courses to investigate the nature of degrees obtained from British universities?

Where British universities offer degrees in Psychology awarded from both Arts and Science faculties the content of the degree courses are identical. Students attend the same classes, practical sessions and sit the same examinations. The difference between a BA and a BSc is the matriculation qualification of the student.

Okay, I take it all back.