Erik Reuter wrote: > Irrelevant to my point. For a reliable experiment, the tests > really need > to be "double-blind" here. That means neither the people > conducting the > tests nor the people being tested no the answers. Otherwise there are > just so many ways that people can fool themselves.
Well, there are no 'answers' for the latter group to know - what they relate are conversations and observations. As for the former, I can't recall if they interviewed the patients before or after they talked to the OT staff. One of the troubling assumptions they made, and which I recall, is that they assumed that any memory of the time when one was flat-lining under anaesthesia means the presence of the soul. If they were basing that on anything other than the fact that most of the observations were from an aerial view, they failed to mention it. I need to find that link. > > Btw, the method that you outlined, wasn't something similar > undertaken > > to prove the veracity of the seers of Kell? > > I have no idea what you are referring to. But if there were a > repeatable > experiment that verified that "seers" could predict the future, I am > confident it would be famous quickly and I would know about it. So *I* > predict that no one has "proved" that seers can predict the future. I was referring to the Mallorean series written by David Eddings. There is a community of seers in the mountain Kell and one branch is into prophecy. The Melcene bureaucracy sets up a department to record every single prediction and these are checked as the centuries go by. From what I recall, their record was perfect. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
