What do you believe happens when we die

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-10-2020 8:50am

saabsaab wrote: »

I felt that you would dismiss this too.

I did not "dismiss" it. I explained exactly how and why it is problematic. Massively different. Why keep putting your own spin on this stuff?

1) It is an unverifiable anecdote.
2) It was not reported until YEARS after the fact.
3) After being reported several aspects of it turned out to be patently and demonstrably false.
4) Even if we were to swallow the anecdote whole, it is not evidence for anything anyway. How could it be?

How is that me "dismissing" it? Do you even know what it means to "dismiss" something in this context?

saabsaab wrote: »

There is some evidence (and not no evidence)

So you keep saying but when asked for ANY of it you:

1) First came up with a link to a study from something ENTIRELY different to what I was asking for evidence for then
2) Came up with an anecdote that is, at best, clutching at straws.

So at this point the best I can do/say is that you appear to have access to absolutely no more evidence than I do. Which is to say: None.

Bannasidhe · 31-10-2020 1:08pm

saabsaab wrote: »

Where did I do that 'in bold above'?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I did not "dismiss" it. .

MOD

Well, that was all very bickering and tetchy and deadly dull to wade through.
A heavy handed moderation team would have some justification to be reaching for the old card pocket.
Fortunately this a A&A (The godless one not the flying one) so we prefer to fire a warning shot across the bow.
Dial it back you two. If you have a problem with posts report them. Do not back seat mod. And less snarling more discussion please as I have a day of rugby watch planned and would be less than pleased if I have to get involved in squabbles.

saabsaab - you are new to this forum and have been extended a great deal of leeway. I suggest you read the Charter before posting again.

Do not comment in this in thread (if you do your friendly light handed moderators will just get the card out no discussion you have been warned).

saabsaab · 31-10-2020 1:48pm

From the Parnia study there was one verifiable period of conscious awareness. It was a patient giving a supposedly accurate report of events during his resuscitation. The patient didn't identify the pictures, but described the defibrillator machine noise. However, it was impossible for him to describe any hidden targets, as there were none in the room where his OBE occurred, and the rest of his description was also very precise, including the description and later correct identification of a doctor who took part in his resuscitation. Perhaps not rock solid evidence but a strong basis fro further proper scienticif study.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-10-2020 3:44pm

saabsaab wrote: »

From the Parnia study there was one verifiable period of conscious awareness. It was a patient giving a supposedly accurate report of events during his resuscitation. The patient didn't identify the pictures, but described the defibrillator machine noise.

As I said I find audio memory during unconsciousness interesting but less impressive in the context of this thread.

The most that such evidence would show us is that the brain is capable of hearing while unconscious.

Do not get me wrong.... that would be massively interesting information to have. But I can think of no reason at this time why the brain WOULD NOT be able to do this. Can you?

In the context of consciousness operating separate from, or following the death of, the brain however this would not be useful evidence at all.

saabsaab wrote: »

Perhaps not rock solid evidence but a strong basis fro further proper scienticif study.

Agreed. The fact people can hear things at a point we might otherwise be surprised they can hear things is interesting. It means there are things about the brain we do not know. That absolutely means we need further proper scientific study. I would love to see a lot more such studies done.

In the context of THIS thread however, it tends to be less applicable or interesting because it does not appear to be evidence for any of the things this particular thread is about.

saabsaab · 31-10-2020 4:22pm

If a study (or studies) shows or seems to show consciousness existing when the brain is not showing any function it is central to the OP's question. 'What do you believe happens when we die'

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-10-2020 4:50pm

saabsaab wrote: »

If a study (or studies) shows or seems to show consciousness existing when the brain is not showing any function it is central to the OP's question.

I see two errors with that though.

1) One problem there is that we can not say that "the brain is not showing any function. This is a common lay man error worth watching out for.

When we are measuring brain function in a clinical setting we are almost never measuring ALL function. Rather we are measuring a very select subset of brain functions.

The analogy I usually use here is to imagine you go into a room with a machine built to detect the color red. You go in and the machine shows nothing. That means there is not RED in the room. It does not mean there is no COLOR in the room.

Similarly when in a medical setting a brain reading flatlines this just means that the activity we are measuring has ceased. It does not mean ALL activity has ceased.

This makes it very problematic indeed to declare that something was happening during a period of "not showing any function"

2) What you described in the previous post was not "shows or seems to show consciousness existing". It showed that when the patient became conscious they were able to recall things heard when they were (to our knowledge) unconscious.

See the error in assumption here? We can not assume that consciousness is even required in the first place to "hear" anything.

It is a natural error to make of course. When we think of "hearing" we think of ourselves as a conscious person experiencing and interpreting sound.

But who says consciousness is required at all? When sound hits the ears of an unconscious person it STILL vibrates the hairs of the inner ear. Those hairs STILL translate the vibrations into electrical signals. Those signals STILL travel to the brain.

So just because the person who owns the brain is not conscious, that does not mean we can assume the brain does nothing at all with that input. Why should we assume that? It is perfectly plausible that it processes the inputs in all the other ways that it would regardless of whether the person is conscious or not.

In fact on a lesser scale we already know the brain does this. For example when asleep things heard around us can feed into our dreams.

igCorcaigh · 31-10-2020 5:30pm

saabsaab wrote: »

Physicist David Baum ( Colleague of Oppenheimer) postulated that the universe was a mystical place where past, present, and future coexisted. He believed that there may be a realm of pure information (the implicate order) from which the physical, observable phenomena unfold. He also thought of the universe and the brain as a form of Hologram. He may be wrong but this idea comes close to an idea of God and the meaningless of death as we know it.

I have yet to read Bohm's book, but I'm interested in what he is getting to.

I still can't comprehend how any analysis of physical theory bears any meaning on the human project.

It just seems too hippy dippy to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv-YCwl4H5E

saabsaab · 31-10-2020 5:36pm

igCorcaigh wrote: »

I have yet to read Bohm's book, but I'm interested in what he is getting to.

I still can't comprehend how any analysis of physical theory bears any meaning on the human project.

It just seems too hippy dippy to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv-YCwl4H5E

I must say it does seem 'hippy dippy' However, this seems to be the way with quantum physics in recent times.

igCorcaigh · 31-10-2020 5:42pm

saabsaab wrote: »

I must say it does seem 'hippy dippy' However, this seems to be the way with quantum physics in recent times.

There is a danger, or hope, that we can connect scientific discovery to the human project, and individual lived experience.

The sitting of the Dalai Lama next to a quantum physicist says it all. But maybe that was of its day.

It's all very 1970s

igCorcaigh · 31-10-2020 5:54pm

Nozz good point.

Brain dead is a concept that is reliant on some machine that measures a thing.

saabsaab · 31-10-2020 6:27pm

We can say that "the brain is not showing any function” by the current known means. I am sure others may be developed but this is true for now.

Major Brain functions are measured and used to determine life or death as currently defined and are chosen for their ability/suitability to do so.

'When in a medical setting a brain reading flatlines this just means that the activity we are measuring has ceased.' What else do we have? What evidence is there for ‘other’ activity?

It is reasonable to say that something was happening during a period of "not showing any function" as we currently measure it. Will there be some new measure? Perhaps?

"shows or seems to show consciousness existing". It showed that when the patient became conscious they were able to recall things heard when they were (to our knowledge) unconscious. It can be said that they were not just unconscious but not showing any brain activity or Brain dead. (As per current definition) This cannot be reasonably likened to being asleep when things heard around us can feed into our dreams.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-10-2020 6:49pm

Again no, this is not accurate from you. We have the means to measure many different kinds of activity. It is just in a clinical/medical setting we DONT do so. It is not that we are assuming there is activity there we CANT measure. It is that we know there are other kinds of activity we DONT measure in that setting.

For example one of the most well known is called EEG. But EEG does not measure activity below the cortex. For example actually a "flat" EEG can also be observed during deep anesthesia too. When this happens do you think the doctors are standing around thinking the patient is dead or that there is no activity at all in the patients brain? No. They know that the EEG is only sensitive to SOME kinds of brain activity and that a flat EEG does not tell them there is "No activity" in the brain at all.

This is why measuring brain activity ALONE is rarely used as the only method when diagnosing death in a patient. Because doctors/hospitals know that the equipment they have to measure brain activity is far from perfect. Diagnosing death is actually quite a long process, much more complex than Lay People see in most TV shows and Movies where a patient is pronounced dead when a single monitor in the room flatlines.

Also you are mixing definitions. Not showing activity, and "brain dead" are not interchangeable. They are two different things. Again: A piece of equipment can show no activity (like an EEG) even when activity is there if for example A) the activity is not one that that equipment measures or

the activity does out of the sensitivity range of the equipment in question.

From your posts it SEEMS like you think "brain activity" is one single thing that is either there if it is detected or absent if it is not. It does not work like that. "brain activity" is a range of different things and different equipment measures different parts of it with AND with varying degrees of sensitivity.

smacl · 31-10-2020 7:49pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again no, this is not accurate from you. We have the means to measure many different kinds of activity. It is just in a clinical/medical setting we DONT do so. It is not that we are assuming there is activity there we CANT measure. It is that we know there are other kinds of activity we DONT measure in that setting.

For example one of the most well known is called EEG. But EEG does not measure activity below the cortex. For example actually a "flat" EEG can also be observed during deep anesthesia too. When this happens do you think the doctors are standing around thinking the patient is dead or that there is no activity at all in the patients brain? No. They know that the EEG is only sensitive to SOME kinds of brain activity and that a flat EEG does not tell them there is "No activity" in the brain at all.

This is why measuring brain activity ALONE is rarely used as the only method when diagnosing death in a patient. Because doctors/hospitals know that the equipment they have to measure brain activity is far from perfect. Diagnosing death is actually quite a long process, much more complex than Lay People see in most TV shows and Movies where a patient is pronounced dead when a single monitor in the room flatlines.

Also you are mixing definitions. Not showing activity, and "brain dead" are not interchangeable. They are two different things. Again: A piece of equipment can show no activity (like an EEG) even when activity is there if for example A) the activity is not one that that equipment measures or the activity does out of the sensitivity range of the equipment in question.

From your posts it SEEMS like you think "brain activity" is one single thing that is either there if it is detected or absent if it is not. It does not work like that. "brain activity" is a range of different things and different equipment measures different parts of it with AND with varying degrees of sensitivity.

Agreed entirely. Determining brain death is an involved process that takes quite some time. From the NHS site for example

There are a number of criteria for diagnosing brain death.

For a diagnosis of brain death:

a person must be unconscious and fail to respond to outside stimulation

a person's heartbeat and breathing can only be maintained using a ventilator

there must be clear evidence that serious brain damage has occurred and it cannot be cured

This is likely to involve multiple CAT scans over a period of days and quite an array of tests and diagnostics. It is not a matter of a flat-lined EEG for a period of time. It is a serious mistake to confuse near death experiences with actual brain death, they are no way the same.

saabsaab · 31-10-2020 8:15pm

‘It is that we know there are other kinds of activity we DONT measure in that setting’ Why not? Probably because it is of little use to a Doctor in the case of a life and Death situation.

‘ A "flat" EEG can also be observed during deep anesthesia too.’ If this happens there will be some very worried medical people as they are in danger of death.

‘the equipment they have to measure brain activity is far from perfect. Diagnosing death is actually quite a long process, much more complex than Lay People see in most TV shows and Movies where a patient is pronounced dead when a single monitor in the room flatlines’

The equipment may be less that perfect no argument there.

Coming back from a NDE is just that. However, it was stated in one of the studies i quoted earlier (and you didn’t accept) that it would not have been possible to have perception during this time. Why would they state this if they didn't have a basis to do so?

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-11-2020 12:01pm

saabsaab wrote: »

Why not? Probably because it is of little use to a Doctor in the case of a life and Death situation.

Exactly! Full points that man!

Now that you realize this, think about the majority of NDE cases.

They happen on a hospital table in situations where DURING the NDE they are either not measuring brain activity at all, or they are only measuring a small sub set of it.

Now go read anecdotal reports of those NDE cases, including your "shoe" one above. It is often claimed that the patient was brain dead, or entirely unconscious, or it was impossible for them to be able to see or hear anything.

Now realize what you just said above. The assumption the patient was brain dead, entirely unconscious, or it was impossible for them to see and hear? Assumption! Nothing more. They simply do not know this to be true. They just:

Make.
It.
Up.

Ta Da!

saabsaab wrote: »

If this happens there will be some very worried medical people as they are in danger of death.

No. There are no worried medical people. Because they already know that a flat EEG is common during deep anesthesia. Why would they be worried? They know this is entirely normal and expected.

saabsaab wrote: »

it was stated in one of the studies i quoted earlier (and you didn’t accept) that it would not have been possible to have perception during this time. Why would they state this if they didn't have a basis to do so?

There is any number of reasons why they might do so. The first is bias. They might be biased towards things like there being an after life. So they make things up. It would not be the first science paper by FAR that contains lies or falsified data/claims.

Another is simple error. A scientist is not a god who knows everything. Quite often they are trained in one area and know very little about another. For example I was once surprised to find out how much about the brain Neuro Surgeons do not know or need to know.

The author of that sentence might, like yourself, think the claim is true. They are simply wrong however.

Another is editing. A science paper can pass through many hands on it's way to publication. Someone who did not know any better might have changed that line, or added it.

And so on. And so on. I can think of any number of possible explanations. The point is however it does not matter why the line is in the paper. All that matters is whether the line is correct/true or not.

And to my knowledge, which is far from complete but is extensive enough compared to the lay man, I know of absolutely no basis at this time to consider the sentence in question true. It appears to be assertion entirely made up and based on absolutely nothing at all. There is not even a foot note or qualifier or reference or anything against it in the paper.

As I said: Very bad science writing on the part of the author there.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-11-2020 12:06pm

smacl wrote: »

Agreed entirely. Determining brain death is an involved process that takes quite some time.

Yeah when I first started studying how death is called in a clinical setting I was genuinely surprised at the things they do. Like most laymen my entire knowledge of the subject came from watching Medical Scenes on TV

On TV one machine flatlines (usually a heart monitor on TV) and the doctor says "Call it" and the nurse writes down the time of death.

Depending on the jurisdiction however calling death can take hours. An EEG has to be flat for a full 30 minutes for example, as one of many tests.

But then they do all kinds of things the lay public would not even guess at. For example in some jurisdictions they completely flood the ear canal with water in order to see if it causes a response in the eyes. How weird is that?

At least if you turn out not to be dead and they revive you... you'll have had a free ear syringing and clean out as part of the deal.

saabsaab · 01-11-2020 1:27pm

'They just:

Make.
It.
Up.

Ta Da!'

Really? These people are medics and in some cases Scientists of some related fields. It is not a habit that I am aware of in those professions. In fact they would have little to gain and a lot to lose. Until recently and even still anyone in the Science field is often shunned or won't be funded if they stray into anything that smacks of the 'paranormal' or could be seen as such.

saabsaab · 01-11-2020 1:52pm

main-thumb-58261486-200-qvewpqxoanykcxoylrpuacacjxbiekzh.jpeg

Bill Skaggs

, Neuroscientist and science writer, http://weskaggs.net, @weskaggs on twitter
How consistently can a person flat-line and not die?

"Flat-lining" means that all electrical activity has ceased in the brain. That's the formal definition of brain death: in other words, a person in that condition is already considered dead, legally. Nobody has ever been known to come back to life after flat-lining. Possibly in the future with advanced technology there will be cases where people can be made to recover, but currently a person who has flat-lined is as dead as anybody can possibly be.'

Unusual statement but from a neuroscientist ans seems to back up 'flatlining' as death?

Kaybaykwah · 01-11-2020 1:58pm

Which brings is back to another thread about flat-earthers. They also have extremely low brainwave activity, and yet are considered alive.

smacl · 01-11-2020 2:06pm

saabsaab wrote: »

Bill Skaggs

, Neuroscientist and science writer, http://weskaggs.net, @weskaggs on twitter
How consistently can a person flat-line and not die?

"Flat-lining" means that all electrical activity has ceased in the brain. That's the formal definition of brain death: in other words, a person in that condition is already considered dead, legally. Nobody has ever been known to come back to life after flat-lining. Possibly in the future with advanced technology there will be cases where people can be made to recover, but currently a person who has flat-lined is as dead as anybody can possibly be.'

Unusual statement but from a neuroscientist ans seems to back up 'flatlining' as death?

Do you have a working reference for the above. http://weskaggs.net[/url] does not to appear to be a valid web address and searching for your quoted text above draws a blank on google.

saabsaab · 01-11-2020 2:09pm

Sorry don't have but a search under the name and neuroscientist should get him?

smacl · 01-11-2020 2:44pm

saabsaab wrote: »

Sorry don't have but a search under the name and neuroscientist should get him?

I have, loads of Google scholar stuff on him just nothing with your quoted text attributed to him. Always interested in looking at the context of these things.

The statement that "Flat-lining" means that all electrical activity has ceased in the brain. That's the formal definition of brain death: in other words, a person in that condition is already considered dead, legally. Nobody has ever been known to come back to life after flat-lining would appear to be both specious and ambiguous. e.g. Flat lining using which metric measured using which equipment for how long? The implication here that "flat lining" implies being legally dead is most certainly not this case in this country, nor does it seem to be the case if you search for "formal definition of brain death".

smacl · 01-11-2020 2:49pm

Ok, found your twitter link on Quora here, https://www.quora.com/How-consistently-can-a-person-flatline-and-not-die Comments that follow it are also interesting.

Originally Answered: How consistently can a person flat-line and not die?
"Flat-lining" means that all electrical activity has ceased in the brain. That's the formal definition of brain death: in other words, a person in that condition is already considered dead, legally. Nobody has ever been known to come back to life after flat-lining. Possibly in the future with advanced technology there will be cases where people can be made to recover, but currently a person who has flat-lined is as dead as anybody can possibly be.

2.9K viewsView Upvoters

Kathy Hurst Davis
·
August 21, 2014
Bill, I don't mean to argue but in the hospital or in an ambulance, "flat-lining" is lack of electrical activity of the heart...not the brain. The patient loses a pulse. Brain activity tests are usually only done after a patient has been non reactive in a comatose state.

Craig Ramsay
·
January 12, 2018
Beg to differ. Flatline (more properly asystole) means all electrical activity has ceased in the HEART. The patient is NOT necessarily officially dead yet but for all intents and purposes he /she may as well be. We have brought patients back from asystole but not often.

Tom Nickell
·
March 17, 2015
....without the presence of drugs or anesthetics that would account for lack of activity...

saabsaab · 01-11-2020 2:58pm

I guess 'Flatlining' could be heart or brain or both depending on the machines being used (serious in either case). I would assume that the Parnia studies would be both to raise such attention.

smacl · 01-11-2020 3:22pm

saabsaab wrote: »

I guess 'Flatlining' could be heart or brain or both depending on the machines being used (serious in either case). I would assume that the Parnia studies would be both to raise such attention.

As per my earlier post however, it would seem the notion that EEG flat-lining implies brain death is not currently considered the case. It is most definitely not the case from a legal perspective. From an article in the New Scientist for example.

The findings challenge the notion that an EEG flatline is the ultimate sign of a brain death. Legal criteria vary, but a diagnosis of brain death generally requires two examinations 24 hours apart that show irreversible and complete cessation of brain activity. “We should abandon the idea that a flat EEG proves zero neuronal activity,” says Steven Laureys who researches consciousness at the University of Liege in Belgium.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-11-2020 4:07pm

saabsaab wrote: »

Really? These people are medics and in some cases Scientists of some related fields.

Most of those anecdotes are not recounted by medics or scientists though. They come from the patients themselves or someone close to those patients. Or where they do come from doctors or scientists, they are recounted second or third hand by such people.

But so far you have offered the "shoe" case and not many others. So I am talking in generalities here. If you want to discuss a particular case I can talk more specifically.

Also be cautious with phrases like "related fields". You would be surprised how little people in "related" fields know. As I said earlier for example I was once surprised about how little a neuro-surgeon knew about the brain. At first anyway. Later when I thought about it, it made more sense. Knowledge and skills are becoming more and more specialized. People learn what they need to know to do THEIR jobs. They can be surprisingly ignorant of the rest, even things seemingly closely related.

saabsaab wrote: »

"Flat-lining" means that all electrical activity has ceased in the brain. That's the formal definition of brain death: in other words, a person in that condition is already considered dead, legally.

Pretty much everything in that paragraph is false or at best incomplete. As you said it is very much an "unusual statement". You are entirely right there.

Firstly he does not say WHAT has flatlined. I suspect the statement you have lifted out of context is not even about the brain. In isolation the term "flat lined" traditionally refers to the heart, not the brain. Once upon a time a flat line of the breathing and heart WAS used to determine death. It isn't any more. Your "neuroscientist" here may have some catching up to do from what he learned many years ago in uni.

Secondly even if we do assume he means the brain... which I doubt..... then the statement you pasted does not say WHAT machine flat lined. What instrument exactly is he referring to? I already told you, though you seem to want to ignore it, that a flat EEG for example does not mean all activity in the brain has ceased. It just means the particular activity an EEG is sensitive to has ceased. It is precisely for this reason that a flat EEG alone is NOT USED to determine death in many jurisdictions. I repeat: Even a sedative can cause a flat EEG. What part of that is not clear? I have pointed it out multiple times now. I could also point out that new borns often show nothing on an EEG either. Do you want doctors to start declaring new born kids dead too along with everyone sedated in the dentist?

Thirdly he does not mention which jurisdiction he is referring to. The methodology of determining death "legally" is not universal. It varies from country to country. But in none of the countries I know of like the US and the UK and Ireland and Germany is his statement correct that a flat line determines "legally" that the person is dead. It. Simply. Is. Not. True.

They do all kinds of things INCLUDING an EEG measurement to determine death. Including often:

1) Disconecting breathing machines to see if the brain/body wants to breath on its own.
2) Shine lights into the eyes to look for ocular response.
3) Flood the ears with water to see if it causes a response in the eyes.
4) Inflict painful stimulus (like extreme heavy pressure on the nails) to see if it gets a response.
5) Where used they usually run the EEG for 30 minutes before declaring it shows no activity.
6) CT brain angiography is sometimes used.

And much more. The statement that a flat line therefore "legally" shows death is as laughable as it is false. The writer seems to have no clue at all. Which would leave us back at merely citing his credentials rather than his statements in order to lend his nonsense credence.

saabsaab · 01-11-2020 4:35pm

The procedures you state would only be used in the case of a person in a coma or vegetative state. I have been in hospital where three people have died without any of these being used but just pronounced 'dead' the legal aspect (which shouldn't matter in this context) followed quite a bit later.

It just shows 'when is death' is being set back the more we know. 'The consciousness' may stay in some form as many scientists believe. I know many don't but this is only the start of such questioning.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-11-2020 4:42pm

saabsaab wrote: »

The procedures you state would only be used in the case of a person in a coma or vegetative state.

That is simply not true no. Where are you getting this from? Have you any citations you can offer? If you want I can give you a LIST of links showing what the procedure is to legally declare death. Can you do the same with your claims here?

saabsaab wrote: »

It just shows 'when is death' is being set back the more we know.

Exactly what I have been trying to say yes.

Which means when people say a patient "heard" something when they were meant to be "dead"...... this tells us nothing related to what THIS THREAD is about. Because being dead and being clinically dead are not the same thing. And "Near Death Experience" is about as much an experience of the after life as walking up to a plane but not boarding it is an experience of a sun holiday in Spain.

At best the anecdotes of people being able to describe things after resuscitation tells us there are things we thought we knew, which we were wrong about.

None of it. None. Of. It, is at all evidence of consciousness surviving independent of, or following the death of, the brain. Which is pretty much what this thread is about.

But you have it right, we are "at the start of the questioning". Long may the questions and research continue. And while it does.... people who want to push woo, and nonsense, and the supernatural at us will misconstrue what we do not know with fact and build their little narratives.

saabsaab · 01-11-2020 7:11pm

Some things in Science seem magical see below and may turn out to be real. Or at least as real as can be 'proved' by science.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20600-quantum-magic-trick-shows-reality-is-what-you-make-it/

Also 'Woo and nonsense' is really not a very helpful term and denigrates some beliefs see below but I guess this is less likely in an Atheist forum.

http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-11-2020 12:58pm

saabsaab wrote: »

Some things in Science seem magical see below and may turn out to be real.

So what? Some conspiracy theories also turn out to be true. That does not mean you should treat the NEXT conspiracy theory you hear as credible.

Credibility by association is no credibility at all.

Each claim has to be treated on the merits of it's own substantiation. Coming up with unsubstantiated woo nonsense and then saying "look over there at that completely different thing that turned out to be real after it was claimed to be unsubstantiated woo nonsense" is just a deflection and diversion rhetorical technique that we often see in conversations of conspiracy theory, the paranormal, and the supernatural. Do not be duped by it.

The way things that seemed nonsense in the past turned out to be real, is people did the hard work and substantiated it. Other unsubstantiated nonsense should not gain credence by proxy to the hard work of others.

saabsaab wrote: »

Also 'Woo and nonsense' is really not a very helpful term

You can choose what language you want to use, I will choose the language I want to use. The term is accurate, and is helpful in communicating what I want to communicate. If we are now at the point of leaving the topic at hand, and commenting on each others choice of single words.... the conversation will deteriorate quickly.

If you feel any term I use is not ACCURATE however, by all means let me know. If you personally do not LIKE a term I use.... I am afraid there is not much I can help you with there.