Do not confuse the free flow of information for people’s lack of self-control. Information cannot hurt people, only their actions can do that. The problem is not with the information. Legitimizing behaviors will only make it worse.

“Your use of the example of children choking themselves seems like using a small sample size to prove your point”

You are jumping to conclusions. For you to pretend I have only one example without asking if it is the only example I have is intellectually dishonest on your part. Due to limited space, I gave one obvious, recent, and irrefutable example, since one example *IS* enough to prove my point. I mean, in your opinion, what arbitrary number of examples must there be before my point is true or false? HINT: It is true even if it is the only example. But just to humor you, think of the hippies of 1960’s if you want hundreds of examples (and again, not the only ones).

“Is that not what you are arguing against when you complain about small sample size?”

Sample size is irrelevant to non-statistical observations. All it takes is one relevant and contradictory observation to invalidate a theory, and I gave that one relevant and contradictory example.

“I think that the fact that we can’t examine these experiences reliably (at least yet) in a lab is no reason to ignore them completely”

That is completely untrue. Those kind of experiences have been reliably examined by psychologists and psychiatrists for many, many years now.

“Unreliability of a phenomenon does not always equal non-existence. This I think is our basic difference in opinion”

But it is not my opinion you disagree with, but a strawman. I did not say that unreliability equals non-existence. I am saying that the complete lack of evidence where much evidence is expected equals non-existence. For example, if someone claims that they successfully detonated a 10 megaton A-Bomb in their backyard last night, the lack of a crater, residual radiation, a blinding flash, millions of casualties, and massive destruction of tens of square miles of landscape would be absolute proof that they did not in fact successfully detonate a 10 megaton A-bomb in their backyard last night. UFOs, afterlife experiences, ESP, ghosts, etc, fall exactly into the category of the person who claimed the successfully detonated a 10 megaton A-Bomb in their backyard last night.

One of the risks of a free society and the free flow of information is that people might hurt themselves. Your use of the example of children choking themselves seems like using a small sample size to prove your point. Is that not what you are arguing against when you complain about small sample size?

Of course there are many more instances of people not having “otherworldly” experiences on psychedelics, and as you point out, the record of afterlife experiences are hit-and-miss as well.

I think that the fact that we can’t examine these experiences reliably (at least yet) in a lab is no reason to ignore them completely. Unreliability of a phenomenon does not always equal non-existence. This I think is our basic difference in opinion.

Writing cannot convey tone so you really do not know what the tone was. The tone is whatever you want it to be, but in reality it could have been sarcastic or it could have been condescending or it could have been resigning or it could have been a bad slang habit.

“…could be construed by many people as dismissive”

I will be dismissive of this comment, since not only do we not know what other people think (I have no ESP — do you?), it is irrelevant what other people think. What matters is what you think. If *YOU* think it is being dismissive, say so. But rather then go on forever and ever about this very minor issue, I will apologize for making that statement and I would like to re-word what I said to…

–BEGIN–
There is nothing to be gained by analyzing what happened to Kekule, as many people would like to do, since there is no evidence that Kekule was inspired by a dream. It could have been a false memory for all we actually know but all we have is his word (read: storytale). What is more likely and realistic, if we pretend the dream occurred and since there is evidence for this is: Kekule expressed in a dream what he already knew.
–END–

All the “possibilities” you mentioned are not possibilities anymore than Aesop’s Fables is a possibility. If you want to question something, question something that is not intangible or invisible or hearsay or wives tales or requires blind faith belief and drugs. Questioning these kinds of experience is not the logically proper thing to do. Besides, that kind of thinking legitimizes mentally and physically dangerous experimentation like the choking game, in which many children have claimed to have afterlife experiences — if they do not die of choking altogether first.

Notice how people that follow after these pseudoscientific sort of things always filter the data (not necessarily on purpose, but usually due to ignorance), therefore you will only read about the few successes and never the failures. When I see a new diet drug or exercise machine come out, the first thing I want to know is how many people have failed to obtain results with these things, but you never see that. That is how I know they are phony, since they are not being completely honest and up front with us. How many people have taken DMT or psilocybin and never had an abduction-like experience? How many afterlife experiences were there that all they remember was nothing? The vast majority. So why is it that they pick out the alleged afterlife experiences in which the person claims to have gone to Heaven or Hell, and ignore the alternate endings or the nothingness experiences? Maybe the “real experience” was the nothingness experience? We will never know because no one will ever investigate those experiences — that is not where the money is at.

Your tone with: “Yeah, like that is an example of how science is always worked…not!” could be construed by many people as dismissive.

What I wanted to suggest was that inspiration is important in any pursuit, including science. Keukle’s success was the result of a lot of hard work, not just dreams. In fact, the previous theorizing he had enaged in may have been the cause of the inspired dream, or breakthough, or whatever it was.

While I speculated in what I think are interesting possibilties, you answered as if I was thinking in generalities. To me, that is changing the meaning of what I wrote–a meaning that was clear in the original post.

I don’t think absolutes are appropriate in any study until the answers are reasonably nailed down, and sometimes even after that.

I did notice that you meant “none” or “never.” That’s why I took issue with your comments in the first place.

It is not called “being dismissive of your opinion” but “having an opinion different then your own”.

“You changed the meaning of my post by stating ‘Yeah, like that is an example of how science is always worked…’”

Do you want to tell me that science is conducted anything like what happened to Kekule? If not, then the meaning of your post has not changed, it has been clarified.

“Notice that I wrote ’some,’ not ‘all’ or ‘the most important.’

Notice that I meant ‘none’ or ‘never’. What happened to Kekule is completely and totally irrelevant to actual reality. There is nothing to factually or logically discuss about Kekule’s alleged dream. Random events with random associations and that 100% irreproducible are not anything to ever question and the only logically proper thing to do is to dismiss such wives tales. Things like that should never be associated with science in any way, shape, form, or quantity because they actually, factually, and logically have nothing to do with science but superstition.

“I think that you twisted the meaning of what I wrote to suggest that I was arguing that ALL good ideas originate in dreams”

Think again.

You changed the meaning of my post by stating “Yeah, like that is an example of how science is always worked…”

Besides being dismissive of my opinion, it took a concept that I had been careful to qualify, and changed into an absolute.

I preceded the paragraph about Kekule by stating that “we need to ask where some original ideas are born.”

Notice that I wrote “some,” not “all” or “the most important.” I think that you twisted the meaning of what I wrote to suggest that I was arguing that ALL good ideas originate in dreams.

I think that most people would realize this when reading the post.

Quote me where I specifically claimed you said those words.

My point simply was that dreams are notorious for completely failing to work, yet people (read: not just people reading this) ignore all the failures and glorify the random and accidental successes, as they do with Kekule, as if there was nothing else but the successes. Kekule’s contributions to reality are what is important, not his imaginary dreams.

I think these “alternate realities” are worth looking at, without rejecting science and other methods we use to learn about our world and how we view it.

I never said that science works by imagination and dreams, I only said that sometimes inspiration in concert with research produces valuable results. Don’t put words in my mouth (or keyboard.)

“In 1865, German chemist Friedrich August Kekule was working on the problem of the structure of the benzene molecule when he dropped off into a hypnogogic reverie. In this state, he saw an image of a snake eating its tail. When he awoke, he realized that the organic chemical’s structure was based on a ring of six carbon atoms”

Yeah, like that is an example of how science is always worked…not! Think of all the times that major discoveries were made without resorting to a dream. Obviously there are other ways of knowing reality that work far better than dreams have. What happened with Kekule was a random event, not something that happened on purpose or could ever be reproduced.

Err… don’t you mean left-brain reductionist, dear Greg?