I will not pick quantitative data to present here. I will point you to some good researchers and websites, and the rest I will do at my pleasure. You mine the data; I am not your ASIC.
Again, you cannot demand that someone else present the data, you have to as you are the one asserting something to be true. Rambling subjective tales peppered with pseudo-scientific fallacious statements do not qualify as data.
From what I can tell, quantitative data is found here and elsewhere on this site:
No, that is not quantitative data, it is misrepresentative and dishonest.
Let me give you an example:
The fact of anomalous voices and images is well-established and mundane explanations have not explained their existence. In some instances, visual ITC images have been identified as clearly indicating a known discarnate person. EVP are better understood and provide most of the supporting evidence for survival.
The first half of the first sentence consists of a reference to 'anomalous' voices and images. Well 'anomalous' suggests that which is being experienced by a person is not to be expected, namely, aural and visual halucinations or dreams, which is exactly what is to be expected given that our brains provide us with aural and visual sensory experiences when we are asleep, so unconscious and/or dying brains are just as likely to induce similar.
The second half of the first sentence relies on the dishonest use of the described 'fact' to run on into an assertion that is stated as accepted fact, when it is not. The 'mundane' explanations, that which explains without needing to resort to the 'paranormal', have indeed explained the existence of the aural and visual experiences of the unconscious and/or dying.
The second sentence references images of a 'discarnate' person, well that describes a person without a physical form, otherwise known as, an imagined one.
The third and final sentence is just so epically dishonest that it unintentionally discredits its own argument. There is no evidence for the existence of paranormal 'EVP', none. This means that, considering the sentence ends by stating that this 'EVP' "provides most of the supporting evidence for survival", we can readily disregard any claims towards there being anything like sufficient reasoning or evidence for 'survival'.
I am not appealing to authority; rather, I am demanding that you show that a respected researcher (e.g. Hyslop) is a serial fraudster, as you have claimed, since this is quite an extraordinary and elaborate claim.
Now, as I already said, in that I am not sure if you are genuinely unaware of the intellectually dishonest methods you employ to assert your side of the argument, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Firstly, you are appealing to authority, because you want the assertions made by this 'respected' researcher to be accepted because he is 'respected', not because you are citing a valid methodology employed by him in his research.
Let me give you an example:
Christians and Muslims and Hindus and many other believers in the ooky and the spooky, like to cite the instances of 'respected' scientists, who work in various fields but who possess personal belief systems similar to their own, yet may have achieved great successes in their work, leading to the false argument that, because they are scientists, then their belief systems must, therefore, have some degree of validity.
Wrong.
Personal beliefs are, exactly that, opinions without sufficient data for them to qualify as fact and are often wildly speculative and baseless perceptions arising from psychological conditioning that prevents them from recognising the important difference between the reality they are capable of applying critical thinking to in their work and the 'special pleading' that they require of their beliefs, meaning they demand their personal beliefs not be held to the same standard of analysis as, well, everything we know about reality.
For you to then dishonestly claim that I said he was a 'serial fraudster' and to quickly tack on that I must provide for extraordinary evidence to support this 'elaborate claim', leads me to suspect you are being intentionally deflective and merely resorting to the same tactic you have employed from the beginning, asserting something to be accepted fact and then demanding that your opponent in this debate have to then go off and hunt through a haystack of dubious 'data' and fallacious reasoning in order to debunk each and every piece of it.
you cannot imply that there could be unknown methodological flaws in the experiments since it is impossible for any scientist to defend his work against that type of criticism.
I'm not implying there could be unknown methodological flaws in the experiments, I'm saying that I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the methodology employed is entirely flawed. I can confidently state this because, if these experiments could actually withstand critical analysis from the actual scientific community, it would be GLOBAL news of staggering proportion.
I will gladly discuss the controls and methods for this case, and attempt to refute any alleged flaws.
No, again you ask for me to go through the information in these cases when it is you who needs to be able to prove sufficient controls and methodology for the experiment concerned to be considered of sufficient high standard for the results to be considered objective and reasonable.
In no other field of science would a positive experimental result be criticized because there might be sources of errors that no one can think of. Consider this before posting or repeating any further criticism.
Firstly, it's not 'science', it's pseudoscience, relying on erroneous and dishonest presentation of experimental data that is grossly flawed from the start.
Secondly, actually you are wrong, in EVERY field of science, positive experimental results are absolutely criticised through peer-review if the data cannot be considered reliable indications of what is concluded.
One final thing, regarding all these Doctorates bandied about by the proponents of that site, Psychology is not a science any more than Philosophy is.
