<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The NDE and its Interpretation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/</link>
	<description>A weekly podcast exploring Mormon culture and current events.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:18:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: HiJolly</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-125831</link>
		<dc:creator>HiJolly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:19:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-125831</guid>
		<description>http://www.nderf.org/william_si&#039;s_nde.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.nderf.org/william_si&#039;s_nde.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.nderf.org/william_si&#039;s_nde.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Snowman</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-125728</link>
		<dc:creator>Snowman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 02:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-125728</guid>
		<description>I would like to get in touch with William S................. How might I go about this??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to get in touch with William S&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. How might I go about this??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William S</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-125001</link>
		<dc:creator>William S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:33:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-125001</guid>
		<description>Thanks Arthur.  I can agree with your statement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Arthur.  I can agree with your statement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124991</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:47:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124991</guid>
		<description>Well, it&#039;s like Oscar Wilde said.  &quot;The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, it&#8217;s like Oscar Wilde said.  &#8220;The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William S</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124986</link>
		<dc:creator>William S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124986</guid>
		<description>Ok Everyone, TIME OUT.   I want to address some points made.  If it is concerning the Randi Foundation and their &quot;test&quot;, so to speak, there must be an inate reason why people like John Edward, Betty Edie, James Von Prough and others have not taken the &quot;test&quot;.  Intuitive abilities can not be explained by &quot;exact science&quot;, there are to many variables.  It is like trying to study people that have had NDE&#039;s.  Way to many variables, each experience is different, although the underlying base is still the same.

As I said, I have had my abilities since birth, only enhanced since my NDE&#039;s.  People make think I&#039;ve had it fairly well with using my abilites.  The actual effect has been the opposite.  My abilities scared the heck out of my parents.  I am not even going to begin to try and count the number of beating (and I mean that, I&#039;m not lying, I have no reason to lie) I have gotten for doing what came natural.  I was told as a child that I was in league with the devil for having my abilities.  It wasn&#039;t until I was older that I began to fully accept them as gifts from Heavenly Father.  It has taken me years to build up my self-esteem in regards to who I am and what my gifts are.

I do appreciate each and everyone of your comments.  I don&#039;t doubt my abilities, that I am very sure of.  I just don&#039;t need nor want to have that kind of recognition.  I just don&#039;t understand how helping the &quot;less fortunate&quot; comes into this.  People turn to me when the police have no where else to go.  I sense things the police haven&#039;t checked or missed in their first examination of a case.  In many ways I&#039;m a private person, that is why I haven&#039;t put my last name down.  As I said, I don&#039;t hide my abilities under a bushel, the Lord guides the people who need my abilities when they need it and not before.  I don&#039;t seek out cases, people bring them to me.

Intuitve abilities, like I said are extremely hard to put statistical evaluations to, just like NDE&#039;s.  To many variables.  There are people in the world that don&#039;t even realize they are intuitive.  However, using your abilites is like playing the piano, it takes practice and keeping journals.  It&#039;s not something someone is going to wake up one morning and say, &quot;I&#039;m Psychic&quot;, I&#039;m going to go predict the future today.&quot;  This is something they have known their whole life and many times didn&#039;t talk about because of the negative &quot;press&quot; that it can cause from non-believers.  Now if this starts another big conversation, Arthur you may have a bigger article than you started with.

I am an individual, a child of God.  I&#039;ve been gifted with what I have.  I use it in the way Heavenly Father wants me to use it and to help those that need it.  A true intuitive is this way and not one that hangs a sign over a door that says: &quot;Psychic&quot; Let me tell you past, present and future.&quot;  That is what I consider to be Bull-hocky.  That is a fake, not a real intuitive.  I&#039;ve tested them and they got nothing right.  I have only had one intuitive I tested and I instinctly blocked her.  I knew she was an honest intuitive because the first thing she asked me was why I was blocking her.  She actually got quite a bit right and sensed other things I needed to know.  This lady didn&#039;t have a shop or own a &quot;psychic&quot; business, she didn&#039;t want it.  She used her abilities for other things, in the way the Lord guided her.  Just as I do.

I&#039;ve written another tome, again, thank you for the comments and suggestions.  Please understand I don&#039;t care to go that direction and never have had that desire.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok Everyone, TIME OUT.   I want to address some points made.  If it is concerning the Randi Foundation and their &#8220;test&#8221;, so to speak, there must be an inate reason why people like John Edward, Betty Edie, James Von Prough and others have not taken the &#8220;test&#8221;.  Intuitive abilities can not be explained by &#8220;exact science&#8221;, there are to many variables.  It is like trying to study people that have had NDE&#8217;s.  Way to many variables, each experience is different, although the underlying base is still the same.</p>
<p>As I said, I have had my abilities since birth, only enhanced since my NDE&#8217;s.  People make think I&#8217;ve had it fairly well with using my abilites.  The actual effect has been the opposite.  My abilities scared the heck out of my parents.  I am not even going to begin to try and count the number of beating (and I mean that, I&#8217;m not lying, I have no reason to lie) I have gotten for doing what came natural.  I was told as a child that I was in league with the devil for having my abilities.  It wasn&#8217;t until I was older that I began to fully accept them as gifts from Heavenly Father.  It has taken me years to build up my self-esteem in regards to who I am and what my gifts are.</p>
<p>I do appreciate each and everyone of your comments.  I don&#8217;t doubt my abilities, that I am very sure of.  I just don&#8217;t need nor want to have that kind of recognition.  I just don&#8217;t understand how helping the &#8220;less fortunate&#8221; comes into this.  People turn to me when the police have no where else to go.  I sense things the police haven&#8217;t checked or missed in their first examination of a case.  In many ways I&#8217;m a private person, that is why I haven&#8217;t put my last name down.  As I said, I don&#8217;t hide my abilities under a bushel, the Lord guides the people who need my abilities when they need it and not before.  I don&#8217;t seek out cases, people bring them to me.</p>
<p>Intuitve abilities, like I said are extremely hard to put statistical evaluations to, just like NDE&#8217;s.  To many variables.  There are people in the world that don&#8217;t even realize they are intuitive.  However, using your abilites is like playing the piano, it takes practice and keeping journals.  It&#8217;s not something someone is going to wake up one morning and say, &#8220;I&#8217;m Psychic&#8221;, I&#8217;m going to go predict the future today.&#8221;  This is something they have known their whole life and many times didn&#8217;t talk about because of the negative &#8220;press&#8221; that it can cause from non-believers.  Now if this starts another big conversation, Arthur you may have a bigger article than you started with.</p>
<p>I am an individual, a child of God.  I&#8217;ve been gifted with what I have.  I use it in the way Heavenly Father wants me to use it and to help those that need it.  A true intuitive is this way and not one that hangs a sign over a door that says: &#8220;Psychic&#8221; Let me tell you past, present and future.&#8221;  That is what I consider to be Bull-hocky.  That is a fake, not a real intuitive.  I&#8217;ve tested them and they got nothing right.  I have only had one intuitive I tested and I instinctly blocked her.  I knew she was an honest intuitive because the first thing she asked me was why I was blocking her.  She actually got quite a bit right and sensed other things I needed to know.  This lady didn&#8217;t have a shop or own a &#8220;psychic&#8221; business, she didn&#8217;t want it.  She used her abilities for other things, in the way the Lord guided her.  Just as I do.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve written another tome, again, thank you for the comments and suggestions.  Please understand I don&#8217;t care to go that direction and never have had that desire.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124981</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:32:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124981</guid>
		<description>Gotcha.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gotcha.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dexter</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124980</link>
		<dc:creator>Dexter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:29:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124980</guid>
		<description>My problem is not with god. My problem is with people speaking for or about god.  Obviously, I don&#039;t believe jehovah would want to commit genocide and then be such a prince in the new testament.  Thus, I don&#039;t believe the bible, among a million other reasons.  It is not credible.  I believe it is wrong to speak for god because whenever humans do that they are just attempting to make their words more authoritative.  If god exists, he would know better than to let humans speak for him.  If god does not exist, he has no words that humans need to communicate to other humans.  Either way, whenever someone speaks for god they are lying, mistaken, or deluded.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My problem is not with god. My problem is with people speaking for or about god.  Obviously, I don&#8217;t believe jehovah would want to commit genocide and then be such a prince in the new testament.  Thus, I don&#8217;t believe the bible, among a million other reasons.  It is not credible.  I believe it is wrong to speak for god because whenever humans do that they are just attempting to make their words more authoritative.  If god exists, he would know better than to let humans speak for him.  If god does not exist, he has no words that humans need to communicate to other humans.  Either way, whenever someone speaks for god they are lying, mistaken, or deluded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124977</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:22:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124977</guid>
		<description>Then your problem isn&#039;t with people who speak for God, your problem is with God.  If Jesus could speak to Moses as a divine being, then He is God.  Or at least an angel.

Unless you think that he was some sort of demon.  I guess you could believe that too if you wanted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Then your problem isn&#8217;t with people who speak for God, your problem is with God.  If Jesus could speak to Moses as a divine being, then He is God.  Or at least an angel.</p>
<p>Unless you think that he was some sort of demon.  I guess you could believe that too if you wanted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dexter</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124976</link>
		<dc:creator>Dexter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:16:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124976</guid>
		<description>Yes.  I don&#039;t trust people hell bent on committing genocide.  Do you?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes.  I don&#8217;t trust people hell bent on committing genocide.  Do you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124975</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:13:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124975</guid>
		<description>Beg pardon?  We should ignore Jesus, a man who lived from 4 BC - 33 AD, because, when he was a divine being in Old Testament times, he commanded Moses to commit genocide?

I&#039;m glad you enjoyed the post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Beg pardon?  We should ignore Jesus, a man who lived from 4 BC &#8211; 33 AD, because, when he was a divine being in Old Testament times, he commanded Moses to commit genocide?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad you enjoyed the post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kuri</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124962</link>
		<dc:creator>kuri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124962</guid>
		<description>Thanks Arthur, I&#039;ll look for the book. I should clarify that I don&#039;t hate philosophy. (In fact, I&#039;ve spent far more time discussing metaphysics than I ever have looking through microscopes.) But (except for those invaluable branches that have taught us how to reason rigorously and logically, and without which there could be no effective science) I regard it primarily as entertainment, not as a way of learning anything factual about the world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Arthur, I&#8217;ll look for the book. I should clarify that I don&#8217;t hate philosophy. (In fact, I&#8217;ve spent far more time discussing metaphysics than I ever have looking through microscopes.) But (except for those invaluable branches that have taught us how to reason rigorously and logically, and without which there could be no effective science) I regard it primarily as entertainment, not as a way of learning anything factual about the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dexter</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124949</link>
		<dc:creator>Dexter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:23:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124949</guid>
		<description>You said &quot;I couldn’t advocate ignoring someone like Jesus just because of someone like Hitler.&quot;

I agree to disagree with you.  I would advocate ignoring them both.

Did Jesus not command Moses to commit genocide?  Did he not command Moses to kill all the Midianite boys no matter how young?  Did Moses not, at Jehovah&#039;s request, command his generals to kill all the boys (after they spared them) and all the non-virgin women and to take all the young girls as slaves?

Anyway, we are getting off topic.  Despite our differences on speaking for god and such I really enjoyed the NDE post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You said &#8220;I couldn’t advocate ignoring someone like Jesus just because of someone like Hitler.&#8221;</p>
<p>I agree to disagree with you.  I would advocate ignoring them both.</p>
<p>Did Jesus not command Moses to commit genocide?  Did he not command Moses to kill all the Midianite boys no matter how young?  Did Moses not, at Jehovah&#8217;s request, command his generals to kill all the boys (after they spared them) and all the non-virgin women and to take all the young girls as slaves?</p>
<p>Anyway, we are getting off topic.  Despite our differences on speaking for god and such I really enjoyed the NDE post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124844</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:54:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124844</guid>
		<description>Right.  Uri Geller and all that.  Proof positive that there are many who do deceive and make money off so-called &quot;psychic powers.&quot;

Kuri, you might find a certain book interesting (it&#039;s not philosophical, I promise).  It&#039;s called Outside the Gates of Science by Damien Broaderick.  He&#039;s a committed atheist, but he presents a pretty good case for psi (in this case remote viewing and precognition amongst other things), and cites many scientific studies that have been done with significant results.  In addition, since he&#039;s a &quot;vulgar materialist&quot; as you say you are, he devotes several chapters to naturalistic explanations of psi, and how it increases chances of survival in the wild, etc.  Pretty good book, and his references and statistics are quite rigorous.  It&#039;s entertaining too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right.  Uri Geller and all that.  Proof positive that there are many who do deceive and make money off so-called &#8220;psychic powers.&#8221;</p>
<p>Kuri, you might find a certain book interesting (it&#8217;s not philosophical, I promise).  It&#8217;s called Outside the Gates of Science by Damien Broaderick.  He&#8217;s a committed atheist, but he presents a pretty good case for psi (in this case remote viewing and precognition amongst other things), and cites many scientific studies that have been done with significant results.  In addition, since he&#8217;s a &#8220;vulgar materialist&#8221; as you say you are, he devotes several chapters to naturalistic explanations of psi, and how it increases chances of survival in the wild, etc.  Pretty good book, and his references and statistics are quite rigorous.  It&#8217;s entertaining too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kuri</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124838</link>
		<dc:creator>kuri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124838</guid>
		<description>Arthur #63,

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of telekinesis -- either the spoon bends or it doesn&#039;t -- but of course that&#039;s not relevant to what William does.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arthur #63,</p>
<p>Well, I was thinking more along the lines of telekinesis &#8212; either the spoon bends or it doesn&#8217;t &#8212; but of course that&#8217;s not relevant to what William does.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124822</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:07:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124822</guid>
		<description>Hmm, in regards to #63, I should correct myself.  I did a little research and found out that due to a critical article regarding the Challenge (http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge), Randi has decreased the statistical expectation to one-in-100 for the preliminary challenge, and one-in-100,000 for the main challenge.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm, in regards to #63, I should correct myself.  I did a little research and found out that due to a critical article regarding the Challenge (<a href="http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge</a>), Randi has decreased the statistical expectation to one-in-100 for the preliminary challenge, and one-in-100,000 for the main challenge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124812</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:27:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124812</guid>
		<description>#62. Again, we&#039;ll have to agree to disagree.  I&#039;ve experienced wonderful, beautifl, life-changing things from heeding the advice of people who SAID they were speaking for God.  Jesus being the main one.  I couldn&#039;t advocate ignoring someone like Jesus just because of someone like Hitler.  Maybe that&#039;s just where we&#039;re different.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#62. Again, we&#8217;ll have to agree to disagree.  I&#8217;ve experienced wonderful, beautifl, life-changing things from heeding the advice of people who SAID they were speaking for God.  Jesus being the main one.  I couldn&#8217;t advocate ignoring someone like Jesus just because of someone like Hitler.  Maybe that&#8217;s just where we&#8217;re different.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124810</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:14:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124810</guid>
		<description>#61. I don&#039;t know what test that could be, then.  Some sort of qualitative study?  I don&#039;t know of a scientific test that Randi could use that didn&#039;t use some kind of p-value and an estimation of likelihood of reaching that result if the null hypothesis is true.  When doing clinical trials of medications, scientists NEVER use simple &quot;positive&quot; or &quot;negative&quot; results or qualitative studies.  In any case, from what I&#039;ve read about Randi&#039;s preliminary setups for his Challenge, he uses p-values, which indicates a statistical trial.  And the p-value he chooses has been 0.018, 0.005, and even 0.000001 at least once, which is very large considering most scientists stick with 0.05 or 0.01.  Randi has never accepted a Challenge at just the 0.05 level, which is what science usually accepts for a statistically significant outcome.

So I guess what I&#039;m saying is, I&#039;m not sure what you mean by &quot;a positive result&quot; in terms of scientific testing, and I&#039;m not sure how that would translate into a test.  For instance, in William&#039;s case, if William were to try to guess the circumstances of an event he was previously unaware of.  If he got 6 out of 10 facts correct, would that be enough?  You have to have some kind of statistical likelihood of getting it right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#61. I don&#8217;t know what test that could be, then.  Some sort of qualitative study?  I don&#8217;t know of a scientific test that Randi could use that didn&#8217;t use some kind of p-value and an estimation of likelihood of reaching that result if the null hypothesis is true.  When doing clinical trials of medications, scientists NEVER use simple &#8220;positive&#8221; or &#8220;negative&#8221; results or qualitative studies.  In any case, from what I&#8217;ve read about Randi&#8217;s preliminary setups for his Challenge, he uses p-values, which indicates a statistical trial.  And the p-value he chooses has been 0.018, 0.005, and even 0.000001 at least once, which is very large considering most scientists stick with 0.05 or 0.01.  Randi has never accepted a Challenge at just the 0.05 level, which is what science usually accepts for a statistically significant outcome.</p>
<p>So I guess what I&#8217;m saying is, I&#8217;m not sure what you mean by &#8220;a positive result&#8221; in terms of scientific testing, and I&#8217;m not sure how that would translate into a test.  For instance, in William&#8217;s case, if William were to try to guess the circumstances of an event he was previously unaware of.  If he got 6 out of 10 facts correct, would that be enough?  You have to have some kind of statistical likelihood of getting it right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dexter</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124808</link>
		<dc:creator>Dexter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:52:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124808</guid>
		<description>Arthur, you continually misunderstand.  Why are you mentioning Hitler? I stated, &quot;But I think when people are manipulating god’s will to motivate or persuade it can be more dangerous than a man simply using his power or stating his own opinion.&quot;  And you think you can count Hitler on your side of the debate?  I never said the evil men had to truly believe, I said when people manipulate god&#039;s will to motivate or persuade...&quot;  Whether Hitler was an atheist or not, he used religious rhetoric to convince the masses to turn a blind eye to the holocaust.  Hitler said, &quot;I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord&#039;s work.&quot;  Hitler also said, &quot;Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.&quot;  And do you think the holocause could have happened without thousands of years of hateful propoganda against the jews being taught by the religious?  I think not.  We could argue the numbers game forever and never reach an accurate amount, I would guess.  But my point is not that we need to root out all people who claim to speak for god and leave alone evil men who do not claim to speak for god.  My point is, we should be wary of those who claim to speak for god.  History teaches this is a dangerous road.  But that is only one of many dangerous roads.  But most roads don&#039;t have such an easy warning sign.  But this one does.  If someone claims to speak for god, run the other way, or, at least, be very skeptical.  Let me put it this way.  I would be more wary of my son&#039;s teacher telling him that &quot;cheating on your exam is wrong because god told me&quot; than if he said &quot;cheating on your exam is wrong.&quot;  Obviously, this is a rather benign example but you can imagine how I would feel if someone were to try to teach something more controversial in the name of god.  

Now, as far as William is concerned, I respect his comments as well.  But I won&#039;t congratulate him.  And I never compared his actions to those of the hijackers.  My comment about the hijackers was more to the general issue of the dangers that can arise from those who maniulate god when teaching others.  I don&#039;t think William is doing this at all.  But approving of people teaching the will of god in one sphere is a tacit approval that others can teach whatever they want in the name of god in other spheres.  I think it is immoral in any sphere.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arthur, you continually misunderstand.  Why are you mentioning Hitler? I stated, &#8220;But I think when people are manipulating god’s will to motivate or persuade it can be more dangerous than a man simply using his power or stating his own opinion.&#8221;  And you think you can count Hitler on your side of the debate?  I never said the evil men had to truly believe, I said when people manipulate god&#8217;s will to motivate or persuade&#8230;&#8221;  Whether Hitler was an atheist or not, he used religious rhetoric to convince the masses to turn a blind eye to the holocaust.  Hitler said, &#8220;I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord&#8217;s work.&#8221;  Hitler also said, &#8220;Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.&#8221;  And do you think the holocause could have happened without thousands of years of hateful propoganda against the jews being taught by the religious?  I think not.  We could argue the numbers game forever and never reach an accurate amount, I would guess.  But my point is not that we need to root out all people who claim to speak for god and leave alone evil men who do not claim to speak for god.  My point is, we should be wary of those who claim to speak for god.  History teaches this is a dangerous road.  But that is only one of many dangerous roads.  But most roads don&#8217;t have such an easy warning sign.  But this one does.  If someone claims to speak for god, run the other way, or, at least, be very skeptical.  Let me put it this way.  I would be more wary of my son&#8217;s teacher telling him that &#8220;cheating on your exam is wrong because god told me&#8221; than if he said &#8220;cheating on your exam is wrong.&#8221;  Obviously, this is a rather benign example but you can imagine how I would feel if someone were to try to teach something more controversial in the name of god.  </p>
<p>Now, as far as William is concerned, I respect his comments as well.  But I won&#8217;t congratulate him.  And I never compared his actions to those of the hijackers.  My comment about the hijackers was more to the general issue of the dangers that can arise from those who maniulate god when teaching others.  I don&#8217;t think William is doing this at all.  But approving of people teaching the will of god in one sphere is a tacit approval that others can teach whatever they want in the name of god in other spheres.  I think it is immoral in any sphere.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kuri</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124807</link>
		<dc:creator>kuri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:44:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124807</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;If psychic intuition is real but sporadic or subtle, the challenge will never find that out and will always prove it “false.” &lt;/i&gt;

I wouldn&#039;t think so. I&#039;d think it would get sporadic or subtle &quot;positives.&quot; So far, it&#039;s gotten only &quot;negatives.&quot;

&lt;i&gt;Scientific trials usually set an alpha level (0.05 or whatever), and calculate how likely a result could be obtained by chance, and I think that’s a better (though still flawed) system.&lt;/i&gt;

That&#039;s only statistical trials, though. There are other types of science experiments that expect uniformly positive or negative results.

&lt;i&gt;For instance, antidepressants work for some people, but not others, and not too much more than a placebo in many cases. Randi’s challenge would “fail” every antidepressant we’ve ever developed.&lt;/i&gt;

Randi&#039;s method only requires one positive (or two, since they now require a preliminary test), so (although they wouldn&#039;t test them, because the method is inappropriate) I think it would generate many positives, some true and some false.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>If psychic intuition is real but sporadic or subtle, the challenge will never find that out and will always prove it “false.” </i></p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t think so. I&#8217;d think it would get sporadic or subtle &#8220;positives.&#8221; So far, it&#8217;s gotten only &#8220;negatives.&#8221;</p>
<p><i>Scientific trials usually set an alpha level (0.05 or whatever), and calculate how likely a result could be obtained by chance, and I think that’s a better (though still flawed) system.</i></p>
<p>That&#8217;s only statistical trials, though. There are other types of science experiments that expect uniformly positive or negative results.</p>
<p><i>For instance, antidepressants work for some people, but not others, and not too much more than a placebo in many cases. Randi’s challenge would “fail” every antidepressant we’ve ever developed.</i></p>
<p>Randi&#8217;s method only requires one positive (or two, since they now require a preliminary test), so (although they wouldn&#8217;t test them, because the method is inappropriate) I think it would generate many positives, some true and some false.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124806</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124806</guid>
		<description>#58.  I agree and appreciate your comments (and tone).  Then again, my life has been changed by (even local) music in big, objective, quantifiable ways, so I&#039;d have to disagree with you on that point.  As far as William&#039;s talent goes, maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn&#039;t.

The problem as I see it with Randi&#039;s challenge is that so far, the challenge hasn&#039;t been necessarily scientific.  If psychic intuition is real but sporadic or subtle, the challenge will never find that out and will always prove it &quot;false.&quot;  Scientific trials usually set an alpha level (0.05 or whatever), and calculate how likely a result could be obtained by chance, and I think that&#039;s a better (though still flawed) system.

For instance, antidepressants work for some people, but not others, and not too much more than a placebo in many cases.  Randi&#039;s challenge would &quot;fail&quot; every antidepressant we&#039;ve ever developed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#58.  I agree and appreciate your comments (and tone).  Then again, my life has been changed by (even local) music in big, objective, quantifiable ways, so I&#8217;d have to disagree with you on that point.  As far as William&#8217;s talent goes, maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>The problem as I see it with Randi&#8217;s challenge is that so far, the challenge hasn&#8217;t been necessarily scientific.  If psychic intuition is real but sporadic or subtle, the challenge will never find that out and will always prove it &#8220;false.&#8221;  Scientific trials usually set an alpha level (0.05 or whatever), and calculate how likely a result could be obtained by chance, and I think that&#8217;s a better (though still flawed) system.</p>
<p>For instance, antidepressants work for some people, but not others, and not too much more than a placebo in many cases.  Randi&#8217;s challenge would &#8220;fail&#8221; every antidepressant we&#8217;ve ever developed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124803</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:16:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124803</guid>
		<description>#56. And I disagree.  I can definitely understand your point, and I think people who claim to be speaking in God&#039;s name can be dangerous.  But I disagree that it&#039;s somehow worse than what Mao, Stalin, and Lenin all did in the 20th Century.  Personally, I have no idea how someone who lived in the 20th Century could even still believe that leading people &quot;in God&#039;s name&quot; is more dangerous than not, in terms of sheer numbers.  Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Lenin could have killed more than 100 million.  Seriously, over 100 million.  And that&#039;s being generous and not including Hitler.  In the name of the &quot;workers&quot; or of &quot;communism&quot; or whatever, stamping out all religion in the name of the dictator or party.  So if you say that a guy who believes he&#039;s doing God&#039;s will is TRULY more dangerous, you need to state why you think that, and why 100 million people isn&#039;t enough to convince you.  But that&#039;s not the point of this discussion.  I don&#039;t think you can judge atheists or even Communists by what these men did.  It&#039;s just not good logic.

More immediately, I appreciate William&#039;s comments on the site, and think that he&#039;s doing what he thinks is right.  I appreciate your comments too.  I just don&#039;t feel like what William is doing is somehow morally equivalent or even comparable to the terroristic murder of thousands of people.  Sorry, I just can&#039;t make that leap.  I don&#039;t even know how what William is doing (trying to aid the police solving crimes using &quot;intuitions&quot;) is a stepping stone to flying a plane into a building full of thousands of people.

Sorry if you&#039;ve interpreted my posts as dismissive.  I&#039;m not intending to be dismissive, I just think we can have a civil discussion with one another without constantly comparing each other to the 9/11 hijackers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#56. And I disagree.  I can definitely understand your point, and I think people who claim to be speaking in God&#8217;s name can be dangerous.  But I disagree that it&#8217;s somehow worse than what Mao, Stalin, and Lenin all did in the 20th Century.  Personally, I have no idea how someone who lived in the 20th Century could even still believe that leading people &#8220;in God&#8217;s name&#8221; is more dangerous than not, in terms of sheer numbers.  Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Lenin could have killed more than 100 million.  Seriously, over 100 million.  And that&#8217;s being generous and not including Hitler.  In the name of the &#8220;workers&#8221; or of &#8220;communism&#8221; or whatever, stamping out all religion in the name of the dictator or party.  So if you say that a guy who believes he&#8217;s doing God&#8217;s will is TRULY more dangerous, you need to state why you think that, and why 100 million people isn&#8217;t enough to convince you.  But that&#8217;s not the point of this discussion.  I don&#8217;t think you can judge atheists or even Communists by what these men did.  It&#8217;s just not good logic.</p>
<p>More immediately, I appreciate William&#8217;s comments on the site, and think that he&#8217;s doing what he thinks is right.  I appreciate your comments too.  I just don&#8217;t feel like what William is doing is somehow morally equivalent or even comparable to the terroristic murder of thousands of people.  Sorry, I just can&#8217;t make that leap.  I don&#8217;t even know how what William is doing (trying to aid the police solving crimes using &#8220;intuitions&#8221;) is a stepping stone to flying a plane into a building full of thousands of people.</p>
<p>Sorry if you&#8217;ve interpreted my posts as dismissive.  I&#8217;m not intending to be dismissive, I just think we can have a civil discussion with one another without constantly comparing each other to the 9/11 hijackers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kuri</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124802</link>
		<dc:creator>kuri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124802</guid>
		<description>Arthur,

I think the comparison with your songwriting is a bit apples and oranges. I mean no personal offense, but unless your songs are tremendously brilliant, unless you&#039;re another Mozart or Beethoven, it simply doesn&#039;t matter much to society as a whole if they go unheard. A talent such as William claims, on the other hand, would be world-changing if it could be proven to exist.

That said, having pointed out the existence of the JREF offer, I do intend to leave William alone. I doubt he can do the things he thinks he can, but I worry that it would be cruel to force him to confront this fact through a test such as JREF&#039;s. We&#039;re all entitled to our own illusions, as long as we keep them private.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arthur,</p>
<p>I think the comparison with your songwriting is a bit apples and oranges. I mean no personal offense, but unless your songs are tremendously brilliant, unless you&#8217;re another Mozart or Beethoven, it simply doesn&#8217;t matter much to society as a whole if they go unheard. A talent such as William claims, on the other hand, would be world-changing if it could be proven to exist.</p>
<p>That said, having pointed out the existence of the JREF offer, I do intend to leave William alone. I doubt he can do the things he thinks he can, but I worry that it would be cruel to force him to confront this fact through a test such as JREF&#8217;s. We&#8217;re all entitled to our own illusions, as long as we keep them private.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brjones</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124795</link>
		<dc:creator>brjones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124795</guid>
		<description>Without touching on the tone of any of the comments above, I personally think it&#039;s fair to express some skepticism about William&#039;s claims.  I understand that some people want to take his comments at face value, which is fine.  But I don&#039;t think it&#039;s inappropriate to express skepticism when someone makes incredible claims.  I also have to say that I don&#039;t think it&#039;s entirely unfair to criticize William for refusing to meet a challenge like the one given by Kuri and Dexter.  If Williams&#039;s claims are valid, then there are many, many more people who could be helped by having knowledge about and access to his gift and those of people like him.  It seems a fair criticism to level that raising awareness of such a monumental power is a responsibility that he has and that he is shirking.  Where much is given much is required, and all that.  Secondly, there is obviously widespread skepticism about such powers, and it always seems odd to me that people who profess to have such powers refuse when given the opportunity to prove their existence in an objective environment.  Obviously that doesn&#039;t mean he&#039;s lying, or even deluded.  As I said, it just seems odd to me, and frankly, it leads to heightened skepticism, and deservedly so, I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Without touching on the tone of any of the comments above, I personally think it&#8217;s fair to express some skepticism about William&#8217;s claims.  I understand that some people want to take his comments at face value, which is fine.  But I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s inappropriate to express skepticism when someone makes incredible claims.  I also have to say that I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s entirely unfair to criticize William for refusing to meet a challenge like the one given by Kuri and Dexter.  If Williams&#8217;s claims are valid, then there are many, many more people who could be helped by having knowledge about and access to his gift and those of people like him.  It seems a fair criticism to level that raising awareness of such a monumental power is a responsibility that he has and that he is shirking.  Where much is given much is required, and all that.  Secondly, there is obviously widespread skepticism about such powers, and it always seems odd to me that people who profess to have such powers refuse when given the opportunity to prove their existence in an objective environment.  Obviously that doesn&#8217;t mean he&#8217;s lying, or even deluded.  As I said, it just seems odd to me, and frankly, it leads to heightened skepticism, and deservedly so, I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dexter</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124792</link>
		<dc:creator>Dexter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:30:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124792</guid>
		<description>Dude, I&#039;ve been perfectly relaxed this entire time, dude.  

I agree that evil and danger has been peformed by believers and non-believers alike.  But I think when people are manipulating god&#039;s will to motivate or persuade it can be more dangerous than a man simply using his power or stating his own opinion.

Put shortly, the 9/11 hijackers wouldn&#039;t have done what they did without the component of faith in doing god&#039;s will and an after life.  To me, this is a perfect example of how manipulating god&#039;s will can be more dangerous than those who try to motivate or persuade without invoking god.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dude, I&#8217;ve been perfectly relaxed this entire time, dude.  </p>
<p>I agree that evil and danger has been peformed by believers and non-believers alike.  But I think when people are manipulating god&#8217;s will to motivate or persuade it can be more dangerous than a man simply using his power or stating his own opinion.</p>
<p>Put shortly, the 9/11 hijackers wouldn&#8217;t have done what they did without the component of faith in doing god&#8217;s will and an after life.  To me, this is a perfect example of how manipulating god&#8217;s will can be more dangerous than those who try to motivate or persuade without invoking god.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/12/17/the-nde-and-its-interpretation/#comment-124789</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:13:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8618#comment-124789</guid>
		<description>#54. I&#039;m just taking his words at face value and trying to be non-judgmental.  I know of millions of lives that were led into danger or death by people who claimed to speak for God.  I also know of millions that were led into danger or death by people who told them there was no God.  I&#039;m not sure how one is more dangerous than the other.

But all I&#039;m saying is relax, dude.  It&#039;s just the Internet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#54. I&#8217;m just taking his words at face value and trying to be non-judgmental.  I know of millions of lives that were led into danger or death by people who claimed to speak for God.  I also know of millions that were led into danger or death by people who told them there was no God.  I&#8217;m not sure how one is more dangerous than the other.</p>
<p>But all I&#8217;m saying is relax, dude.  It&#8217;s just the Internet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

