The Afterlife Explorers Volume 1 Michael Tymn

I have been asked more than a few times why so much of what I write about life after death, psychical research, and related paranorml subjects has to do with stories from a hundred and more years ago – more specifically, with the research that took place between 1850 and 1930 – and not more with modern mediums, researchers, and phenomena. Part of the reason, I explain, is that there has been relatively very little research aimed at developing evidence of man’s survival after death going on since 1930. Moreover, what research has taken place in recent decades has, for the most part, been adequately explained by the researchers in their own books or reports.

Admin wrote:Hi Z I think Michael Tymn is taking the viewpoint of decent research upon teh subject. To a Psychical Researcher, Parapsychologist or an Anomalistic Psychologist (to use the latest buzz phrase) there has not been the level of detailed research that so many completed earlier on.

Indeed how many of our mediums show any willingness to become involved in projects. It appears very few will and this reluctance combines with the point Tymn's makes about the very researchers being unwilling to risk their academic reputation by delving into such issues.

Left Behind wrote:I doubt that at this point we can "prove" the validity of Spiritualism to a skeptic: any more than we can "prove" the existence of God.

The evidence is there: either you accept it or reject it.

The problem with most "skeptics" is that they aren't skeptical at all: instead, they've already made up their minds that there is no afterlife, that there is no God.

If I "know" that there is no afterlife, then obviously any evidence indicating that there is, must be merely a hoax.

In times past, we had investigators like Moore, Findlay, etc. who were willing to change their minds when the evidence overwhelmed them. Do we have that today?

Jim

obiwan wrote:

In times past, we had investigators like Moore, Findlay, etc. who were willing to change their minds when the evidence overwhelmed them. Do we have that today?

Jim

Left Behind wrote:

obiwan wrote:

In times past, we had investigators like Moore, Findlay, etc. who were willing to change their minds when the evidence overwhelmed them. Do we have that today?

Jim

Do we have anyone who can provide the sort of evidence Moore and Findlay received?

Probably not, Obiwan: and more's the pity there.

BUT, we still have the records of the investigations and revelations and materializations of the past. Why shouldn't an open-minded, even if truly skeptical (in the best sense of the term) investigator give credence to the views and experiences of investigators of those days of yore? Especially when the investigators were scientists, lawyers, high-ranking military officers, hard-nosed businessmen, and other people not easily taken in by frauds?

Jim

Admin wrote:Hi Jim,

it is well worth looking at some of the research done earlier.

The library here http://www.nasm.org.au/library.html includes in pdf download format
Sir Wm Crookes Researches in the Phenomena of Modern Spiritualism

Dawn of the Awakened Mind Brilliant Research and Seance records from John S King Founder of the Canadian SPR

Experimental Investigations of Spirit Manifestations Robert Hare 1856

Mrs Piper and the SPR M. Sage

In the past amongst the unsympathetic researchers ther have been some excellent people doing good work. Robert Hare started out intending to follow on from the work of Faraday and totally destroy Spiritualism ending up a convert.

obiwan wrote:

Left Behind wrote:

obiwan wrote:

In times past, we had investigators like Moore, Findlay, etc. who were willing to change their minds when the evidence overwhelmed them. Do we have that today?

Jim

Do we have anyone who can provide the sort of evidence Moore and Findlay received?

Probably not, Obiwan: and more's the pity there.

BUT, we still have the records of the investigations and revelations and materializations of the past. Why shouldn't an open-minded, even if truly skeptical (in the best sense of the term) investigator give credence to the views and experiences of investigators of those days of yore? Especially when the investigators were scientists, lawyers, high-ranking military officers, hard-nosed businessmen, and other people not easily taken in by frauds?

Jim

In which case there would be no point in such investigators - at least for the present

As you say, the record is already there.
What would be the point in re-creating the research based on earlier studies if it has been done and such research is already available? I do think that the record stands up well to open-minded scrutiny however it doesn't reach the critical mass which takes it much beyond 'interesting', at least not for me.

The difficulty for a present-day researcher is that they would simply be adding their opinion of the opinions of the original observers unless they could witness similar phenomena for themselves, document and then report it.