647:
and sketches and pictures. or the references know how to complete accurate tests....I may only be an engineer, but I have completed or been involved in tests for some of the largest companies in the world. I know a real test and my post grad work in law taught me thinking, so I recognize bull shit a mile away, and I called it. My hope is that by telling the facts somebody's life can be changed for the better. You see, engineers know that anything but the truth will not make a good product. So what is happening is the person deleting my edits is trying to change history with garbage cites that are not meaningful.
506:. According to PriorQavah this criticism is not acceptable to an "educated person", and should be only be mentioned casually as "a sort of joke story" (I don't understand what that means but then again not much of what he says makes sense). I don't even have to criticise PriorQavah's comment as it effectively criticises itself. I encourage you to read the entirety of PriorQavah's talk page, where he makes it very clear he is opposed to anyone criticising this experiment and instead attempts to defend MacDougall through his own original research interpretations of MacDougall's original report.
552:"If personal continuity after the event of bodily death is a fact, if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individually or personality after the death of brain and body, then such personality can only exit as a space occupying body, unless the relations between space objective and space notions in our consciousness, established in our consciousness by heredity and experience, are entirely wiped out at death and a new set of relations between space and consciousness suddenly established in the continuing personality."
478:. I explained that Knowledge (XXG) articles do not require minute overdetail, such as the precise measurements for each of MacDougall's subjects, and rather should be an overview of the overall subject. I explained that it is not acceptable to copy and paste large quotes directly into a Knowledge (XXG) article. I explained that the lead of an article should summarise the article's contents, therefore it is unacceptable for PriorQavah to remove criticism from the lead of the article, and furthermore it is a
287:
203:
182:
635:
Complaints about formatting will not make that go away. It is like a house painter criticizing the
Messiah-Salabue Stradivarius, after violinist Joseph Joachim (1831–1907) played it, he wrote, “The sound of the Strad, that unique ‘Messie,’ turns up again and again in my memory, with its combined sweetness and grandeur", yet the painter may say "the finish needs a new coat". He does understand finish, but not the real beauty of what he has.
393:
308:
213:
21:
134:
151:
554:→the quote makes several leaps toward concepts which (even still) aren't proven by medicine: "If personal continuity after the event of bodily death is a fact"... but it isn't a fact. Plus, the quote seems to be implying that MacDougall intentionally disregarded the actual fact that the human body empties its bowels after death. I'd be careful about what you're adding to the article,
75:
639:
MacDougalls report was honored as the best in the world by the
American Medical association. (from the original link to the 1907 Journal ) The The American Medical association was so impressed, they did a 7 page special article. The 21 grams experiment article is so lacking in insight that it mistakenly calls that the (1,901 page report with 52 cites).
513:, complaining among other things that I reverted his changes without contacting him first. As any experienced editor will know, I am not required to contact him before removing his edits, especially since his edits violated multiple guidelines. His request at Editor assistance was promptly shut down and he was instead told to start a discussion here.
448:. For reasons that will be obvious to any experience editor, I promptly reverted the edit, and provided an explanation for doing so. Rather than trying to initiate dialogue about the reversion, PriorQavah instead reverted the edit, again with no explanation in the edit summary, this time from an IP address
646:
So who do we get to comment on the playing of the violin,,,,,Do the references play the violin,,,Do the references have M.D. after their name? If they do, they would be bragging about it like they did their greater skill of medicine than the "5 doctors" who performed the tests and kept medical record
634:
Sadly Hood is missing the authority of a medical doctor to look at doctors records. Does this then help you to understand the lack of authority to make a meaningful conjecture about something outside his field. The baseless references used in the 21 grams
Experiment only offer meaningless conjecture.
482:
issue for him to remove criticism at all. I pointed out that his edits also contained many formatting and punctuation issues (such as this gem: "... and measurement of souls.and the
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research,"). I explained that if PriorQavah still contested my points, he
607:
Sorry, but it's not helping your argument to personally deride the people who criticised this theorem. Maybe if you found some academic sources doing that (i.e., arguing that Hood's criticism was flawed), then you'd be able to add that to that article. Otherwise, it's best if the article stays as it
581:
I understand your comment
Homstasis07 but the original report answers your questions. As for the validity of the test as compared to lets say the conjecture of the last comment, the 5 doctors who did the test do not then spend the rest of their life searching for a way to show people what they found
642:
I have Quoted
Knowledge (XXG) before, because it was easy to find, then I came upon the commentary of the "soul substance" (21 Grams Experiment). The writing lowers the wolds best to meaningless back alley talk from ghost magazines (popular culture?). Enormous factual errors and distortions obscure
562:
unnecessary elaboration can be a double-edged sword—you may think you're adding information to prove the point you have in your brain, but you may actually be adding information which causes the majority of readers to question even further the point you're trying to make. Also, I'd suggest logging
638:
The test results of Duncan MacDougall M.D. stand alone at the peak of the worlds most important tests. (American
Medical 1907 re. Doctor MacDougall's 1,901 page report with 52 cites) Contrary to being reported in the article i"21m grams Experiment" as rejected by the scientific community, Doctor
663:
You're not listening, but then again, you never have been. Your opinions of Hood mean nothing, just like my opinions of MacDougall mean nothing. If you want to add criticism of someone you have to find a reliable source that criticises them, just like I did when I found reliable sources that
671:
Your absurd request for assistance has already been shot down, and the two other people who have commented at this discussion also both disagree with you. You must realise at this point that you have a very isolated and narrow-minded view of this experiment. Please read
466:. As evidenced by the talk page discussion, PriorQavah frequently criticises me for adhering to Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. I explained that his insistance to repeatedly refer to Duncan MacDougall as 'Doctor' is a violation of
516:
As PriorQavah doesn't want to follow any instructions, I am instead initiating the discussion. Since he refuses to listen to me, can someone else help explain to this person why his edits are simply unacceptable? Thanks.
664:
criticise MacDougall. I didn't just say 'this experiment is flawed', I pointed out the notable people who consider it flawed. Good luck finding reliable sources that say all the criticism of MacDougall (including from
701:
668:, the world's leading fact-checking website) isn't valid. You can't just cherry pick Hood, you'd need to find heavy criticism of the other five notable sources criticising this experiment as well.
735:
Could anyone edit in the song "Duck or Ape" by Roar as it explicitly mentions the soul to weight 20 (technically not 21) grams of weight - they probably changed it to match the music better.
676:, because that's the point we've reached here. By continually trying to force your own POV into this article, you're being disruptive, and you must realise this by now. Refusing to accept
532:
I skimmed the edit history for the edits in question, and this seems a clear-cut case of someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing and has a POV they want to inject into an article.
126:
700:
This experiment was mentioned and (fictionally) reproduced in the Season 3 Episode 1 of the series Evil, Air date June 12, 2022 available on
Paramount and Again Prime.
370:
804:
360:
784:
269:
32:
809:
794:
259:
336:
779:
510:
122:
46:
799:
235:
736:
470:. I explained that reinstating contested material without explanation or initiating dialogue on the article's talk page is a violation of
617:
572:
774:
705:
582:
if the found nothing. If the relationship expert, Bruce Hood (psychologist), was not so shallow, he would have noted that. PriorQavah
315:
292:
789:
409:
38:
597:
226:
187:
486:
Most disturbingly, PriorQavah has explicitly complained that the article accepts criticism from physician
Augustus P. Clarke,
162:
563:
back in and engaging in this discussion. Continuing to edit as random IPs may only result in this page being edit protected.
335:
related articles on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
53:
495:
673:
421:
755:
720:
685:
522:
740:
445:, a new editor whose only edits have been relating to this article. It began with this unexplained edit here:
168:
613:
568:
585:
677:
20:
234:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
90:
550:
I concur. The excessive quote added, when read at face value, really doesn't add much to the article.
652:
593:
463:
475:
42:
751:
716:
681:
518:
114:
609:
564:
427:
74:
487:
456:
537:
423:
392:
307:
286:
680:
and continuing to push your clear bias will likely result in your account being suspended.
479:
471:
648:
589:
557:
499:
442:
202:
181:
491:
218:
768:
328:
324:
509:
Rather than following any of my advice, PriorQavah instead launched a discussion at
212:
95:
533:
467:
425:
759:
744:
724:
709:
689:
656:
621:
601:
576:
541:
526:
332:
208:
105:
85:
320:
231:
665:
503:
459:
attempt, however, this unexplained reversion is still disturbing.
462:
PriorQavah then initiated a discussion with me on his talk page.
441:
Recently there have been some disturbing edits and comments from
109:
455:
have simply been him not logging in, rather than a deliberate
428:
386:
144:
69:
15:
132:
449:
446:
59:
125:. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at
127:
Template:Did you know nominations/21 grams experiment
483:
should initiate a discussion on the talk page here.
319:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
230:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
45:. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
8:
583:
511:Knowledge (XXG):Editor assistance/Requests
281:
176:
123:Knowledge (XXG):Recent additions/2017/July
98:). The text of the entry was as follows:
702:2603:9000:8B08:8E00:813D:B75E:B743:C6D9
283:
178:
133:
551:
345:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Skepticism
785:Knowledge (XXG) Did you know articles
121:A record of the entry may be seen at
7:
313:This article is within the scope of
224:This article is within the scope of
150:
148:
244:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science
167:It is of interest to the following
805:Mid-importance Skepticism articles
14:
118:should not be given any credence?
41:. If you can improve it further,
731:Song referring to the experiment
391:
306:
285:
211:
201:
180:
149:
73:
19:
810:WikiProject Skepticism articles
795:Low-importance science articles
365:This article has been rated as
348:Template:WikiProject Skepticism
264:This article has been rated as
780:Natural sciences good articles
760:22:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
745:21:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
725:22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
690:23:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
657:13:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
622:00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
602:17:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
577:01:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
542:03:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
527:03:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
451:. I am willing to accept this
84:appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s
33:Natural sciences good articles
29:has been listed as one of the
1:
775:Knowledge (XXG) good articles
339:and see a list of open tasks.
238:and see a list of open tasks.
800:GA-Class Skepticism articles
437:Recent edits from PriorQavah
247:Template:WikiProject Science
826:
371:project's importance scale
270:project's importance scale
790:GA-Class science articles
710:02:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
496:Bruce Hood (psychologist)
364:
301:
263:
196:
175:
474:and could constitute an
94:column on 26 July 2017 (
715:Added to the article.
316:WikiProject Skepticism
157:This article is rated
138:
108:, the belief that the
104:... that according to
161:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
136:
39:good article criteria
351:Skepticism articles
227:WikiProject Science
82:21 grams experiment
27:21 grams experiment
163:content assessment
139:
57:: July 19, 2017. (
604:
588:comment added by
488:Karl Kruszelnicki
434:
433:
415:
414:
385:
384:
381:
380:
377:
376:
280:
279:
276:
275:
143:
142:
68:
67:
64:
817:
696:Other references
561:
429:
406:
405:
395:
387:
353:
352:
349:
346:
343:
310:
303:
302:
297:
289:
282:
252:
251:
250:science articles
248:
245:
242:
221:
216:
215:
205:
198:
197:
192:
184:
177:
160:
154:
153:
152:
145:
135:
77:
70:
62:
60:Reviewed version
51:
23:
16:
825:
824:
820:
819:
818:
816:
815:
814:
765:
764:
733:
698:
674:WP:NOTGETTINGIT
555:
500:Richard Wiseman
439:
430:
424:
400:
350:
347:
344:
341:
340:
295:
249:
246:
243:
240:
239:
217:
210:
190:
158:
137:Knowledge (XXG)
58:
12:
11:
5:
823:
821:
813:
812:
807:
802:
797:
792:
787:
782:
777:
767:
766:
763:
762:
752:Damien Linnane
737:92.234.159.201
732:
729:
728:
727:
717:Damien Linnane
697:
694:
693:
692:
682:Damien Linnane
669:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
545:
544:
519:Damien Linnane
492:Robert L. Park
438:
435:
432:
431:
426:
422:
420:
417:
416:
413:
412:
402:
401:
396:
390:
383:
382:
379:
378:
375:
374:
367:Mid-importance
363:
357:
356:
354:
337:the discussion
311:
299:
298:
296:Mid‑importance
290:
278:
277:
274:
273:
266:Low-importance
262:
256:
255:
253:
236:the discussion
223:
222:
219:Science portal
206:
194:
193:
191:Low‑importance
185:
173:
172:
166:
155:
141:
140:
130:
120:
119:
78:
66:
65:
50:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
822:
811:
808:
806:
803:
801:
798:
796:
793:
791:
788:
786:
783:
781:
778:
776:
773:
772:
770:
761:
757:
753:
749:
748:
747:
746:
742:
738:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:
712:
711:
707:
703:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
670:
667:
662:
661:
660:
658:
654:
650:
644:
640:
636:
623:
619:
618:contributions
615:
611:
610:Homeostasis07
606:
605:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
580:
579:
578:
574:
573:contributions
570:
566:
565:Homeostasis07
559:
553:
549:
548:
547:
546:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
529:
528:
524:
520:
514:
512:
507:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
460:
458:
454:
450:
447:
444:
436:
419:
418:
411:
408:
407:
404:
403:
399:
394:
389:
388:
372:
368:
362:
359:
358:
355:
338:
334:
330:
329:pseudohistory
326:
325:pseudoscience
322:
318:
317:
312:
309:
305:
304:
300:
294:
291:
288:
284:
271:
267:
261:
258:
257:
254:
237:
233:
229:
228:
220:
214:
209:
207:
204:
200:
199:
195:
189:
186:
183:
179:
174:
170:
164:
156:
147:
146:
131:
128:
124:
117:
116:
111:
107:
103:
100:
99:
97:
93:
92:
87:
83:
79:
76:
72:
71:
61:
56:
55:
48:
44:
40:
36:
35:
34:
28:
25:
22:
18:
17:
734:
699:
645:
641:
637:
633:
584:— Preceding
515:
508:
485:
461:
452:
440:
397:
366:
314:
265:
225:
169:WikiProjects
113:
102:Did you know
101:
91:Did you know
89:
81:
80:A fact from
52:
43:please do so
31:
30:
26:
659:PriorQavah
468:MOS:SURNAME
96:check views
769:Categories
649:PriorQavah
590:PriorQavah
558:PriorQavah
457:sockpuppet
443:PriorQavah
342:Skepticism
333:skepticism
293:Skepticism
37:under the
678:consensus
410:Archive 1
86:Main Page
643:truth.
598:contribs
586:unsigned
476:edit war
464:See here
398:Archives
159:GA-class
115:21 grams
47:reassess
369:on the
321:science
268:on the
241:Science
232:Science
188:Science
112:weighs
88:in the
750:Done.
666:Snopes
504:Snopes
472:WP:BRD
165:scale.
106:Snopes
54:Review
756:talk
741:talk
721:talk
706:talk
686:talk
653:talk
614:talk
608:is.
594:talk
569:talk
538:talk
534:RobP
523:talk
502:and
331:and
110:soul
480:POV
453:may
361:Mid
260:Low
49:it.
771::
758:)
743:)
723:)
708:)
688:)
655:)
620:)
600:)
596:•
575:)
540:)
525:)
498:,
494:,
490:,
327:,
323:,
63:).
754:(
739:(
719:(
704:(
684:(
651:(
616:/
612:(
592:(
571:/
567:(
560::
556:@
536:(
521:(
373:.
272:.
171::
129:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
