- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarrmanSurely by this definition given there must be a way of measuring the cessation of brain activity?
I fail to see what that has to do with anything, once brain death has been achieved, there is no return.
Or else the definition is based on unprovable assumptions.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanIt is the easiest thing to define 'brain dead' as an irreversible state. What I am asking for is evidence, which proves that this state is in fact irreversible.
What? Are you really this stupid? Read the article properly!
Are you just acting like you don't understand what I'm asking or do you really not understand what I am trying to say?
The way that 'brain dead' has been defined is not falsifiable and is therefore not scientific.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerOkay, at the risk of truning this into a sesame street episode, today's post was brought to you by the letters W,T and F!
It is the easiest thing to define 'brain dead' as an irreversible state. What I am asking for is evidence, which proves that this state is in fact irreversible.
Since no-one has ever returned from a state of brain death, brain death is not reversible. By definition it cannot be reversed, it is defined as an irreversible state. I don't see how you can fail to understand this. Is your mental set so warped as to seriously want to argue against the irreversibility of a state, the definition of which is intrinsically irreversible?
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou're right, I have no idea what you're on about. What on earth does that last sentence even mean?
Are you just acting like you don't understand what I'm asking or do you really not understand what I am trying to say?
The way that 'brain dead' has been defined is not falsifiable and is therefore not scientific.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerI know what falsifiability is, I want to know what on earth you mean by using it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.
Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not actually been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow. A falsifiable theory must make a statement concerning what is, or will be, forbidden.
So, here is a statement of falsifiability concerning brain death. "Brain death is reversible."
So please explain what any of this has to do with the subject at hand.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarrmanSo my point is what evidence do you have to prove the statement "Brain death is reversible" wrong, in order to make the statement "Brain death is not reversible" right, other than defining 'brain death' to be 'irreversable'?
I know what falsifiability is, I want to know what on earth you mean by using it here.
[i]Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.
[b]Falsifiable does not mean false. For a ...[text shortened]... is reversible."
So please explain what any of this has to do with the subject at hand.[/b]
So in essence, what makes the statment "Brain death is not reversible" right and the statement "Brain death is reversible" wrong?
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't have to do any such thing. Re-read the falsibilty article, I don't think you have understood it.
So my point is what evidence do you have to prove the statement "Brain death is reversible" wrong, in order to make the statement "Brain death is not reversible" right, other than defining 'brain death' to be 'irreversable'?
So in essence, what makes the statment "Brain death is not reversible" right and the statement "Brain death is reversible" wrong?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarrmanAre you just trying to be silly or what?
I don't have to do any such thing. Re-read the falsibilty article, I don't think you have understood it.
I am saying that the statement “brain death is not reversible” is not falsifiable as it is mutually exclusive to “brain death is reversible”.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou can't say a statement is not falsifiable in a way that applies to the process of scientific falsifiability, you are meant to apply it to a theory:
Are you just trying to be silly or what?
I am saying that the statement “brain death is not reversible” is not falsifiable as it is mutually exclusive to “brain death is reversible”.
I set out to discover what brain death consists of. I come up with a theory that says that brain death is the cessation of all electrical function and thereby, no clinical evidence of brain function. I make a statement of falsifiability, namely 'brain death is reversible' I test the theory and come to a conclusion that brain death is not reversible. There is nothing unscientific about this. Remember, falsifiable does not mean false.
Quite apart from this, we are discussing the definition of a term, not the scientific process behind the investigation which lead to this definition. I repeat once more, by definition, brain death is not reversible. No matter what ridiculous claims you make about falsifiability, the fact remains that brain death is defined as an irreversible state of the brain where no electircal activity is present. End of story.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarrmanCant you see the futility of talking to someone about their own debilitation?
You can't say a statement is not falsifiable in a way that applies to the process of scientific falsifiability, you are meant to apply it to a theory:
I set out to discover what brain death consists of. I come up with a theory that says that brain death is the cessation of all electrical function and thereby, no clinical evidence of brain function. I m ...[text shortened]... as an irreversible state of the brain where no electircal activity is present. End of story.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarrmanYou can't say a statement is not falsifiable in a way that applies to the process of scientific falsifiability, you are meant to apply it to a theory:
You can't say a statement is not falsifiable in a way that applies to the process of scientific falsifiability, you are meant to apply it to a theory:
I set out to discover what brain death consists of. I come up with a theory that says that brain death is the cessation of all electrical function and thereby, no clinical evidence of brain function. I m ...[text shortened]... as an irreversible state of the brain where no electircal activity is present. End of story.
What do you mean it’s not a scientific theory? The statement is a summary of the theory. Or are you trying to stipulate that the scientific method was not used to deduce it?
I set out to discover what brain death consists of. I come up with a theory that says that brain death is the cessation of all electrical function and thereby, no clinical evidence of brain function. I make a statement of falsifiability, namely 'brain death is reversible' I test the theory and come to a conclusion that brain death is not reversible. There is nothing unscientific about this. Remember, falsifiable does not mean false.
I concede that brain death is reversible. What evidence do you have that brain death is irreversible? This is the question I asked you right at the beginning, and you have still not provided the evidence. What evidence did you have when you tested the reversibility of brain death that lead you to the conclusion that brain death is irreversible? If you cannot provide this vital bit of evidence then I cannot buy into your theory that brain death is irreversible.
Quite apart from this, we are discussing the definition of a term, not the scientific process behind the investigation which lead to this definition.
But that is exactly what I am questioning. I don’t believe that it is scientifically possible to reach the conclusion that brain death is irreversible because you have not provided the evidence to prove that brain death cannot be reversible.
I repeat once more, by definition, brain death is not reversible.
So why do you have a problem with the definition that God is the eternal being that created the universe?
No matter what ridiculous claims you make about falsifiability, the fact remains that brain death is defined as an irreversible state of the brain where no electircal activity is present. End of story.
OK. Fine. The fact remains that God is defined as the eternal creator of the universe. End of story. What a way to debate.
😀
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarrmanThen you might want to read some of the research by Dr. Sabom. I do believe he would disagree.
False. People who are pronounced brain dead do [b]not come back to life. People who's hearts have stopped may do, if the heart is restarted, but brain death is a permanent state. NDE's IMO are nothing more than subconscious hallucinations.[/b]
http://near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
DF
20 Mar 06
1 edit
I'll leave you two to whatever you care to think, it really makes no difference to me. I have shown you what the definition of brain death is, I have attempted to explain it as clearly as I can and you refuse to accept it. You are perhaps the only people in all humanity who think the definition of brain death entails a potential reversal from death to life. Fine, lucky you, there's nothing I can say to make you see otherwise that I have not said already. Enjoy your delusion.