Talk:21 grams experiment

Recent edits from PriorQavah
Recently there have been some disturbing edits and comments from, a new editor whose only edits have been relating to this article. It began with this unexplained edit here:. 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. I am willing to accept this may have simply been him not logging in, rather than a deliberate sockpuppet attempt, however, this unexplained reversion is still disturbing.

PriorQavah then initiated a discussion with me on his talk page. See here. As evidenced by the talk page discussion, PriorQavah frequently criticises me for adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I explained that his insistance to repeatedly refer to Duncan MacDougall as 'Doctor' is a violation of MOS:SURNAME. I explained that reinstating contested material without explanation or initiating dialogue on the article's talk page is a violation of WP:BRD and could constitute an edit war. I explained that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 POV 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.[15]and the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research,[16]"). I explained that if PriorQavah still contested my points, he should initiate a discussion on the talk page here.

Most disturbingly, PriorQavah has explicitly complained that the article accepts criticism from physician Augustus P. Clarke, Karl Kruszelnicki, Robert L. Park, Bruce Hood (psychologist), Richard Wiseman and Snopes. 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.

Rather than following any of my advice, PriorQavah instead launched a discussion at Editor assistance/Requests, 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.

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. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. RobP (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I concur. The excessive quote added, when read at face value, really doesn't add much to the article. "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."→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, 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 back in and engaging in this discussion. Continuing to edit as random IPs may only result in this page being edit protected. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 if the found nothing. If the relationship expert, Bruce Hood (psychologist), was not so shallow, he would have noted that. PriorQavah — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriorQavah (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 is. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

- 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. 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. 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 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).

I have Quoted Wikipedia 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 truth.

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 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. PriorQavah (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)PriorQavah


 * 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 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 Snopes, 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.
 * 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 WP:NOTGETTINGIT, 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 consensus and continuing to push your clear bias will likely result in your account being suspended. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Other references
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. 2603:9000:8B08:8E00:813D:B75E:B743:C6D9 (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)