The Soul and the 21 Grams Experiment

[jgh7]

Duncan MacDougall did a study in 1901 to see if the human body loses weight when it dies and the soul leaves. Of his 6 test subjects, one was found to lose 21.3 grams upon death.

For obvious reasons (tiny sample size and only 1 of 6 subjects satisfying the hypothesis), this experiment was highly criticized by the scientific community. But at the same time it has garnered a lot of interest from people curious on the matter.

Have there been further scientific studies on this? What are your thoughts on the soul possibly having weight to it?

[Tcg]

But at the same time it has garnered a lot of interest from people curious on the matter.

It seems to me that people will jump at just about any reason to support their hope that there is some kind of life after death.

Have there been further scientific studies on this?

I seem to remember there were, but I can't provide references. If my memory is correct, they showed that there was no reason to consider the original finding valid.

What are your thoughts on the soul possibly having weight to it?

Anything that is nonmaterial, as I think most would describe the soul to be, would be outside of the realm of science and therefore wouldn't be detectible in any way including measures of weight.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

Have there been further scientific studies on this? What are your thoughts on the soul possibly having weight to it?

I found this article which has a pretty good description of the 21 grams experiment and conclusions:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ia ... soul-weigh

At the end he mentions that other have tried to repeat the experiment, and provides a few references (though not from the names he lists as having repeated the experiments).

But I would agree with Tcg's comments. People who believe there is a soul get all excited about experiments like this whose dubious results can be twisted into a story they want to hear. And there are always charlatans who will capitalize on that just as with the many current day evangelists who seem more interested in filling up the offering plate and taking their share than anything else.

[bluethread]

People who believe there is a soul get all excited about experiments like this whose dubious results can be twisted into a story they want to hear. And there are always charlatans who will capitalize on that just as with the many current day evangelists who seem more interested in filling up the offering plate and taking their share than anything else.

Those who believe that there is no soul also get excited about experiments like this whose dubious results can be twisted into a story they want to hear. There are also always charlatans who will capitalize on that just as with many critics, who seem more interested in selling column space or racking up clicks and generating advertising dollars, than anything else. Moral turpitude is not limited to people who believe in things that have not been scientifically verified. It can also be seen in those who hold that nothing should be believed that is not scientifically verified.

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

Why would we assume that a soul should weigh anything?

Can we take a scoop of consciousness and weigh that?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

Moral turpitude is not limited to people who believe in things that have not been scientifically verified. It can also be seen in those who hold that nothing should be believed that is not scientifically verified.

I would agree that people and organizations of all stripes can be guilty of trickery and other means to maximize their income. But I'm not sure I would call this, or the requirement of scientific verification as a basis of belief, moral turpitude. That term is usually reserved for behavior that is gravely outside of societal norms, and belief, or lack of belief, in the supernatural, gods and devils, souls, etc. doesn't seem to fall into that category.

On the other hand, people who take advantage of the misfortune of others, or play to their weaknesses in times of grief, or are simply con artists who go to great extremes to rip people off, exhibit moral turpitude. Such as the people on this list:

http://theevangelists.blogspot.com/2011 ... shame.html

Or the countless other criminals incarcerated all around the globe who have no connection to religious or nonreligious groups. So I completely agree that charlatans are not restricted to any particular category of person as there are many examples from both the religious and nonreligious groups. But I would not agree that the behavior of a law abiding capitalist, or of a scientist who demands verification by experiment and observation before believing, are examples of moral turpitude.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 5 by William]

Why would we assume that a soul should weigh anything?

This was the assumption by the guy who did the experiment (Duncan MacDougall) in 1901 (published in 1907). So he wanted to measure the weight loss upon death as the soul "left the body." But the experiment was so sloppily done that he could not make any valid conclusions from the six bodies he used for the measurements (only one of which showed a loss of weight of about 21 grams).

[Kenisaw]

People who believe there is a soul get all excited about experiments like this whose dubious results can be twisted into a story they want to hear. And there are always charlatans who will capitalize on that just as with the many current day evangelists who seem more interested in filling up the offering plate and taking their share than anything else.

Those who believe that there is no soul also get excited about experiments like this whose dubious results can be twisted into a story they want to hear. There are also always charlatans who will capitalize on that just as with many critics, who seem more interested in selling column space or racking up clicks and generating advertising dollars, than anything else. Moral turpitude is not limited to people who believe in things that have not been scientifically verified. It can also be seen in those who hold that nothing should be believed that is not scientifically verified.

Bluethread, can you give me a valid reason why I SHOULD accept something as true that cannot be scientifically verified?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

Why would we assume that a soul should weigh anything?

We shouldn't. We should first show that such a thing is remotely plausible before debating what the characteristics are of the thing.

Can we take a scoop of consciousness and weigh that?

Sure. Molecules (chemicals) and electrons (electrical impulse) do have mass, although we don't have a scale sensitive enough to reach an accurate result.

[bluethread]

Bluethread, can you give me a valid reason why I SHOULD accept something as true that cannot be scientifically verified?

Well, do you accept the existence of things like consciousness and values? Now, can you give me one reason why it is necessary to impune the character of those with whom one disagrees?