In a remote way, yes, Carol, though I wouldn't have put it that way. For the materialist, under both living matter/nonliving matter conditions Kirlian effects are to be expected. For the spiritualist of Little Hawk type, under both conditions, Kirlian effects are to be expected. So finding Kirlian effects for both states of the matter cannot be used to tell which of them is correct.

Technically speaking, there is of course a control condition possible, for Little Hawk as well as I can easily differentiate between say a dead leaf and another.

But any general Kirlian effect is neither for him nor for me a test of the theory. We both expect that.

For a dualist, the situation is different. He expects differential effects for dead leaves and not yet dead leaves. For him, consistently not finding a difference would be a blow to his using Kirlian effects as argument.

Similarly, finding differential effects, that is different effects for dead leaves and fresh leaves, are a difficulty for both monist positions, be they materialist or spiritualist.

My point is that you can't have it both ways. If you use Kirlian effects for the spiritualist position then this only makes sense as an argument pro spirit as different from matter. I have argued with that position and nothing else. If Little Hawk calls my Kirlian argument a fallacy it just shows that he has little understanding of scientific argumentation.

Wolfgang