Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[KWED]

For me, it only brings up an obvious question - why didn't ALL of them have NDEs, if it is a real thing?

It is a point I have brought up several times, without response from the NDEists.
Only a small proportion of people who "die" in hospital report NDEs, and even fewer OBEs.
Also, about half of those claiming NDEs were not in any risk of dying.

 

[KWED]

Sure you won’t get 100% certainty.

In which case the most reasonable explanation is required.
Claiming a supernatural element is never the most reasonable because there is no evidence that the supernatural even exists in the first place.

But if the guy with the t shirt came in to the hospital before the guy with the NDE then it is unlikely that he would have known about the t-shirt and lie about it.

But it is still entirely possible, by a number of demonstrable means.

If you are demanding 100% certainty, then by your standards you most reject all science, “maybe the earth is flat but you live in the matrix and the globe is part of the simulation”

I am not demanding 100% certainty. Only the most reasonable explanation.

Ok but there are hypothetical scenarios where prior knowledge would be very unlikely.

Perhaps, but those scenarios require an extra level of unexplained complexity.
If your explanation involves the supernatural, you first have to show that the supernatural exists for it to be a reasonable explanation.

Remember that you are claiming that identifying a shirt colour is proof of genuine OBEs. I an showing you that it is not.

ok and what evidence woudl you accept? if the tshirt example is not good enough what evidence woudl you accept?
.

In a room above the operating theatres/ICU there is a locked safe with a very specific object in it.
No one in the hospital has access to that safe. The safe is delivered to the hospital already locked, by people with no knowledge on the contents.
Everyone admitted for surgery or in a critical condition is told about the safe and asked to identify its contents if they have an OBE.
This is repeated in different hospitals with different objects over an extended period.
As a control, the study could be repeated with nothing in the box, and then no box.

There have been studies that involved visual targets in ER rooms, operating theatres, etc. None of the subjects claiming to have had NDEs identified any of the visual targets.

 

[KWED]

My best understanding is that a separation occurs of the astral/mental body from the physical body at times of death-like trauma to the physical body, The trigger for this separation is more sensitive in some than others. But all will separate at permanent death.

An from where does this "understanding" come? Which studies? Which tests? On what data is it based?
Or did you mean "My belief is that..."

 

[KWED]

Lol. And who pray tell said that about the good doctor?

According to Thomas F. Hornbein, M.D., of the University of Washington, in a review in the New England Journal of Medicine - "the author's wish to believe may have colored his analysis."

 

[KWED]

My point is not that NDE are real, but rather that NDE claims can in principle be tested using the rigurosity of the scientific method

In other words that In principle you can have evidence that can ether support or refute such claims..

Not any of the existing claims, no. Only future claims subject to more rigorous conditions.

 

[George-ananda]

A person that favorably reviewed one of his books.

Didn't you look into him? Or did you just believe him? Lol!

I mean, Google exists for more than looking for ways to prop up a belief. Like checking on the reliability of sources.

And further are we to assume that the skeptical quote is that important as opposed to just being skeptical suspicion raising? Next shouldn't we then be 'skeptical of the skeptics' too?

I see, so do you think it is reasonable to expect one to review everything ever said by anyone that reviewed a book of someone who I discuss,

Even individuals from that oft-maligned group called 'Christians' I feel can be competent to do quality NDE studies myself. I'm sure you would agree also that materialist/atheists should also be considered for a wish not to believe.

 

[George-ananda]

An from where does this "understanding" come? Which studies? Which tests? On what data is it based?
Or did you mean "My belief is that..."

It is my best understanding from the teachings of wisdom traditions (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical, and others) along with the findings of the NDE researchers.

 

[George-ananda]

According to Thomas F. Hornbein, M.D., of the University of Washington, in a review in the New England Journal of Medicine - "the author's wish to believe may have colored his analysis."

Well that's a pretty watered down statement. Even that oft-maligned group called 'Christians' I feel are competent to do quality NDE studies. I'm sure material/atheists should also be considered for a wish not to believe.

 

[KWED]

It is my best understanding from the teachings of wisdom traditions (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical, and others)

So from people who already believe in the spiritual confirming your belief in the spiritual? Some confirmation bias going on there!

along with the findings of the NDE researchers.

What "findings" are these? None of them have found any evidence to support the mind being independent of the brain, they merely document anecdote. Also, other NDE researchers have found a consistent inability of OBEs to verify their claims through visual targets, etc.

 

[George-ananda]

So from people who already believe in the spiritual confirming your belief in the spiritual? Some confirmation bias going on there!

I also considered materialist sources of explanation and found them insufficient to explain the body of veridical NDE cases (i.e. denialism was their tactic in my judgment).

I gave all sides a fair hearing.

 

[KWED]

Well that's a pretty watered down statement.

Certainly watered down from "His methodology and approach were absent of any bias".

I'm sure material/atheists should also be considered for a wish not to believe.

lol. You seem to have trouble understanding the concept of taking a position based on evidence or rational argument.
I do not accept the existence gods or the supernatural because that is what the evidence points to.
I didn't decide there was no god and then look for evidence and argument to support my position... but even if I did, I would have found them. Because they are there. So ny position would still be justified.
You have nothing to support your position but belief. (Yes yes, I know that "spiritual teachers" claim that the spiritual exists. But that's like claiming that a priest's sermon is proof of god)

 

[KWED]

I also considered materialist sources of explanation and found them insufficient to explain the body of veridical NDE cases (i.e. denialism was their tactic in my judgment).

I gave all sides a fair hearing.

Well, as there are a variety of reasonable, natural explanations for those claims (as has been detailed in this thread), why do you think that the supernatural must be the better explanation? After all, there is no evidence for the supernatural in the first place.
The only reasonable conclusion for you insisting that any NDE must necessarily be true, despite the evidence and argument against, is your pre-existing desire that they be true.

 

[sun rise]

Then what?
And how do you know / did you find out?

You don't believe and I do. Neither of us had definitive proof of our belief from a scientific perspective. But from a research perspective, there's https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual...es-of-previous-lives/fifty-years-of-research/ which I don't classify as proof but as evidence.

 

[leroy]

Z

Not any of the existing claims, no. Only future claims subject to more rigorous conditions.

Not any of the existing claims, no. Only future claims subject to more rigorous conditions.

Ok I dont know about current claims. But we seem to agree on the main point. “atleast in principle one can test if NDE are real “out of body experiences” or not

 

[leroy]

In which case the most reasonable explanation is required.
Claiming a supernatural element is never the most reasonable because there is no evidence that the supernatural even exists in the first place.

I would argue that a detailed description of the T-shirt would count as evidence for the supernatural. (Assuming that we have good reasons to think that the guy never saw the t-shirt before his NDE)

The claim that I need prior evidence for the supernatural seems circular ,

In a room above the operating theatres/ICU there is a locked safe with a very specific object in it.
No one in the hospital has access to that safe. The safe is delivered to the hospital already locked, by people with no knowledge on the contents.
Everyone admitted for surgery or in a critical condition is told about the safe and asked to identify its contents if they have an OBE.
This is repeated in different hospitals with different objects over an extended period.
As a control, the study could be repeated with nothing in the box, and then no box.

sure my t-shirt example was intended to be analogous to that.

T

 

[leroy]

I accepted that his admission of lying was genuine as there is no evidence that he was lying about that, and it would make no sense to lie about it.

As I said, he might be lying about lying, but there is no reason to suspect that he is.
Either way, his testimony will always be tainted so even if the book was true and he lied about lying, the end result is the same. His testimony cannot be trusted so we simply dismiss every claim they make.
Oh dear. This is really quite difficult for you, isn't it?
ry.

How do you know that the boy admitted that he was lying? All you have is anecdotal evidence for that….. But it seems to be good enough for you… my point is that at least sometimes anecdotes are good enough to establish knowledge.

 

[leroy]

I accepted that his admission of lying was genuine as there is no evidence that he was lying about that, and it would make no sense to lie about it.

As I said, he might be lying about lying, but there is no reason to suspect that he is.
Either way, his testimony will always be tainted so even if the book was true and he lied about lying, the end result is the same. His testimony cannot be trusted so we simply dismiss every claim they make.

Oh dear. This is really quite difficult for you, isn't it?

NDEs are extraordinary claims. Therefore they require conclusive evidence.
Unsupported anecdote is not conclusive evidence.
The two things ore complimentary, not contradictory.

What exactly do you mean by extraordinary? Under what bases OBEs are “extra ordinary”?

 

[HonestJoe]

Ok I dont know about current claims. But we seem to agree on the main point. “atleast in principle one can test if NDE are real “out of body experiences” or not

Only if you formally define exactly what "out of body experience" actually means.

Nothing have really changed from my previous comments and you're still conflating the effects with the proposed cause (and not just you). All the discussion here is refers to effects, mainly individuals purportedly gaining knowledge without any apparent means for them to gain it. Even if we're accept/confirm such a claim, in itself it proves nothing.

The key question of how they gained that knowledge remains entirely open and even if you could eliminate the possibility of any known or mundane explanation, that would still not be evidence for any specific alternative explanation. You would still need to provide positive evidence for any specific proposed mechanism or process (such as "out of body experience"), which itself would require that formal definition as the basis for your hypothesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't believe and I do.

That's not an answer to my question.
You already stated what you believe. I asked you about why you believe it.

Neither of us had definitive proof of our belief from a scientific perspective.

What belief have I expressed?

But from a research perspective, there's https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual...es-of-previous-lives/fifty-years-of-research/ which I don't classify as proof but as evidence.

I classify it as quackery masquerading as science. The "research" is just like the stuff we get in this thread... it's based on nothing but "testimony" and interviews of people that have come forward with claims.
It's a recipe for selection / confirmation bias.

There is no science there. There is only Deepak-Chopra-style, sciency-sounding, word salad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not an answer to my question.
You already stated what you believe. I asked you about why you believe it.



What belief have I expressed?



I classify it as quackery masquerading as science. The "research" is just like the stuff we get in this thread... it's based on nothing but "testimony" and interviews of people that have come forward with claims.
It's a recipe for selection / confirmation bias.

There is no science there. There is only Deepak-Chopra-style, sciency-sounding, word salad.

You believe there is in effect a correct form of science. I believe differently about science.