Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[tas8831]

I just told you, if the guy who claimed to have a had an out of body experience reports accurately stuff about the real world that he could have not known. (like the video that I was watching)

That assumes that both of you are honest and reporting accurately.

Why wouldn’t this count as evidence for a real out of body experience?

See kwed's tale of being abducted.

Well in science nearly all we have are “mere anecdotes”

Thanks for yet again supporting my hypothesis that you have no idea what science is or how it operates.

………….. how do you know that the fossil of Tiktaalik was actually found? All you have is anecdotes from scientists who claim to have seen such fossil , you haven’t seen the fossil yourself, you simply trust other people

Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

 

[tas8831]

Ok and what a scientist should do is consider all the possible explanations and pick the one that seems more probable depending on the data.

And currently, hallucination/lie/scam is more likely than human brainwaves existing without a brain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Near Death experiences are Testable (so lets test them)

Near Death Experiences (NDE) is a topic that I find fascinating, but for whatever reason (procrastination) I haven’t done any detailed research

But before doing any research I would like to know if I am applying the scientific method correctly.

· If there are verified examples of NDE I will conclude that NDE are probably real.

With this I mean that if the guy who had this experience most be capable of providing information about the external world that he could have not known before or during his “coma”

For example if he has an NDE in the hospital and he went to the room above and he provides an accurate description of who was in that room, what clothes where they using, what where they talking about etc. NDE should be considered real.

If such examples are inexistent then alleged NDE are probably just dreams or hallucinations.

So the next step is to do some research and see if there are verifiable examples of NDEs

So before doing the research would you add something? appart from verifiable examples would you add something else.

It is meaningless as the near dead are not dead. Produce a death person here and now what is also alive and I will listen.

 

[tas8831]

Many discoveries start with anecdotal reports. Smoking causing cancer was one - it was only much later than the mechanism has become clearer.

As far as the rest goes, yes, it's not proof. My only contention is that it's one example and that further investigation is warranted.

Naturally I, as a believer, put more credence in this than you as a non-believer do. This is totally not surprising to me.

RE: smoking. Clinical analyses of 'anecdotes' warranted further investigation. Clear correlation emerged. Tests done to analyze contents of cigarette smoke, look for known associations between identified compounds and reported cancer cases. Test other identified compounds in controlled settings, noted increased rates of cancer risk.

RE: NDE.
Person reports NDE. People investigate. Find other such reports. Some end up being fake. Keep searching. Keep finding more of the same. Devoted fanbase grows, seeing a spiritual aspect to it all. No verification of non-faked reports. Devotees keep on keeping on.

 

[George-ananda]

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

Fair question. 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.

 

[George-ananda]

Dr. Michael Sabom
"And he scrutinizes near-death experiences in the light of what the Bible has to say about death and dying, the realities of light and darkness, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Hmmm.... seems like a devoted supernaturalist seeking ways to prop up his spiritual beliefs...

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

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair question. 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.

And I believe differently. Now declare me silly. There is nothing new in that. I have been that for 25 years now as a skeptic and it still works for me.
Remember you are special, as itt is only everybody else who make silly arguments. I just admit it and note that it works for me.

 

[George-ananda]

And I believe differently. Now declare me silly. There is nothing new in that. I have been that for 25 years now as a skeptic and it still works for me.
Remember you are special, as itt is only everybody else who make silly arguments. I just admit it and note that it works for me.

Notice I started my reply to that individual with 'Fair question' and didn't imply his beliefs were silly.

Now your reply above does get low estimations from me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Notice I started my reply to that individual with 'Fair question' and didn't imply his beliefs were silly.

Now your reply above does get low estimations from me.

Fair enough.

 

[leroy]

And currently, hallucination/lie/scam is more likely than human brainwaves existing without a brain.

You are missing the point of the OP

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.

 

[sun rise]

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

Why don't all people have migraine headaches if they're a real thing.

Simple answer: we're all different.

 

[sun rise]

And currently, hallucination/lie/scam is more likely than human brainwaves existing without a brain.

The point is that what exists without a brain is not "human brainwaves"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Maybe you need to believe in it first?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point is that what exists without a brain is not "human brainwaves"

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You have yet to explain how.

So far, all that seems to come down to is "believe the claims if you fail to punch holes in it".

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

Your "evidence" so far has been nothing but the piling on of more unevidenced claims, as if an increase in the amount of claims makes something more believable / likely.

 

[tas8831]

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

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.

 

[tas8831]

The point is that what exists without a brain is not "human brainwaves"

Poor word choice on my behalf, but the gist of it should have been obvious.

 

[tas8831]

Why don't all people have migraine headaches if they're a real thing.

Simple answer: we're all different.

Yes, yes I see - NDEs = migraines.

Not all people have migraines because migraines have an organic, physiological root cause. So NDEs are just manifestations of physiology, not the intervention of spirit realm or the existence of astral planes and all that..

Thanks for the support!

 

[tas8831]

You are missing the point of the OP

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.

So it would seem then that the phenomenon - one littered with scams and lies and nonsense - does not generate sufficient real evidence to even be investigated.

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

And yet none appears to exist, since anecdotes and 'what if' scenarios are not really good bases for scientific inquiry.

 

[KWED]

Sure, the ´point is that you concluded that the boy is lying based on anecdotal evidence.

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.

And you already affirmed that anecdotal evidence is not good enough to establish knowledge so wich one is 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.

So know you are changing your objection.,
Originally you said that NDE fail because they are based on anecdotal evidence, and know you are saying that they fail because they are extraordinary claims

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.