Actually NDEs have been studied scientifically, so that's not true. However, if an event is truly not able to be thoroughly investigated, verified, and/or replicated, then there is essentially nothing we can say about it's truthfulness, particularly when the claims defy all other evidence we have as to how the world works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Again, I keep asking for specific examples and what I get are unverified, vague stories and Ouija boards. Sorry, no rational person would accept such as convincing evidence unless they were already predisposed to buy this kind of stuff.
Oh give me a break, it's not just me saying so. The examples of so-called "mediums" who have been exposed as frauds are legion. Whenever they are asked to put their alleged abilities to the test under controlled conditions, they either fail or weasel out with a variety of excuses. Again, if I'm incorrect, show me a verified psychic whose abilities have been professionally verified in experiments by scientists.
And you are convinced unreasonably, unless you can actually demonstrate such abilities.
Gary Schwartz's Subjective Evaluation of Mediums - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
No no, not attack the researcher, attack their shoddy methodology and obvious oversights in how to interpret results.
I'm sorry, but believing the Earth is flat is about on par with believing Ouija boards are legit. There is
just enough subjective evidence to convince a completely uncritical person of either proposition.
You are confused. If phenomena are not perceivable by our senses or any instruments, there is no way to perform a controlled experiment or have any sense of how probable such phenomena are. There's no way of knowing whether the phenomena are even occurring at all.
Then again, you are convinced by very shoddy, vague, unscientific data.
Peer
experts in the field of study in question, who understand research methodology and the prior research in the field to date. Your dismissiveness suggests you don't understand the importance of peer review to weed out shoddy research.
From the abstract of the first study on the list: "The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing." When you actually read the paper, the studies examined are a bit of all over the place and controlling for placebo effect is extremely difficult.
The second study examines the effect if
retroactive prayer on patients with a blood infection. Meaning, the outcomes of the patients are already known and someone prays for them after the fact - an odd study, to say the least. They did find people who were prayed for had statistically significantly shorter hospital stays, although looking closely at the evidence provided this may have been due to extremely high outlier data in the control group. This is further complicated by the fact there was no statistical difference between the groups in mortality rate.
Now, I continue on down the list this way, if you like, just like I could for the first laundry list website you gave me. But based on what I've seen I have little reason to expect much difference. Prayer and other similar interventions have been repeatedly tested for efficacy in healing and when you look at meta-analyses of the data, you see overall that these interventions are ineffective, or only effective in the same way a placebo would be.