Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

[Nous]

To me NDEs necessarily involve both.

The role of science is clear: what was the state of the body during the NDE, how long did it last etc? Can the person's report of what he or she saw and heard be verified?

The metaphysics/religion comes in because an NDE brings up a fundamental point that consciousness and awareness are not necessarily tied to the physical body which leads to questions of what is called "soul" or "atman".

It is difficult to avoid the issues of metaphysics when discussing NDEs. Nevertheless, I'm certain you agree that one cannot assess the reality or unreality of NDEs or anything about NDEs by beginning with what one believes about the nature of reality. If I begin with the assumption that Yoko Ono is the Great Mother of the Universe, then I can easily deduce that she would be telling the truth about any NDE she might have had. I thought both sides were guilty of this. I was hungry for facts about NDEs.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

No, you didn't. You quoted the paragraph where the authors describe their statistical methods. You haven't noted or quoted any invalid causal inference about anything that the authors made.

That is the invalid casual inference.

"We assessed causal factors for NDE with. . . "

Not without random assignment.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

From a statistical point of view, without random sampling or random assignment it is a very limited study.

 

[Nous]

That is the invalid casual inference.

"We assessed causal factors for NDE with. . . "

That isn't an inference. It is a statement of what the authors did in testing whether any of the factors such as length of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, drugs, education, religion, etc., were associated with whether or not a person had an NDE. And the Pearson tests are exactly how one tests for such associations. They found no associations with any of those factors.

 

[Nous]

From a statistical point of view, without random sampling or random assignment it is a very limited study.

Cohort studies are very important in medicine.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That isn't an inference. It is a statement of what the authors did in testing whether any of the factors such as length of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, drugs, education, religion, etc., were associated with whether or not a person had an NDE. And the Pearson tests are exactly how one tests for such associations. They found no associations with any of those factors.

"It is a statement of what the authors did"

And I am making a statement about what they did wrong. You cannot assess or make causal inferences, or whatever other term you want to nitpick at, without random assignment. It is one of the most basic rules in statstics and it applies across the board.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Cohort studies are very important in medicine.

Most medical studies do not have random assignment. They establish cause by other means than statistics.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You have an observational study, and you have to accept the limits of such a study. Science has limits, is that not what everyone is so fond of saying, but only when it works in their favor.

 

[Nous]

"It is a statement of what the authors did"

And I am making a statement about what they did wrong. You cannot assess or make causal inferences, or whatever other term you want to nitpick at, without random assignment. It is one of the most basic rules in statstics and it applies across the board.

You haven't noted or quoted any invalid "causal inference" that the authors of this Lancet article made--and apparently you haven't even understood that fact yet.

What have you read in statistics? What tests are you claiming the authors should have done rather than the chi-squared tests in testing for associations?

Would you say that you're a lot more capable in statistics than the reviewers of Lancet articles?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You haven't noted or quoted any invalid "causal inference" that the authors of this Lancet article made--and apparently you haven't even understood that fact yet.

What have you read in statistics? What tests are you claiming the authors should have done rather than the chi-squared tests in testing for associations?

Would you say that you're a lot more capable in statistics than the reviewers of Lancet articles?

"What have you read in statistics?"

You mean other than formal education in statistics?

I gave you a quote from a graduate level college book on data analysis with proper APA citation. Check the reference out yourself. It is definitely a lot more legit than your study.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

People always want to argue their statistical data proves cause; it is one of the biggest misconceptions and the most common error when it comes to statistics. However, you can only support evidence for cause with random assignment.

 

[Nous]

"What have you read in statistics?"

You mean other than formal education in statistics?

No, I mean especially in the context of your formal education in statistics. I want to understand why you can't figure out what a causal inference is.

You didn't answer this question either:

What tests are you claiming the authors should have done rather than the chi-squared tests in testing for associations?

I.e., whether those variables such as length of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, drugs, education, religion, etc., were associated with having an NDE.

Tell us everything you know about testing for those associations. What methods should the authors have used?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

No, I mean especially in the context of your formal education in statistics. I want to understand why you can't figure out what a causal inference is.

You didn't answer this question either:
I.e., whether those variables such as length of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, drugs, education, religion, etc., were associated with having an NDE.

Tell us everything you know about testing for those associations. What methods should the authors have used?

It is not about the which distribution or which hypothesis test he should have used. There are validity conditions and assumptions that have to be met before they even get to that stage. If you know so much, then why don't you know that?

What I said is academic, and I provided citation to back it up. Believe it or don't, I don't care.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Btw, there is no way I am getting out of bed at 2 am to do a data analysis on NDEs just to prove myself on some forum debate.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

No, I mean especially in the context of your formal education in statistics. I want to understand why you can't figure out what a causal inference is.

You didn't answer this question either:
I.e., whether those variables such as length of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, drugs, education, religion, etc., were associated with having an NDE.

Tell us everything you know about testing for those associations. What methods should the authors have used?

I would be interested to know these, though i do not believe any data or stats. will change my
knowledge of my own nDE experience ...

 

[Nous]

It is not about the which distribution or which hypothesis test he should have used. There are validity conditions and assumptions that have to be met before they even get to that stage.

Show us any errors that van Lommel et al. made in "meeting" "validity conditions" and assumptions in testing the associations they noted.

Again, for about the third time, what method should the authors have used to test for those associations? (I guess the reviewers for Lancet are just not as educated as you in statistics, eh?)

So, are you having difficulty remembering any books on statistics that you've read?

 

[Nous]

I would be interested to know these, though i do not believe any data or stats. will change my
knowledge of my own nDE experience ...

I can understand that perfectly. The findings of studies merely give us something to hang our hats on.

 

[Nous]

Btw, there is no way I am getting out of bed at 2 am to do a data analysis on NDEs just to prove myself on some forum debate.

If you do get out of bed at some point, perhaps you should first find a dictionary to look up the words "causal" and especially "inference".

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Show us any errors that van Lommel et al. made in "meeting" "validity conditions" and assumptions in testing the associations they noted.

Again, for about the third time, what method should the authors have used to test for those associations? (I guess the reviewers for Lancet are just not as educated as you in statistics, eh?)

So, are you having difficulty remembering any books on statistics that you've read?

I am a middle age man with a degree in writing. I have gone back to school and I am currently enrolled at Montana State for my third year working on a 2nd degree in Statistics. Am I having problems remembering the titles of the books for my courses, yes I am and some of them I don't have with me.

Am I familiar with the Chi-squared and T-test hypothesis testing? Yes, that was class one in statistics and they are not hard. In fact I did a chi-squared goodness to fit test for homework yesterday.

Do I think you do not have a clue what you are talking about, because you are auguring against random assignment? Yes, absolutely. If you really knew stats like you seem to think you do, you'd understand where I am coming from.

I think you are mostly bark and you are upset because I dismissed your precious study.

 

[Nous]

I am a middle age man with a degree in writing. I have gone back to school and I am currently enrolled at Montana State for my third year working on a 2nd degree in Statistics. Am I having problems remembering the titles of the books for my courses, yes I am and some of them I don't have with me.

Am I familiar with the Chi-squared and T-test hypothesis testing? Yes, that was class one in statistics and they are not hard. In fact I did a chi-squared goodness to fit test for homework yesterday.

Obviously your 1 and a half degrees in statistics have not enabled you to discern and point out any error in the statistical methods used in the van Lommel et al. paper and which the Lancet reviewers completely missed.

And apparently your 1 and a half degrees in statistics have not enabled to answer my question as to what statistical method van Lommel et al. should have used instead of the chi-squared and t tests in order to test the associations between having an NDE and length of cardiac arrest and consciousness, drugs, religion, education, etc. Correct?

And evidently your 1 and a half degrees in statistics have not enabled you to point out any errors in assessment of validity conditions or assumptions in the van Lommel et al. paper, which the Lancet reviewers supposedly missed completely.

Do I think you do not have a clue what you are talking about, because you are auguring against random assignment?

I "augured" against random assignment? Quote where I "augured" against random assignment.

Perhaps Montana State has an introductory course in logic that you could take, so that you can understand what arguments and inferences are.

I dismissed your precious study.

You "dismissed" the whole van Lommel study and all of the findings because of one error that you can't actually identify?

That isn't the reason you have dismissed all of the facts presented in the OPs. You have dismissed the facts because the evidence presented in the OPs conflicts with your religion. You are a Young Earth Creationist being presented with the carbon-14 isotope evidence.