Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[TagliatelliMonster]

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)

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

Because it's just an unverifiable hearsay story.

Then the “out of body hypothesis” fails, and you should go for an alternative hypothesis (hallucination lies etc.)
That’s my point you can use the scientific method to test the claims.

You can not.
Seems like you don't really know how the scientific method works.

But you can test for frauds and misinterpretations.

If john claims to have had a NDE and he claims to have visited “Leroy” while he was watching a video about Big Mac, you can call “Leroy” and ask him about the videos that he watched.

If Leroy answers “Big Mac in Alaska” you can count it as solid evidence for NDE, if I answer Gilgamesh then you can assume that John was hallucinating, dreaming or lying.

But you can't call Leroy.
You can only rely on the anecdote where all this is claimed.
There is nothing to be tested here. All you can do is rely on people's words.

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

That is simply extremely false.

how do you know that the fossil of Tiktaalik was actually found?

It's properly documented.

All you have is anecdotes from scientists who claim to have seen such fossil

And the fossil itself.

, you haven’t seen the fossil yourself, you simply trust other people

These things are on display, you know

 

[George-ananda]

Which is a good way to end up with false beliefs.

We learn and revise. I believe it is impoverishing to the intellect to ignore a large body of consistent cases.

What are you on about with this "scientism" ( ) ?
You called it scientific evidence.

There's nothing scientific about anecdotes.

As you saw in the Dr. Sabom study of heart attack patients that had and didn't have NDEs, we can try to put some scientific discipline into the study of anecdotes.

Those types of studies are to be considered when asking my question 'All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe'.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Gap thinking. We don't know, so whatever I want to believe is the truth.

If the gap gets filled in, moved to the next or deny the filling for the previous gap.

I do not fear gaps or legitimate, honest inquiry that might fill them.

If finding that NDE were biochemical and psychological in origin and not evidence of an afterlife, does not falsify the possibility of an afterlife. It just reveals the fear of believers and the weakness of their faith in my opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We learn and revise. I believe it is impoverishing to the intellect to ignore a large body of consistent cases.

I believe it is impoverishing to the intellect, and rationality, to believe things without evidence - no matter how many people claim it.

Nobody is ignoring the cases though. I don't doubt people's sincerity, for the most part. When somebody claims to have experienced something, I believe them.

But that doesn't mean I'll also believe whatever interpretation / explanation they, or others, provide for it.
It's the explanation that requires evidence.

The "spiritual" interpretation / explanation of NDEs, seems to me to be nothing more or less then good ol' confirmation bias. There is no evidence for it at all.

There are far more likely explanations that require no appeal to undemonstrable "spiritual entities" at all.
The only reason why people believe this interpretation, is because they already believe (without evidence) that there is such a thing as a "spirit" or "soul" that exists independently of the body.

But there isn't any evidence for any of it.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that brains are things that are very easily tricked and which behave in strange and sometimes unpredictable ways when under stress - like when they are deprived of oxygen and alike.

We also know about dreams and hallucinations.

So is it surprising that people on the brink of death will then experience strange and unpredictable things, and find that others had similar experiences?
Not at all. It's what we expect to happen when the brain is under stress.

As you saw in the Dr. Sabom study of heart attack patients that had and didn't have NDEs, we can try to put some scientific discipline into the study of anecdotes.

You can try, but you will not be successful.
Sure, you can study witness declarations and evaluate it with degrees of trustworthiness - this happens a lot in court cases. But all you learn about that way, is how likely it is that the witness is sincere.

I already said: for the most part, I don't doubt people's sincerity. I just don't assume them to be right / correct by default. There are claimed alien abductees out there which will literally pass any lie detector test. They are very very sincere and truthful in their statements. But that doesn't mean they actually were abducted by aliens. They weren't.

They are mistaken (for whatever reason) about what it is they experienced.

Those types of studies are to be considered when asking my question 'All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe'.

Most reasonable to believe are those things that are more likely.
Considering one explanation is that the brain acts strangely when under stress (a demonstrable and known fact), while the other requires massive amounts of unevidenced assumptions like "souls" or similar being real.

I shouldn't have to explain which is most reasonable.

The first explanation appeals to demonstrable facts.
The second explanation appeals only to beliefs based on no facts at all.

 

[George-ananda]

I believe it is impoverishing to the intellect, and rationality, to believe things without evidence - no matter how many people claim it.

Nobody is ignoring the cases though. I don't doubt people's sincerity, for the most part. When somebody claims to have experienced something, I believe them.

But that doesn't mean I'll also believe whatever interpretation / explanation they, or others, provide for it.
It's the explanation that requires evidence.

The "spiritual" interpretation / explanation of NDEs, seems to me to be nothing more or less then good ol' confirmation bias. There is no evidence for it at all.

There are far more likely explanations that require no appeal to undemonstrable "spiritual entities" at all.
The only reason why people believe this interpretation, is because they already believe (without evidence) that there is such a thing as a "spirit" or "soul" that exists independently of the body.

But there isn't any evidence for any of it.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that brains are things that are very easily tricked and which behave in strange and sometimes unpredictable ways when under stress - like when they are deprived of oxygen and alike.

We also know about dreams and hallucinations.

So is it surprising that people on the brink of death will then experience strange and unpredictable things, and find that others had similar experiences?
Not at all. It's what we expect to happen when the brain is under stress.



You can try, but you will not be successful.
Sure, you can study witness declarations and evaluate it with degrees of trustworthiness - this happens a lot in court cases. But all you learn about that way, is how likely it is that the witness is sincere.

I already said: for the most part, I don't doubt people's sincerity. I just don't assume them to be right / correct by default. There are claimed alien abductees out there which will literally pass any lie detector test. They are very very sincere and truthful in their statements. But that doesn't mean they actually were abducted by aliens. They weren't.

They are mistaken (for whatever reason) about what it is they experienced.




Most reasonable to believe are those things that are more likely.
Considering one explanation is that the brain acts strangely when under stress (a demonstrable and known fact), while the other requires massive amounts of unevidenced assumptions like "souls" or similar being real.

I shouldn't have to explain which is most reasonable.

The first explanation appeals to demonstrable facts.
The second explanation appeals only to beliefs based on no facts at all.

To me I use the word 'evidence' to mean anything in consideration in answering the question 'All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe?'. I guess we use the word 'evidence' differently and I just follow the dictionary definition.

Evidence
NOUN

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

But wordplay aside let's get to the heart of the matter. The OP is saying that if people having an NDE can sense verifiable details they could not have known even with fully working external senses then it is reasonable to think something that doesn't fit in the materialist model of consciousness seems to be going on.

You might say that even if this verifiable anomalous reception of information does occur, lets not jump to any 'spiritual' or supernatural interpretation.

Your position is correct actually for one who takes a 'scientism' position. I know you think that term is pejorative but actually it is one valid philosophy that you may employ here.

I, on the other hand, have been interested in paranormal/spiritual stuff for decades now and am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that dramatic things lay beyond the reach of our physical senses and instruments hence 'scientism' to me is an intellectually impoverishing philosophy.

The 'evidence' has convinced me that there are psychic senses that can detect more than the physical and a consistent body of masters/clairvoyants have given us wisdom traditions (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and other occult traditions) that can tell us useful information about some of this 'more' than can be detected by the physical.

The veridical NDE then becomes something to be expected and just part and parcel of these wisdom tradition teachings that we are physical bodies with interpenetrating astral/mental bodies that separate from the physical at times of death-like trauma (and even in astral projection and out of body experiences of the healthy). In death-like trauma this subtle body (astral/mental) will at first hover near the physical body allowing it to have a perspective from outside the physical body (commonly reported as 'from above'). In the cases where the physical body death-approaching conditions are not permanent the astral/mental body must resume its interpenetration with the physical body but may be able to recall verifiable events while outside the physical body (veridical NDEs).

So, in conclusion, I believe there is already a framework taught by many wisdom traditions that already explains the NDE. These things are still outside the range of science and should remain only speculative to those only interested in science (scientism).

 

[leroy]

Possibly, but at present there is no evidence to suggest that 8 is more reasonable than any of the others.

Ok so you agree with my main point, “at least theoretically” 8 could be more probable than any other option, there are scenarios where 8 would be the best explanation.

I think you really need to get your head round this concept because it is very important...
Until the existence of magic has been proven, you cannot claim that magic is responsible for anything.

2 things

1 that is circular reasoning, any evidence for magic would be rejected by default because there is no prior evidence for magic.

2 since you have shown that magic is false, then the default answer should be agnosticism (perhaps there is magic perhaps not) so you do have to consider magic within the pool of possible explanations

If it was a fabrication, then obviously the participants would know the details.

Sure and maybe the earth is flat and all the evidence for the globe is a fabrication. If you are going to be super skeptical about something you should be consistent an super skeptical about everything not just on the stuff and contradict your view

So you accept that "lucky guess" is more probable than magic in some cases.

sure

 

[leroy]

Not so. The connection was first raised over 100 years ago by a doctor reviewing lung cancer data. He based his claim on evidence, not anecdote.

I have no objection to investigation into anything. My problem is people making false claims and misrepresenting the results of investigations. The soul might be independent of the brain and might leave the body after death, but all the research thus far (and there has been plenty of it) suggests that it is not the case.

And confirmation bias is obviously a big problem with issues like this. If your worldview requires that there be P, you will accept any claim that appears to support XP regardless of how reliable that claim actually is.
/GALLERY]

My problem is people making false claims

How do you know that the claims are false? How do you even know if any claim was made? If I where to bet, I bet that all you have is anecdotes

 

[leroy]

And we are still waiting to hear now you would test such things.
NOTE: it must follow the principle of scientific testing. It cannot be merely accepting an anecdote as true. So if you want to use the "describing the shirt" option, you must also demonstrate that it is not possible for the patient to have known that information by any other means.

And we are still waiting to hear now you would test such things.
NOTE: it must follow the principle of scientific testing. It cannot be merely accepting an anecdote as true. So if you want to use the "describing the shirt" option, you must also demonstrate that it is not possible for the patient to have known that information by any other means.

Describing the shirt is an example of using the scientific method.

Scientific method

1 Observation: people claim to have NDE and out of body experiences

2 hypothesis: these experiences are real out of body experiences

- Alternative hypothesis: its an illusion, it’s a delivered lie, it’s a dream

3 test: ask the guy to describe the tshirt

4 resolution: if the T-Shirt is described accursedly and in detail, ( knowing that the guy has never seen the tshirt before)

Please explain exactly why isn’t this an example of using the scientific method?

 

[Watchmen]

Why are we assuming prima facie that people who have NDE must necessarily have perceived an outside world, rather than experiencing strong hallucinations brought about by the extreme circumstance of being... well, near their death?

Bingo!!!

 

[KWED]

Describing the shirt is an example of using the scientific method.
Scientific method
4 resolution: if the T-Shirt is described accursedly and in detail, ( knowing that the guy has never seen the tshirt before)
Please explain exactly why isn’t this an example of using the scientific method?

How do you demonstrate, scientifically, that the subject had no prior knowledge of the shirt?

(Also, please check your spelling of "accurately". This is happening too often. Thanks)

 

[KWED]

How do you know that the claims are false?

The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven is a known case of a false claim.
Also, "There is an afterlife" is a false claim, as is "Someone claims to have had an NDE, therefore it is true"

How do you even know if any claim was made? If I where to bet, I bet that all you have is anecdotes

No idea what you are on about here.

 

[KWED]

To me I use the word 'evidence' to mean anything in consideration in answering the question 'All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe?'. I guess we use the word 'evidence' differently and I just follow the dictionary definition.

Evidence
NOUN

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

But wordplay aside let's get to the heart of the matter. The OP is saying that if people having an NDE can sense verifiable details they could not have known even with fully working external senses then it is reasonable to think something that doesn't fit in the materialist model of consciousness seems to be going on.

You might say that even if this verifiable anomalous reception of information does occur, lets not jump to any 'spiritual' or supernatural interpretation.

Your position is correct actually for one who takes a 'scientism' position. I know you think that term is pejorative but actually it is one valid philosophy that you may employ here.

I, on the other hand, have been interested in paranormal/spiritual stuff for decades now and am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that dramatic things lay beyond the reach of our physical senses and instruments hence 'scientism' to me is an intellectually impoverishing philosophy.

The 'evidence' has convinced me that there are psychic senses that can detect more than the physical and a consistent body of masters/clairvoyants have given us wisdom traditions (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and other occult traditions) that can tell us useful information about some of this 'more' than can be detected by the physical.

The veridical NDE then becomes something to be expected and just part and parcel of these wisdom tradition teachings that we are physical bodies with interpenetrating astral/mental bodies that separate from the physical at times of death-like trauma (and even in astral projection and out of body experiences of the healthy). In death-like trauma this subtle body (astral/mental) will at first hover near the physical body allowing it to have a perspective from outside the physical body (commonly reported as 'from above'). In the cases where the physical body death-approaching conditions are not permanent the astral/mental body must resume its interpenetration with the physical body but may be able to recall verifiable events while outside the physical body (veridical NDEs).

So, in conclusion, I believe there is already a framework taught by many wisdom traditions that already explains the NDE. These things are still outside the range of science and should remain only speculative to those only interested in science (scientism).

IOW, "I have nothing to support my claims other than my need for them to be true, because I already believe them to be true".

[GALLERY=media, 9625]Therefore by KWED posted Oct 14, 2021 at 8:05 AM[/GALLERY]

 

[leroy]

The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven is a known case of a false claim.
Also, "There is an afterlife" is a false claim, as is "Someone claims to have had an NDE, therefore it is true"

No idea what you are on about here.

You cant prove scientifically that the boy lied, all you have is anecdotal evidence.......so by your standards you dont have evidence

 

[leroy]

How do you demonstrate, scientifically, that the subject had no prior knowledge of the shirt?
s)

The guy with the black t-shirt entered to the hospital 1 hour before the subject, and he stayed in the room , the subject didnt saw him

 

[leroy]

But you can't call Leroy.
You can only rely on the anecdote where all this is claimed.

Sure in my hypothetical example you can call leroy and ask him what video was he watching

So would this hypothetical example vount as evidence for NDE and real out of body experience?

It's properly documented.



And the fossil itself.



View attachment 56456

These things are on display, you know

How do you know that tiktaalik is not a hoax ? All you have is anecdotal evidence , all you have is the testimony of scientist who claim to have donde the tests ......but maybe its all a fabrication.

So ether
1 anecdotal evidence is not that bad

Or

2 you have to reject the validity of tiktaalik and pretty much all science

 

[leroy]

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

Not so. The connection was first raised over 100 years ago by a doctor reviewing lung cancer data. He based his claim on evidence, not anecdote.

The point that @sun rise is making is that sometimes anecdotes are all we have and often they are good enough to stablish knowledge. So why making an arbitrarily exception with NDE?

 

[KWED]

You cant prove scientifically that the boy lied, all you have is anecdotal evidence.......so by your standards you dont have evidence

So your argument for the truth of claims of NDEs is that we can't trust what anyone says.
Fair enough.

I'll try and explain this is simple terms.
Person makes extraordinary claim without supporting evidence = Claim is not proven.
People are sceptical about whether the claim is true = Claim is not proven.
After the claim doesn't stand up to examination, person admits they made it up = Claim is not proven.

If you still want to believe that the claim was proven, crack on!

 

[KWED]

The guy with the black t-shirt entered to the hospital 1 hour before the subject, and he stayed in the room , the subject didnt saw him

That doesn't prove the subject had no prior knowledge of what shirt the person was going to wear.

 

[KWED]

The point that @sun rise is making is that sometimes anecdotes are all we have and often they are good enough to stablish knowledge. So why making an arbitrarily exception with NDE?

But that point is wrong. We cannot use mere anecdote as a method of establishing knowledge.
If anecdote is all we have on an issue, then there is no "established knowledge" on that issue, only anecdote.

 

[leroy]

So your argument for the truth of claims of NDEs is that we can't trust what anyone says.
Fair enough.

I'll try and explain this is simple terms.
Person makes extraordinary claim without supporting evidence = Claim is not proven.
People are sceptical about whether the claim is true = Claim is not proven.
After the claim doesn't stand up to examination, person admits they made it up = Claim is not proven.

If you still want to believe that the claim was proven, crack on!

All i am saying is that by your standards, you can't prove that the boy lied.