An interesting article on scientific explanations of near-death / out-of-body experiences

by cedars 95 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sabastious

  If such phenomena cannot be deomstrated to others, then it is perfectly reasonably for others not to believe it isn't it?

  Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to reject the idea as demonstrable, not but as real. To demonstrate unreality is the cumbersome task of proving a negative. While it can be done, the circumstances must be exact or else the test becomes invalidated. There is a monumental difference between something that isn't demonstrable and something that isn't real. That would be like calling a mystery not real simply because it's a mystery.

  Lets say that you are a sheep herder and every night you lose one sheep to an unknown cause. Although you have a mystery on your hands, you still feel the negative effects of it. Eventually you will be out of sheep and lose your livelihood. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to live your life as if your sheep were not disappearing simply because you cannot explain why. This is how atheists view unexplainable phenomenon. They say that because we cannot explain how we interact with it we shouldn't be concerned with it. We should treat concepts such as the soul and the afterlife as if they didn't exist until evidence turns up that explains the mystery. This is like living in denial of your sheep disappearing one by one because you lack the ability to explain it.

  -Sab
• 

  DavePerez

  Sab said:

  This is how atheists view unexplainable phenomenon.

  Nope: that's sheep analogy is a fail, as you haven't proven the existence of any unexplained phenomenon that requires an explanation. So there's no need to find an answer to what's happening to the sheep, since there's not even a hint of sheep carcasses, or missing sheep, etc.

  That's exactly the point, and why you're simply spinning your wheels *yet again*, going in circles. Scientists have repeatedly asked for any shred of evidence of ANY phenomena that needs explaining, but the response is always the sound of cricket-chirping on your part. You're providing a tentative resolution to a question that isn't even a real question, which violates upon which science is based. It's as much of a waste as arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, since it's putting the cart ahead of the horse: you need to show any evidence that angels actually exist, before you can start worrying about the surface area of their posteriors when sitting, etc.
• 

  GromitSK

  @Sab

  Real but not demonstrable to another person seems something of a distinction without a difference from a practical perspective to my simple eye. If you say something is real to you but you cannot show me, then it seems perfectly reasonable for me to regard it as unreal in the objective sense. Though it may be real to you or seem real.

  The disappearing sheep analogy (who thought I'd ever need to write that?) does not, I think, fit. I may not know why my sheep are vanishing but the evidence that they are is clear. I can also show this to someone else, they can count the sheep one day and then the next and there will be a difference. The question then is what accounts for the difference. Also, I can know sheep exist from direct experience, and it is even a repeatable experience.

  If you simply tell me your sheep are disappearing, even if I didn't know you had an interest in sheep, I would be inclined to believe you. I know sheep exist - I have seen them and eaten a few, I know they are valuable, I know they are countable. Your are unlikely to confuse your sheep-loss with any other similar experience that you might undergo. :)
• 

  GromitSK

  @Dave

  Scientists have repeatedly asked for any shred of evidence of ANY phenomena that needs explaining, but the response is always the sound of cricket-chirping

  This is not correct - the work of Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir William Crookes and more recently Prof David Fontana, Dr Gary Schwarz, amongst others. I am not saying their work is flawless or not open to debate. One may not like their evidence, but it does exist.
• 

  DavePerez

  Sorry GromitSK, but all I'm seeing is a bunch of people with science backgrounds who heard a voice inside their head telling them to author books to laymen as a means to increase their fame and fortunes (there's that nasty Occam's razor again).

  If any of these people HAD actual evidence (including the MD neurologist who recently wrote a book that is selling to those who desparately WANT to believe in the after-life), and they were truly interested in the advancement of science, then they'd present the evidence where it could be studied in a controlled environment (one that would allow skeptics to study, examine, and verify their claims).

  As you well know, they'd also be rich AND famous, as well: debunker James Randi has a standing offer to the first person who can present verifiable existence of ANY paranormal phenomena, but no one has taken him up on the offer (EP made a similar offer a few weeks ago for these people to prove their claims of hearing God, but no one took his bait).
• 

  GromitSK

  I hear ya Dave. You might find the research by the people I mention of interest. I am not saying it will convince you beyond all doubt but its food for thought. If you never look at it you'll never know :)

  Fontana is a good place to start for a summary.
• 

  sabastious

  Real but not demonstrable to another person seems something of a distinction without a difference from a practical perspective to my simple eye. If you say something is real to you but you cannot show me, then it seems perfectly reasonable for me to regard it as unreal in the objective sense. Though it may be real to you or seem real.

  We are constantly experiencing reality that cannot be demonstrated to others. For example everytime you are alone and without recording devices, you cannot demonstrate to others what happens to you during that period. What if when you were alone you sat down and played a game of jacks. Would simply presenting the set to someone else be enough to proove your excursion and said events? No, it's just a set of jacks and it cannot be empirically demonstrated that you took the set into solitude and used them. In this case there is little reason to disbelieve the anecdote, but it cannot be confirmed to have been real. This is similar to the riddle: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? The answer is that it's impossible to know for sure. The same goes for anecdotal evidence, it doesn't prove or disprove anything. However, to the EXPERIENCER of the anecdote it's not actually an anecdote, but empirical evidence.

  The disappearing sheep analogy (who thought I'd ever need to write that?) does not, I think, fit. I may not know why my sheep are vanishing but the evidence that they are is clear. I can also show this to someone else, they can count the sheep one day and then the next and there will be a difference. The question then is what accounts for the difference. Also, I can know sheep exist from direct experience, and it is even a repeatable experience.

  If you simply tell me your sheep are disappearing, even if I didn't know you had an interest in sheep, I would be inclined to believe you. I know sheep exist - I have seen them and eaten a few, I know they are valuable, I know they are countable. Your are unlikely to confuse your sheep-loss with any other similar experience that you might undergo. :)

  The knowledge that the sheep are going missing is the empirical evidence, but the evidence lacks an explanation. Even if you can demonstrate to others that sheep are disappearing it doesn't mean you have an explanation. It just means you have confirmed something IS happening which means you cannot logically disbelieve in the phenomenon. The point is that it would be foolishness to act as if the sheep were not disappearing because you'd eventually lose your livelihood. You simply must put forth your best effort to save the sheep which means diving head first into the mystery. Failure isn't an option.

  What happens in the secular community is that they study a mystery and then when they get no where they have to justify their time spent (because science is tied to money). Even though they have no results they can still create value by deeming the mystery currently unsolvable which is a conclusion that looks better than "I failed." This is a win win because the scientist gets to move onto a easier challenge and doesn't have to call their work for nothing. The conclusion becomes "no conclusion currently possible." This works fine when the mystery at hand is benign which is why my analogy has the element of danger. There is no harm in exhausting all possible options when in times of desperation. What happens is that when a certain science becomes too cumbersome, the money flow is cut off and truth is put on the back burner.

  -Sab
• 

  GromitSK

  @sab the illustrations you are using are not, I think, applicable. You are using elements which it is commonly agreed are known to exist for other people; sheep, cards etc. the debate you raise is simply about how they are used, not whether such things exist.

  The debate here, to use your analogy, is about whether the cards or sheep even exist in the way you describe. They are the phenomena. How you use them (the cards, not the sheep) is a matter of conjecture and subject to discussion but we would all be in agreement about what playing cards and sheep are, and whether or not they exist.

  The problem with the empirical evidence that you refer to is that the phenomena you insist exist have not been demonstrated to those who do not accept them as being real. in essence, you haven't shown the sheep or cards. It's a bit like saying here is a woollen jumper, it came from a sheep, to a person who has never seen a sheep or any other kind of furry animal. They may allow the concept of sheep once you explain it and draw it for them, but they are under no obligation to accept it unless you produce one. They have no frame of reference for it.

  I am not saying that one cannot take the position you appear to with regard to phenomena, simply that it is unreasonable to expect others to follow or accept that which you cannot show to exist.

  i don't think I can usefully add much to this now really, if in fact I added anything so I will leave you to it.
• 

  sabastious

  The sheep represent the many times in history when an explaned event is resolved as an unsolved mystery. I am speaking about mysteries that remained mysterties even until today. At each event we are left with a missing sheep, but no explanation as to where it went and how it disappeared. There are only a finite amount of sheep so the conclusion of, "Sheep go missing every now and then" isn't ideologically responsible.

  -Sab
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  False equivalency is false, no matter what flavor you choose.