“So what”, you ask? So what makes yours the correct explanation? That’s what.
Your explanation is an interesting hypothesis, but you’ve shown no evidence that would convince any objective user of the scientific method that your hypothesis should rise to the level of a theory.
Good. I like evidence. I was trained as a scientist, and still do some science research at times.
I also try to practice evidence-based medicine, where the treatment I provide has been shown, by the scientific method, to be safe and effective.
I try to revise my practice when better evidence comes in, too. Sometimes what seemed to be true at first is later shown to be false.
As a result, I feel it’s best to keep an open mind about things.
Perhaps one day there will be enough evidence to show your hypothesis is likely the correct one.
Pfffffffft. Compared to me, you are just a rank amateur in the dark arts of post self-mutilation and cut-and-paste insanity.
Bask. Bask in my glory.
I figured as much.
I also, for the life of me, can’t pull away from this thread. It’s like driving past an 18 car pileup or something, I’m powerless to resist, it’s maddening!
So I figured I’d chuck a cheap joke in the mix, while I was at it.
I do know what anecdotal means, thank you very much.
The problem is that you are the one who gets tripped up, time after time, by what science means (and does).
I am aware that in every day anecdotes and personal accounts have their uses. It’s just that when it comes to scientific evidence, the standards are a bit more rigorous. And they have to be.
But, for some reason, you’d like for science to relax its standards to accept “stuff that everyone accepts”. And that would be a really bad idea. Why? Because people are fallible in their senses and their beliefs. People, for instance, believed the world was flat. They believed the sun circled around the earth. They believed that an infection could be cured by leeching blood out of their bodies.
All of these beliefs had a majority of “common sense” people behind them. Still, science tested these notions and came up with ideas which weren’t popular at the time and yet fitted the facts better.
What I’m saying is this: you are trying to mix up your feelings and thoughts and experiences with science. And that’s a bad fit. The site I linked to at least knows the difference. And at least it’s trying to produce science that explains NDE’s.
Your links and experiences are interesting. But they just aren’t science.
What lekatt needs to understand that his beliefs are faith, not scientifically proven.
Let’s say I claim to hear Elvis speaking to me from my toaster. I really heard that. Does that mean it really happened?
I have no doubt that you had an experience as you described. But I do doubt that it was necessarily a NDE. Even supposing it was, that doesn’t mean you can prove it. You just have to call it faith, as I said.
The Catholic Church does not demand that science prove Transubstantiation. They take it on faith.
And to be perfectly blunt, you don’t know jackshit about science. (I hope this doesn’t count as an insult, Mods.)
You are right they aren’t science because science is dishonest.
Think what would happen to science if real life personal experiences were not filtered through the scientific “method”. All of science’s sacred theories would be shown to be wrong. Evolution, big bang, neuroscience, and the list goes on and on. So science can’t allow personal experiences that contradict its sacred cows, so it turns to using the word anecdote to explain real life happenings that it labels non-scientific and therefor not believable.
In the study it talked about NDEs having no medical source. Then it talked about how completely changed the experiencers become. So changed they need support groups and help from others to ingrate back into the physical. It took me three years to do this. Now tell me how false or fake intrepretations can cause such a change. No other thing, not hallucinations, not dreams, mistakes or any thing else can produced this. If you say nah then show cites. Many researchers have begun their research on this factor or change alone knowing it has to be the experience of truth, because only truth can change people in that manner.
I don’t care if you say it is not science, that is ok with me. Saying so does not make it false. Science is not God, at least not my God, but it appears to be God for many. Science makes an arbitrary decision not to allow these experiences to be considered. Science is dishonest. Just like religion when it says there is only one way. our way.
I am going to post a full NDE a veridicle NDE, one that is verified by the staff present. I can supple 10, 50, 100 or these experiences. They are real and they are truth. I just don’t care if science approves of them of not. The general public does.
How many more do you want, how much truth can you handle?
Dishonest? Well… it would be, if Science was an institution, if you could point to a number of people and say: they embody Science. As it stands, however, it’s a way of looking at the Universe, trying to understand it. And it has developed criteria that help it to understand it better or rather to try to come close to understanding it.
Have you even looked at the site I linked to? It’s managed by a bunch of NDE supporters, for Og’s sake! That’s why I was so surprised that they talked about the Pam Reynold’s incident as an anecdote!
The surprising thing about this whole thread is that you stubbornly insist on trying to convince us of the absolute truth that your multiple reports of NDE’s, time and time again. In the mean time we show you, time and time again, why your anecdotes, albeit interesting and amusing, do not constitute scientific proof.
Not because we disbelieve them (necessarily).
Not because we dislike the protagonists.
But because the scientific method demands certain standards of proof. And your posts don’t fit that standard.
So now you’re a doctor or neurological researcher? You know that nothing else can cause people to have similar experiences which require subsequent counsel in order to function normally?
Allow me to clarify my last post: Science can’t be dishonest. You could as well accuse Mathematics to be dishonest. Or Medicine.
They are concepts. They can’t be dishonest.
Science is structured the way it is because it’s the best way we have figured out to find out how the Universe works. Maybe it’s not perfect, but that’s because human nature isn’t perfect.
Science is not trying to cheat you (it can’t).
Science is not trying to lie to you (it can’t).
And you can’t force it to work the way you would like it to work.
We have been over this anecdote on several previous occasions.
It is not a lie, but an anecdote: one person’s memories told in story form–memories that are contradicted by the memories of other persons who were also involved in the same incident. From the quoted text:
So, much of the time he was not dead, technically or otherwise. There is no evidence given that the times he was not “technically dead” he was unable to hear what was going on and associate the voices he heard with the speakers of those voices.
So, even the staff that worked on him have different opinions of what happened.
Memory vs memory simply means that we have conflicting accounts. That is what the rigor of the scientific method, (where events are documented as they happen with actual recording of monitors), is supposed to overcome. Unless the author of the narrative was shirking her job and not performing any of her duties, there is no way that she could know that he was never (semi-)conscious.
It remains an interesting narrative that simply lets you pretend that there was something “real” happening that you deeply wish to believe–even without actual evidence.
Again, what about the mentally ill, hallucinations? (Oh, and anecdotes aren’t necessarily accepted in court-ever hear if “hearsay?”)
Without science, we wouldn’t have the amazing advances in medicine-no vaccinations, no antibiotics, or other such drugs. How many people would be dead, nowadays, without some of the things that science has accomplished.
Hell, you wouldn’t be on your computer, communicating to us right now, if not for science.
Just want to check: We have been exactly here before, haven’t we?
I mean:
-lekatt begins by claiming science proves him right, and that NDEs are scientifically supported, - supported by real, lovely, solid SCIENCE!
-Various attempts are made to demonstrate this, they all fail dismally.
-lekatt then declares that it doesn’t matter, because science is stupid anyway.
