Well, it’s obvious that “studying science growing up” isn’t enough. Meaning: In highschool they teach you, mostly, the results. I don’t actually know when the scientific method is taught in the U.S. (or since when) but I strongly suspect you never got around to that level.
Your knowledge is quite obviously based on Popular Science, which even in magazines like “Scientific American” glosses over the actual inner workings of scientific discovery.
Like someone above posted, albeit in different words: You can collect a thousand anecdotes and still not have usable data.
DiggitCamara: I learned about the Scientific Method in high school in Virginia. Many years later, in a college Science class, I again was taught about that and, interestingly enough, it was the very same information as in the high school class. That high school happened to be a public high school, by the way.
Since you obviously know all about my knowledge of science, I won’t bother to correct you. However, near death experience research does not consist of gathering anecdotes. It consist of much less than that. The question is can those who die on the operating tables still observe the activity around their body. The result of the research is yes they can. Thereby providing evidence of non-local consciousness. Very simple.
Why wouldn’t you correct me on that point? If you have a significant amount of knowledge about the Scientific Method or about your access to research papers, it would be very relevant to the topic and would help put us on the same level, wouldn’t it?
As to the “question”: Where do you get the idea that those who “die” on the operating tables can observe the activity around the body? One of the interesting paragraphs in the skepdic’s link about NDE’s says:
So: NDE’s that report relevant information about their surroundings don’t seem to happen as frequently as you think they do. And that puts your assertion that “Yes they do” very much in question. And makes a description of your activities as an “anecdote gatherer” completely valid.
Someone has things all mixed up. Dr Bruce Grayson is a psychologist, and would never put something up for people that were out of body, because he does no surgery, and is generally not around dying people. So yes, I would expect he would have no hits, sort of like puting out hay to attract elephants in the middle of New York. So much for your quote.
Dr. Charles Tart has done research on this using subjects that can go out of body easily. He was successful.
Which brings me to another point: Even though you constantly berate people about not reading your links and not engaging you on them, you never actually read the links others provide you! Have you ever heard the maxim “Do unto others…”?
I read that he was head of the Psychology dept. of the University of Virginia, can’t believe everything you read. But Tart actually did have success.
I have read that skeptical article many times, some of it is out of date. Dr. Karl Jansen no longer believes Ketamine can produce NDEs, and admits that there could be a spiritual dimension. I reviewed part of his book for him.
See? That’s exactly why I say you don’t “get” science.
One hit proves absolutely nothing (from a scientific point of view). Experiments need to be repeatedly verifiable before they are accepted as valid data points, let alone needing a theory to explain them.
Evidence: it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
You’re confused. It’s Tart that’s a psychologist, not a psychiatrist. Has Dr. Tart managed to stay awake for any other tests?
I know this is nitpicky, but how is 2 inch high black numbers discrete? For reference, the fourth line on a Snellen Eye Chart is about 2 inches high (50 mm.) and you should be able to read that at 50 ft. away.
Dr. Tart indicates that the EEG picked up some artifact on the night that the subject reported the OBE:
Note that he reports “a great deal of sixty cycle artifact” which is referenced earlier in the article with regard to the attachment of the EEG electrodes:
Finally, Dr. Tart seems to qualify his findings to the extent that he (rightly) does not present this test as conclusive:
Thus, the article demonstrates:
The research falls asleep during the test and hence, does not fully monitor the test.
The target numbers are written large enough to see from 50 ft away and placed on a high shelf next to a reflective surface.
The EEG records artifacts that can be caused by the significant movement of the subject.
The researcher finds that the results of the test are not conclusive evidence for a parapsychological effect.
Lastly, you were asked to provide evidence of research on NDE which shows that consciousness works independently of the brain. Seeing as how the subject of this research was not experiencing near death, nor was her brain ever in jeopardy of not functioning normally, it’s obvious this is a poor choice of articles to demonstrate NDEs.