Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on January 12, 2018, 01:39:26 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Its been a long time since I wrote about Near Death Experiences...or After Death Experiences.
Many people of different ages, races, communities, sex, religion etc. have NDE's. This has probably been happening for centuries but it was Dr.Raymond Moody who took it seriously in the 1970's. While talking to patients who had been pronounced dead (due to accidents, heart attacks etc) but who 'came back' alive after some time, Moody found that they had certain experiences which were common.
1. They found themselves floating above their body and saw their body from above. They barely recognized it but for certain clothing or jewellery.
2. They were confused and realized that they were dead. There was no fear. Many of them felt peace.
3. In some cases dead relatives came to help them out of the body.
4. Some of them went through a tunnel with a bright light at the other end.
5. Some of them had a life review in which they felt all the good and bad they had done.
6. Some people saw a bright light that approached them and spoke to them. It was full of love.
7. Some of them saw people waiting to be reincarnated.
8. Some of them saw nurses and doctors rushing to the body or operating on it. They could hear conversations.
9. They were then told that they had to go back to their lives on earth and they felt themselves being drawn down into their body.
10. They felt a regret on being back in their body. Many of the scenes they saw and heard while dead, were confirmed by the doctors and nurses.
11. The experience changed their lives and they lost fear of death and felt a purpose in life.
There are literally thousands of cases.
Dr. Sam Parnia of Southampton university hospital has taken up research on this phenomenon as a project. He has confirmed that though they are called 'Near death'....they are actually After Death experiences because he has noted that all medical symptoms of death were met.
For those interested read here
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/near-death-expe/
For case studies check here..
https://iands.org/ndes/about-ndes.html
https://www.near-death.com/
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Its been a long time since I wrote about Near Death Experiences...or After Death Experiences.
Many people of different ages, races, communities, sex, religion etc. have NDE's. This has probably been happening for centuries but it was Dr.Raymond Moody who took it seriously in the 1970's. While talking to patients who had been pronounced dead (due to accidents, heart attacks etc) but who 'came back' alive after some time, Moody found that they had certain experiences which were common.
1. They found themselves floating above their body and saw their body from above. They barely recognized it but for certain clothing or jewellery.
2. They were confused and realized that they were dead. There was no fear. Many of them felt peace.
3. In some cases dead relatives came to help them out of the body.
4. Some of them went through a tunnel with a bright light at the other end.
5. Some of them had a life review in which they felt all the good and bad they had done.
6. Some people saw a bright light that approached them and spoke to them. It was full of love.
7. Some of them saw people waiting to be reincarnated.
8. Some of them saw nurses and doctors rushing to the body or operating on it. They could hear conversations.
9. They were then told that they had to go back to their lives on earth and they felt themselves being drawn down into their body.
10. They felt a regret on being back in their body. Many of the scenes they saw and heard while dead, were confirmed by the doctors and nurses.
11. The experience changed their lives and they lost fear of death and felt a purpose in life.
There are literally thousands of cases.
Dr. Sam Parnia of Southampton university hospital has taken up research on this phenomenon as a project. He has confirmed that though they are called 'Near death'....they are actually After Death experiences because he has noted that all medical symptoms of death were met.
For those interested read here
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/near-death-expe/
For case studies check here..
https://iands.org/ndes/about-ndes.html
https://www.near-death.com/
Cheers.
Sriram
the last time I tried to discus my own NDE with you , you completely rejected it because it didn't fit with your preconceived ideas
You're not worthy !
-
Hi everyone,
Its been a long time since I wrote about Near Death Experiences...or After Death Experiences.
Many people of different ages, races, communities, sex, religion etc. have NDE's. This has probably been happening for centuries but it was Dr.Raymond Moody who took it seriously in the 1970's. While talking to patients who had been pronounced dead (due to accidents, heart attacks etc) but who 'came back' alive after some time, Moody found that they had certain experiences which were common.
1. They found themselves floating above their body and saw their body from above. They barely recognized it but for certain clothing or jewellery.
2. They were confused and realized that they were dead. There was no fear. Many of them felt peace.
3. In some cases dead relatives came to help them out of the body.
4. Some of them went through a tunnel with a bright light at the other end.
5. Some of them had a life review in which they felt all the good and bad they had done.
6. Some people saw a bright light that approached them and spoke to them. It was full of love.
7. Some of them saw people waiting to be reincarnated.
8. Some of them saw nurses and doctors rushing to the body or operating on it. They could hear conversations.
9. They were then told that they had to go back to their lives on earth and they felt themselves being drawn down into their body.
10. They felt a regret on being back in their body. Many of the scenes they saw and heard while dead, were confirmed by the doctors and nurses.
11. The experience changed their lives and they lost fear of death and felt a purpose in life.
There are literally thousands of cases.
Dr. Sam Parnia of Southampton university hospital has taken up research on this phenomenon as a project. He has confirmed that though they are called 'Near death'....they are actually After Death experiences because he has noted that all medical symptoms of death were met.
For those interested read here
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/near-death-expe/
For case studies check here..
https://iands.org/ndes/about-ndes.html
https://www.near-death.com/
Cheers.
Sriram
Whatever images a person experiences during an NDE is all to do with the brain beginning to shut down, there is nothing supernatural about it, imo.
I don't know why the title of this thread is 'after death', as the person having a NDE is not dead but revives to tell the tale.
-
Whatever images a person experiences during an NDE is all to do with the brain beginning to shut down, there is nothing supernatural about it, imo.
I don't know why the title of this thread is 'after death', as the person having a NDE is not dead but revives to tell the tale.
i can agree with that 👍
-
Whatever images a person experiences during an NDE is all to do with the brain beginning to shut down, there is nothing supernatural about it, imo.
I don't know why the title of this thread is 'after death', as the person having a NDE is not dead but revives to tell the tale.
Given Sriram's posts, he wouldn't be claiming it as supernatural either. I think rather your point is that it isn't anything other than delusion.
-
the last time I tried to discus my own NDE with you , you completely rejected it because it didn't fit with your preconceived ideas
You're not worthy !
Walter....I am not sure what you said and what I replied, but I am sure I had no intention of rejecting your experience. BTW, I am not an expert to decide on any case or accept it or reject it.
So...go ahead and share your experience if you want to...
-
Walter....I am not sure what you said and what I replied, but I am sure I had no intention of rejecting your experience. BTW, I am not an expert to decide on any case or accept it or reject it.
So...go ahead and share your experience if you want to...
thanks but no thanks, not this time .
I'm quite happy with the research I did over many years to explain my experience .
Turns out it's all quite natural and I'm ok with that .
-
People generally seem to take NDE's casually....like UFO sightings.... one of those things to be ignored.
Actually, NDE's are one of the most important 'discoveries' in modern times. IMO much more important than cosmological and sub atomic discoveries. Certainly much more relevant to our personal lives.
I am surprised people are not enthused by it. Mental blocks, comfort zones...!
-
People generally seem to take NDE's casually....like UFO sightings.... one of those things to be ignored.
Actually, NDE's are one of the most important 'discoveries' in modern times. IMO much more important than cosmological and sub atomic discoveries. Certainly much more relevant to our personal lives.
I am surprised people are not enthused by it. Mental blocks, comfort zones...!
Why, relatively few people experience NDEs?
-
People generally seem to take NDE's casually....like UFO sightings.... one of those things to be ignored.
Actually, NDE's are one of the most important 'discoveries' in modern times. IMO much more important than cosmological and sub atomic discoveries. Certainly much more relevant to our personal lives.
I am surprised people are not enthused by it. Mental blocks, comfort zones...!
I don't think NDEs should be ignored, and you are welcome to your idea that they are one of the most important 'discoveries' in modern times. I don't agree with you, obviously, but that's by the way. I don't see any point in going over old ground yet again.
Just one aside. You mentioned Sam Parnia. You do realise that Sam Parnia's Aware study did not come up with any objective evidence for verifying OBEs at all, indeed, the only evidence that accrued was negative. Even, on the anecdotal front, out of 2060 cardiac arrests, only 140 people could be interviewed(the others didn't survive), and after interviewing 101 of these, 9 patients were identified as having an NDE, and out of these only one had an NDE experience that could be verified for accuracy, and even this is suspect because of the looseness of the protocols, which Parnia, himself, accepted.
-
Why, relatively few people experience NDEs?
What do you mean 'relatively few'? There are thousands.....
First of all it requires a very specific requirement....that the person should have met with some fatal situation like an accident or heart attack. That is itself rare.
Secondly that person should be revived and should come back to life. That is rarer still.
Thirdly that person should be mentally reconciled to the situation and should be willing to talk to someone about it.
Finally, the person he talks to should be a psychologist who writes books about such matters. How likely is that?!
All these are not common every day occurrences, especially in cities where such studies are done. If it happens in remote villages and towns no one is likely to ever know.
In fact, it could be a matter of common occurrence which is why spirituality and ideas of an after-life probably arose in the first place.
-
What do you mean 'relatively few'? There are thousands.....
First of all it requires a very specific requirement....that the person should have met with some fatal situation like an accident or heart attack. That is itself rare.
Secondly that person should be revived and should come back to life. That is rarer still.
Thirdly that person should be mentally reconciled to the situation and should be willing to talk to someone about it.
Finally, the person he talks to should be a psychologist who writes books about such matters. How likely is that?!
All these are not common every day occurrences, especially in cities where such studies are done. If it happens in remote villages and towns no one is likely to ever know.
In fact, it could be a matter of common occurrence which is why spirituality and ideas of an after-life probably arose in the first place.
As I said relatively few people experience NDEs, considering how huge the population of this planet is. It might be an interesting research project for a student, but not a very important one, imo.
-
Yes, NDEs should be studied and not ignored. If those studies provide evidence that some part of us survives death then that would of course be very significant. That isn't the current situation though.
-
Yes, NDEs should be studied and not ignored. If those studies provide evidence that some part of us survives death then that would of course be very significant. That isn't the current situation though.
I don't see how any study of NDEs could show that some part of us survives death as those who experience them aren't dead.
-
Yes, NDEs should be studied and not ignored. If those studies provide evidence that some part of us survives death then that would of course be very significant. That isn't the current situation though.
Not actually sure how any of the studies carried out would show that. They seem to concentrate on the out of body aspect and that wouldn't in theory be just explainable by there being a past death experience, however that is defined.
-
Not actually sure how any of the studies carried out would show that. They seem to concentrate on the out of body aspect and that wouldn't in theory be just explainable by there being a past death experience, however that is defined.
in my case the experience lasted for a period of about 3 days during which time my skull and face and pelvis had been operated on without my knowledge Duringthose 3 days I experienced the usually reported phenomenon
It was returning from the intense bright light that I became aware of my real surroundings
-
in my case the experience lasted for a period of about 3 days during which time my skull and face and pelvis had been operated on without my knowledge Duringthose 3 days I experienced the usually reported phenomenon
It was returning from the intense bright light that I became aware of my real surroundings
And during that time, presumably, you were maintained in a comatose condition by a cocktail of anaesthetic and analgesic drugs which, individually or collectively, may well have had hallucinogenic and other neurological properties.
-
Yes, NDEs should be studied and not ignored. If those studies provide evidence that some part of us survives death then that would of course be very significant. That isn't the current situation though.
Well...people world over have kept up the quest for gravity waves, Higgs boson, Einstein's many predictions on relativity, evolution and so on, over many decades. Doesn't happen in a day!
People are continuing to persist with research on Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
If people can spend so much of time, money and effort on such matters, surely NDE's deserve more attention and time....though it is much more complex given the nature of the phenomenon. It shouldn't be a very quick and impatient....'well..we tried it and it doesn't work...nothing there folks!'
If people are dismissive of it dubbing it as 'religious mumbo jumbo'....nothing much is likely to happen. Its all about attitude!
-
As I said relatively few people experience NDEs, considering how huge the population of this planet is. It might be an interesting research project for a student, but not a very important one, imo.
:D Well...you are a person who talks of a ghostly monk walking through your kitchen, strange faces appearing in family photos... and then turn around and say...'there is probably a natural explanation'.
What can I say... about your opinion! ::)
-
:D Well...you are a person who talks of a ghostly monk walking through your kitchen, strange faces appearing in family photos... and then turn around and say...'there is probably a natural explanation'.
What can I say... about your opinion! ::)
I still think there is a natural explanation for all the weird things I have experienced during my life, whatever you think.
-
I still think there is a natural explanation for all the weird things I have experienced during my life, whatever you think.
I question the usefulness outside philosophical polemics, of the word natural. I must say though I like the word weird.
-
And during that time, presumably, you were maintained in a comatose condition by a cocktail of anaesthetic and analgesic drugs which, individually or collectively, may well have had hallucinogenic and other neurological properties.
unfortunately for me this happened at a time before induced comas were possible and from talking to the team who worked on me some time later , for three days they struggled to keep me alive
I don't really want to go into detail but the injuries I mention were not the major ones
Apparently death was an option during those three days
-
unfortunately for me this happened at a time before induced comas were possible and from talking to the team who worked on me some time later , for three days they struggled to keep me alive
I don't really want to go into detail but the injuries I mention were not the major ones
Apparently death was an option during those three days
You never know perhaps writing this post is only a N D E of yours Walter and you didn't actually survive,,, now with a following X-files sound track?
Regards if you're there Walter,,,, Walter,,,,,,Walter? ippy.
-
What do you mean 'relatively few'? There are thousands.....
have you got any idea of how many people come close to death every day?
First of all it requires a very specific requirement....that the person should have met with some fatal situation like an accident or heart attack. That is itself rare.
No it isn't. I confidently predict that the death rate is 100%
Secondly that person should be revived and should come back to life. That is rarer still.
Thirdly that person should be mentally reconciled to the situation and should be willing to talk to someone about it.
Finally, the person he talks to should be a psychologist who writes books about such matters. How likely is that?!
All these are not common every day occurrences, especially in cities where such studies are done. If it happens in remote villages and towns no one is likely to ever know.
In fact, it could be a matter of common occurrence which is why spirituality and ideas of an after-life probably arose in the first place.
Given that there are seven billion people on Earth and around 200,000 of them die every single day, your argument seems somewhat bollocks.
-
You never know perhaps writing this post is only a N D E of yours Walter and you didn't actually survive,,, now with a following X-files sound track?
Regards if you're there Walter,,,, Walter,,,,,,Walter? ippy.
some people think I'm not all there!
But I think I'm here , wherever that may be ?
-
some people think I'm not all there!
But I think I'm here , wherever that may be ?
One couldn't possibly comment! ;D :P
-
One couldn't possibly comment! ;D :P
go on , I'm sure you could 😎
-
Hi everyone,
The point is that there is sufficient evidence for an After-life to be considered a hypothesis rather than as a religious belief.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
The point is that there is sufficient evidence for an After-life to be considered a hypothesis rather than as a religious belief.
Cheers.
Sriram
If so, and setting aside the details of any religious beliefs, what methods do you think would be suited to test this hypothesis so as to ensure any results were demonstrably free of religious bias?
-
If so, and setting aside the details of any religious beliefs, what methods do you think would be suited to test this hypothesis so as to ensure any results were demonstrably free of religious bias?
That is something researchers would have to figure out.
-
That is something researchers would have to figure out.
Then to say it is a 'hypothesis' is wrong, since a hypothesis is a part of the methodology and implies something about the investigations into whatever the hypothesis is about.
-
Then to say it is a 'hypothesis' is wrong, since a hypothesis is a part of the methodology and implies something about the investigations into whatever the hypothesis is about.
From the dictionary...a Hypothesis is....
"a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts".
To explain the occurrence of NDE's, one of the valid hypothesis would be the existence of an After-Life...just as brain induced hallucinations could be another. The hypothesis thereby is a conjecture that guides further investigations.
Dismissing the After-Life as a religious belief in spite of widespread experience of NDE's....is clearly wrong and does not help in further investigations.
Only people who out of vested interest, don't want to investigate NDE's as possible evidence of an After-Life would deny that it is a hypothesis.
-
From the dictionary...a Hypothesis is....
"a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts".
To explain the occurrence of NDE's, one of the valid hypothesis would be the existence of an After-Life...just as brain induced hallucinations could be another. The hypothesis thereby is a conjecture that guides further investigations.
Nope - you first need a hypothesis, plus the relevant methods, to establish that there is this 'After-Life' at all.
Dismissing the After-Life as a religious belief in spite of widespread experience of NDE's....is clearly wrong and does not help in further investigations.
Nope - whatever people may think you can't simply presume a priori this 'After-Life' is an established and demonstrable fact.
Only people who out of vested interest, don't want to investigate NDE's as possible evidence of an After-Life would deny that it is a hypothesis.
It isn't a hypothesis without a method, so you don't really have any evidence since all you have are claims (often with a religious or 'spiritual' bias) that may well be attractive to those feel inclined to think there is an 'After-life' - but these claims are devoid of method, and as such they aren't a hypothesis.
-
Nope - you first need a hypothesis, plus the relevant methods, to establish that there is this 'After-Life' at all.
Nope - whatever people may think you can't simply presume a priori this 'After-Life' is an established and demonstrable fact.
????????
-
????????
A scientific hypothesis is a provisional explanation for a phenomena or problem which can be tested. So you need to propose a method which can be tested to explain the reports of people who experience NDEs.
-
From the dictionary...a Hypothesis is....
"a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts".
To explain the occurrence of NDE's, one of the valid hypothesis would be the existence of an After-Life...just as brain induced hallucinations could be another. The hypothesis thereby is a conjecture that guides further investigations.
Dismissing the After-Life as a religious belief in spite of widespread experience of NDE's....is clearly wrong and does not help in further investigations.
Only people who out of vested interest, don't want to investigate NDE's as possible evidence of an After-Life would deny that it is a hypothesis.
In what way does the hypothesis of the after life explain near death experiences? Everybody who has reported an NDE was alive e at the time they reported it and so could not possibly have experienced the after life.
-
A scientific hypothesis is a provisional explanation for a phenomena or problem which can be tested. So you need to propose a method which can be tested to explain the reports of people who experience NDEs.
I have said this before. Methodologies and methods cannot be handed out on a platter by any one person. They have to evolve and develop over several years through the efforts and dedication of many researchers. Just as it happens in other areas of science like gravitational waves, Higgs Boson, Dark Energy etc.
But the first step is to accept some idea as a possible explanation for a certain observation to begin with. That is what a hypothesis does. It becomes a pivot around which the research and investigation gets built.
If we think of some idea as a religious belief instead, it is dismissed and relegated to the rubbish bin immediately. The classic two boxes syndrome! That is the problem.
-
But the first step is to accept some idea as a possible explanation for a certain observation to begin with.
No it doesn't: a hypothesis is a proposition(s) that is amenable to investigation and where the details of the proposition imply methodology. There is also the 'null hypothesis' approach, but again methodology is implied.
So, when you said a few posts back 'To explain the occurrence of NDE's, one of the valid hypothesis would be the existence of an After-Life' you were quite simply wrong, and had you proposed this as being a 'hypothesis' to the Prof I studied under she would note you were fallaciously begging the question as she ushered you out of her office and she would probably have suggested you attend a Research Methods course before trying to formulate hypotheses.
-
I have said this before. Methodologies and methods cannot be handed out on a platter by any one person. They have to evolve and develop over several years through the efforts and dedication of many researchers. Just as it happens in other areas of science like gravitational waves, Higgs Boson, Dark Energy etc.
But the first step is to accept some idea as a possible explanation for a certain observation to begin with. That is what a hypothesis does. It becomes a pivot around which the research and investigation gets built.
If we think of some idea as a religious belief instead, it is dismissed and relegated to the rubbish bin immediately. The classic two boxes syndrome! That is the problem.
You may have said this before but that doesn't mean you are correct. In science the word hypothesis has a particular meaning. You might not zgree with it but you can't change the definition.
-
You mzy hzve said this before but that doesn't mean you are correct. In science the word hypothesus has a particular meaning. Yih might not zgree with it but you can't change the definition.
What are you talking about?!! I have given the dictionary definition in post 31 and I agree with that.
-
What are you talking about?!! I have given the dictionary definition in post 31 and I agree with that.
Its the same issue with the word theory where there is one meaning in common parlance but a more specific one in science. For something to be a scientific hypothesis you need a proposed methodology. It is your comments about methodology to which I was referring.
-
Its been a long time since I wrote about Near Death Experiences...
Not nearly long enough. Near death experiences can tell us nothing about an afterlife.
...or After Death Experiences.
No such thing has ever been reported, for obvious reasons; the dead are not very talkative.
-
Its the same issue with the word theory where there is one meaning in common parlance but a more specific one in science. For something to be a scientific hypothesis you need a proposed methodology. It is your comments about methodology to which I was referring.
Please give me a link or reference where the 'scientific' definition of hypothesis is different from the dictionary one I have given above.
The methodology of investigation cannot come before the proposition. That is absurd! After a proposition or conjecture is made the methodology of investigation has to be worked out suitably.
-
Please give me a link or reference where the 'scientific' definition of hypothesis is different from the dictionary one I have given above.
The methodology of investigation cannot come before the proposition. That is absurd! After a proposition or conjecture is made the methodology of investigation has to be worked out suitably.
You have given a definition but you clearly don't understand it (or it seems Research Methods).
-
Please give me a link or reference where the 'scientific' definition of hypothesis is different from the dictionary one I have given above.
There are plenty if you could be bothered to look - here's an example: What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? (https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html)
For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, an idea that was advanced in the mid-20th century a British philosopher named Karl Popper..
You could always have tried wiki: Hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
-
Jim Tucker refers to his idea of reincarnation as a hypothesis BTW. Refer the thread on reincarnation.
I guess real scientists, especially the younger ones, see these things differently from people who are used to old science.
-
There may be a couple of scientists who have taken such ideas seriously; but then there are hundreds of thousands who don't.
There may have been 'literally thousands' of reported near death 'experiences'; but then there are literally billions of actual deaths where the deceased have failed to report on their journey.
NDEs are interesting in so much as they can reveal aspects of what it is like to be nearly dead. They don't throw any light on what it is like to be actually dead.
-
Jim Tucker refers to his idea of reincarnation as a hypothesis BTW. Refer the thread on reincarnation.
I guess real scientists, especially the younger ones, see these things differently from people who are used to old science.
Real scientists? Jim Tucker has BA in psychology.
Its not about how things are seen but about the definition of a word used and whether it is being used correctly.
-
Real scientists? Jim Tucker has BA in psychology.
Its not about how things are seen but about the definition of a word used and whether it is being used correctly.
Good point.
-
There may be a couple of scientists who have taken such ideas seriously; but then there are hundreds of thousands who don't.
There may have been 'literally thousands' of reported near death 'experiences'; but then there are literally billions of actual deaths where the deceased have failed to report on their journey.
NDEs are interesting in so much as they can reveal aspects of what it is like to be nearly dead. They don't throw any light on what it is like to be actually dead.
What do you mean 'couple of scientists'? Einstein was just one scientist proposing the ToR. Are you trying to dismiss a proposition based on the number of people who are for or against it?!
The number of people who do not come back from the dead does not suggest the absence of an After-life. What kind of an argument is that? The number of people who come back and give their experiences, does suggest it however.
Medical records of these patients does suggest that they were actually dead at the time they had the experiences. Just go through the cases.
-
Real scientists? Jim Tucker has BA in psychology.
Its not about how things are seen but about the definition of a word used and whether it is being used correctly.
Jim Tucker is a qualified psychiatrist. He is clearly sufficiently qualified to be a Asst Prof in the university and to be given a grant for his research. You think a Phd with blinkers on is more suitable? I don't think so.
Its not about a word. Its about a fresh perspective. An ability to think laterally.
Words evolve and lot depends on how narrowly or broadly they are used and the context in which they are used.
I am talking about a way of thinking.
-
What do you mean 'couple of scientists'? Einstein was just one scientist proposing the ToR. Are you trying to dismiss a proposition based on the number of people who are for or against it?!
Einstein presented a well argued case, based on known and tested science (notably Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism) and his conclusions were testable and falsifiable.
Those claiming an afterlife haven't presented such a case and their ideas are not testable and falsifiable.
Medical records of these patients does suggest that they were actually dead at the time they had the experiences. Just do through the cases.
- They may have had no brain activity and a stopped heart but they obviously weren't dead (actual cell death in the brain, for example), otherwise they'd never have got to report it.
- How can they possibly know when the experience was formed in the brain?
-
The number of people who do not come back from the dead does not suggest the absence of an After-life. What kind of an argument is that? The number of people who come back and give their experiences, does suggest it however.
You can't name anybody who has verifiably come back from the dead. Nobody who went through an NDE was actually dead at the time.
Medical records of these patients does suggest that they were actually dead at the time they had the experiences.
False.
-
Jim Tucker is a qualified psychiatrist. He is clearly sufficiently qualified to be a Asst Prof in the university and to be given a grant for his research. You think a Phd with blinkers on is more suitable? I don't think so.
Its not about a word. Its about a fresh perspective. An ability to think laterally.
Words evolve and lot depends on how narrowly or broadly they are used and the context in which they are used.
I am talking about a way of thinking.
He has BA not a BsC and his research is not into the methodolgy of this.
It is about the meaning of the word of you are dealing with real science. Words evolve in common parlance but true science rewuires clear definitions and accuracy of meaning.
-
He has BA not a BsC and his research is not into the methodolgy of this.
It is about the meaning of the word of you are dealing with real science. Words evolve in common parlance but true science rewuires clear definitions and accuracy of meaning.
There is nothing called 'real' science. There is hard science and soft science. Psychology and such matters are part of the soft sciences....and obviously their methodologies will be somewhat different from those of the hard sciences.
-
There is nothing called 'real' science. There is hard science and soft science. Psychology and such matters are part of the soft sciences....and obviously their methodologies will be somewhat different from those of the hard sciences.
Wrong: it is all science, where methods will be suited to what is being studied, and if it is indeed 'science' it will involve an approach using the discipline of the scientific method since, if not, then it isn't 'science' - it would then be 'pseudo-science', which is no good to anyone except those who use it to exploit the gullible.
Thus psychology, as would be studied by academic institutions and documented in accredited peer-reviewed journals, is no less a 'science' than, say, physics even if professional psychologists rarely require access to the Large Hadron Collider.
-
Wrong: it is all science, where methods will be suited to what is being studied, and if it is indeed 'science' it will involve an approach using the discipline of the scientific method since, if not, then it isn't 'science' - it would then be 'pseudo-science', which is no good to anyone except those who use it to exploit the gullible.
Thus psychology, as would be studied by academic institutions and documented in accredited peer-reviewed journals, is no less a 'science' than, say, physics even if professional psychologists rarely require access to the Large Hadron Collider.
I'm sure Chomsky would disagree with you Gordon. I think you might be confusing psychology with neuroscience. This sort of confusion I would move is common in the New Atheism which is partly comprised of a hefty dollop of scientism.
-
Hard and soft science are just terms commonly used and are criticised by many as just a way of trying to make things which aren't following the scientific method sound like they are. Its either science, if it follows the scientific method, or its not.
-
I'm sure Chomsky would disagree with you Gordon.
In what way?
I think you might be confusing psychology with neuroscience. This sort of confusion I would move is common in the New Atheism which is partly comprised of a hefty dollop of scientism.
Nope: not confused at all, given my career background involved both these areas.
-
In what way?
Nope: not confused at all, given my career background involved both these areas.
Psychology is not a pure science. Neuroscience is purer.
-
Psychology is not a pure science. Neuroscience is purer.
On what basis, and what to you mean by your use of 'purer'?
-
Bumped for Vlad.
-
Thus psychology, as would be studied by academic institutions and documented in accredited peer-reviewed journals, is no less a 'science' than, say, physics even if professional psychologists rarely require access to the Large Hadron Collider.
It was in relation to psychology that Richard Feynman coined the term "cargo cult science". His complaint was that psychologists were not being scrupulous in their approach to experiments, rendering them worthless on the whole. Of course,, this was thirty or forty years ago, so things might have improved.
-
Your arguments show the dangers of defining Science too narrowly! ::)
-
Your arguments show the dangers of defining Science too narrowly! ::)
Disagree.
-
Real scientists? Jim Tucker has BA in psychology.
I have a BA in Psychology. Are you (and Floo!) telling me that I am not a scientist? Or are telling me that you are clueless about the nature of academic psychology?
-
Psychology is not a pure science. Neuroscience is purer.
So, Vlad, what is a "pure science"?
-
According to Wikipedia, Jim B Tucker has a BA in Psychology "and a medical degree". He is employed as a professor of psychiatry. It is strange that his medical qualification has been ignored by Maeght and Vlad in their discussions about him.
I would suggest that psychiatry rather than psychology has been the major intellectual device involved in his investigations into recovered memories relating to "resurrection" and that his religious beliefs are possibly most powerful. It may even be that his BA is of historic interest only and was used to gain entrance to medical school.
-
So, Vlad, what is a "pure science"?
er, those areas of science which do not entertain opinion or feeling. Unfortunately psychology somewhere along the line has to include both. I'm not saying pure science isn't part of psychology but it is pure sciences in an applied context.
-
er, those areas of science which do not entertain opinion or feeling. Unfortunately psychology somewhere along the line has to include both. I'm not saying pure science isn't part of psychology but it is pure sciences in an applied context.
Just as I thought. You are totally ignorant of the nature of psychology. Psychology is a biological science specifically concerned with behaviour.
Questionnaires in women's magazines have little to do with genuine psychology.
-
I have a BA in Psychology. Are you (and Floo!) telling me that I am not a scientist? Or are telling me that you are clueless about the nature of academic psychology?
Do you follow the scientific method in academic psychology?
-
I have a BA in Psychology. Are you (and Floo!) telling me that I am not a scientist? Or are telling me that you are clueless about the nature of academic psychology?
http://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/faq/what-are-the-differences-between-a-bachelor-of-arts-and-a-bachelor-of-science-in-psychology/
-
Do you follow the scientific method in academic psychology?
Yes.
-
http://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/faq/what-are-the-differences-between-a-bachelor-of-arts-and-a-bachelor-of-science-in-psychology/
Why do you choose an American website concerned with on-line courses to investigate the nature of degrees obtained from British universities?
Where British universities offer degrees in Psychology awarded from both Arts and Science faculties the content of the degree courses are identical. Students attend the same classes, practical sessions and sit the same examinations. The difference between a BA and a BSc is the matriculation qualification of the student.
-
Why do you choose an American website concerned with on-line courses to investigate the nature of degrees obtained from British universities?
Where British universities offer degrees in Psychology awarded from both Arts and Science faculties the content of the degree courses are identical. Students attend the same classes, practical sessions and sit the same examinations. The difference between a BA and a BSc is the matriculation qualification of the student.
Okay, I take it all back.
-
Yes.
Good.
-
You may be interested in this entry in the Skeptic's Dictionary (Skepdic.com):
Psychology is the science of mental processes and behavior.
One view of psychology sees the discipline much the way Neil Postman (1992) characterizes it: psychologists are capable of saying with a straight face, and no doubt thinking that they are contributing greatly to scientific knowledge, things like: "Depression is almost always a factor in the estimated 30,000 suicides in the United States each year." Or, "In two new major studies of depression, researchers have discovered that stressful events--death, divorce or other emotional crisis--may cause otherwise healthy people to develop symptoms of depression as early as a week later." These two "major" studies "Tracked the time between stressful events and depressive episodes and found that 60 percent of the first-time depressions were linked to a stressful event." "In those patients considered to be otherwise healthy, more than a quarter became depressed within a week of the event, and the majority reacted by four weeks on average" (National Institute of Mental Health, cited in "Everyday life may cause depression," by Trisha Gura, Chicago Tribune, printed in the Sacramento Bee, July 31, 1994, p. A8). To many people, it is not news that people get depressed when a loved one dies or when they go through a divorce. This seems to be a matter of "commonsense" and no scientific study is needed to verify it.
Another view of psychologists is that they are trained at accredited institutions of higher learning, and must be well-versed in statistics and the logic of scientific experimental methods. Much of the research done by psychologists is as rigorous as that done by anyone in any of the sciences. In fact, it is probably very disconcerting to many young psych majors to discover that they are expected to think logically, understand the manipulation of variables and concepts such as p = 0.05, the necessity of control groups, the placebo effect, standards of deviation, etc. Many of them no doubt got their idea of psychology from the mass media. They think Dr. Joyce Brothers, Dr. Ruth, Shere Hite and the hosts of author/social workers or parapsychologists making the talk show circuit are the "real" psychologists. Or they think of speculative philosophers like Freud or Jung as their archetype of The Psychologist. It must be very disappointing to many would-be shrinks to discover that their teachers expect them to think like scientists rather than philosophers or creative writers.
It must be even more disheartening for research psychologists than for their students to see their field dominated in the public eye by incompetents and frauds. The public is treated to a continuous feast of wild-eyed and dangerous New Age therapies, illogical alien abduction therapists, incompetent and fraudulent parapsychologists, inept facilitated communication advocates, overzealous repressed memory & child abuse therapists, bogus self-esteem studies, etc.
Why doesn't the mass media pay more attention to the psychologists who are conducting properly controlled studies? Where is the hype spreading the news that there is no evidence that highly religious people are more altruistic and honest than less religious people? [R. F. Paloutzian's Invitation to the Psychology of Religion (Scott Foresman; 1983) or "Faith Without Works," in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, (1975)]. Where is the mass media spreading the word about studies which have shown that the full moon does not stimulate people to commit crimes or that blind people have especially acute hearing? Who gets all the attention when a competent research psychologist challenges some commonsense notion about childhood memory or testimony put forth as truth by some New Age therapist testifying in a court of law?
Finally, it must be shocking for many young students, contemplating a career of helping people and the human race through psychology, to discover that most academic psychologists don't think psi exists and that most standard psych textbooks do not consider parapsychology worthy of even an honorable mention. According to Wagner and Monnet, in a 1979 study of 1,100 college professors in the United States, only 34% of psychologists surveyed believe that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figures for other disciplines are: natural scientists (55%), social scientists [excluding psychologists] (66%) and for academics in the arts, humanities, and education (77%). However, less encouraging was the report that 34% of the psychologists surveyed believe psi is an impossibility. Only 2% of the other respondents maintained this strong position ("Attitudes of College Professors toward Extra-sensory perception," Zetetic Scholar, 5, 7-17, 1979). Some very good work by psychologists and other social scientists, however, focuses on trying to understand why people believe in the paranormal, e.g., the work of David Marks, George P. Hansen, Andrew Neher, Graham Reed, Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones, and Stuart A. Vyse.
-
The thing is, they are NEAR-death experiences. If the person had actually died, they wouldn't be around to tell anyone about it. Therefore, they tell us nothing about what, if anything, follows death.