After Death

[floo]

some people think I'm not all there!
But I think I'm here , wherever that may be ?

One couldn't possibly comment!  

[Walter]

One couldn't possibly comment!  

go on , I'm sure you could 😎

[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

[Gordon]

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?

[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?

That is something researchers would have to figure out.

[Gordon]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Gordon]

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.
 

[Sriram]

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.

 

??

[Maeght]

??

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Gordon]

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).

[Stranger]

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?

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

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Sriram]

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.