--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote:
> >
> > Read the book and get back to me...your research is 
> > perhaps not comprehensive enough......"There are two 
> > ways to be fooled.  One is to believe what isn't true; 
> > the other is to refuse to believe what is true." 
> > - Soren Kierkegaard
> I've no doubt it's a wonderful story but I've read those before.
> Unless you can *unprove* that people meet relatives who are still
> alive (remember it was the experiencers who claim this) all you
> do is add to the mythos.
> So why would I need to read *another* book about something when
> the first objective one demonstrated that the experience wasn't
> what people thought it was? 
> This is how you have to treat claims of the paranormal, first
> you see if there is a signal above the noise - something you
> can't account for any other way. In the NDE there isn't. But 
> research is being carried out in hospitals and it's 
> inconclusive to say the least. 
> Most Out of Body Experiences are explainable by taking the 
> timing of anaesthetic withdrawal into  account, because 
> people are paying attention to this and collating statements 
> from care staff there is less chance of someone saying "but 
> I was clinically dead so it *can't* be my brain". In several 
> cases things people have spookily witnessed could be 
> accounted for by what was occurring around them when medical 
> procedures were taking place. Obviously people aren't always 
> as out of it as was thought. Maybe that explains why so few 
> have NDE's?
> Another good study taking place is objects being placed on high
> shelves so that people who are floating out of their bodies can
> report what they cannot have seen any other way. The idea for this
> came about because someone having a claimed OBE allegedly saw a
> training shoe outside on a window sill that he couldn't have seen
> from where he was. The plural of anecdote is not data though and 
> no one has yet followed up with a "hit" on whatever these objects
> are. 
> That's the way with paranormal research, early hope turns into
> disappointment when data gets stronger. Nail down the variables, 
> like how long it takes to come off anaesthetic, and the amount
> of undeniably unexplainable experiences diminishes rapidly.
> It was always thus. I suspect the NDE belief will run and run
> as peoples desire to have confirmation of life after death is 
> going to be good at papering over any cracks as you demonstrated
> in dismissing my point about seeing living relatives as well as 
> dead ones. To the objective mind that's a clincher.
> So please don't assume that my placing NDE's in the "Bollocks" 
> file means it was put there because it simply doesn't fit in with 
> the way I see the world. The way I see things came about because 
> the mystical world failed to make a good enough case for itself.

Excellent summation of the case against taking NDE's 
seriously, at least without stronger evidence. Thanks
especially for this last paragraph. Those who tend
to believe things simply because they WANT to believe
them (for example, that there is "life after death") 
often accuse non-believers of being cynical or "not
open" to the things they believe. 

Your statement is far more precise than such accusations.
It's not that we're not open to such things. Who 
*wouldn't* want to believe that there is life after
death? But in the absence of non-anecdotal proof, it's
really silly to treat such a desire as being reflective
of reality. 

The overreaction of those whose approach to life is 
"belief-based" rather than "proof-based" is something
that those of us who lean more to the latter get used
to, and have to deal with. The "belief-based" folks
feel somehow *threatened* when someone points out that
they believe in something that is sadly lacking in
proof (such as NDEs) or unprovable (such as the 
existence of God). Rather than being able to accept
that they *are* relying on belief they tend to lash
out at the non-believers and characterize them as if
there is something wrong with them. There isn't. They
just have higher standards than the "belief-based"

Reply via email to