From: "Jim Guinee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Okay, not quite putting it to rest yet...
This quote: > "But then, quietly, in the late '70s, the Queen began to go around the > bend, began declaring there was no death...Death for Kubler-Ross became > just a kind of bonus "Sixth Stage", a kind of heavenly spa where one > could freshen up before cruising around among the living again". Obviously there is no scientific evidence for life after death, and there is no way of proving we live on. In Kubler-Ross' case, though, she apparently became convinced of life after death by interviews with people who had experienced the near-death experience. And while that kind of theorization based on that kind of experence is obviously fraught with provlems, it's not nearly as kooky as the author seems to imply. There have been other researchers who have concluded something similar to Kubler-Ross based on interviews with patients who were revived. Are professionals, are scientists who are convinced of the afterlife suddenly less credible? Oh boy Maybe in the end she was pretty nutty, but I plan on researching this for myself using something more reliable. Jim G PS Here's a good site that reviews (among other things) some criticisms of Kubler-Ross' theory, including the lack of empirical evidence. http://www.uky.edu/~cperring/kr.htm --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
