94. Dr. Jeffrey Long?s Near-Death Experience Research a ?Game Changer? for Science (P

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by larry4444

Rather than look for a review of Dr Longs research, how about we find an expert in research methods who would be willing to assess Dr Longs research and comment on its validity and how it compares with other research projects. I'm not as saavy on the internet as many people at this site but I'm willing to put in some effort.

I wasn't looking for a review of his work but simply checking if he really had published in major journals. This seemed like an odd claim as I had previously looked for articles by him with little result.

The expert you ideally want is a social scientist with some experience in doing survey work. Naturally such a person would be ill-qualified to comment on the medical side of things but then Nelson already did.
I don't think I could ask, in good conscience, anyone without an express interest in such matters to devote so much time to such a hopeless cause.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

2. you're wrong... you really don't have a good handle on the kind of research published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Neurology, or other major medical Journals.

You mean the kind where they are proposing that our entire view of reality is wrong?

I really try not to say "outrageous claims require stupendous evidence," but this is one case where it's appropriate.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You mean the kind where they are proposing that our entire view of reality is wrong?

I really try not to say "outrageous claims require stupendous evidence," but this is one case where it's appropriate.

~~ Paul

I find it fascinating that in the face of all reason, and all evidence, you're so convinced that your entire view of reality is correct.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You mean the kind where they are proposing that our entire view of reality is wrong?

I really try not to say "outrageous claims require stupendous evidence," but this is one case where it's appropriate.

~~ Paul

Wow, there's really no where to go with you, Paul... I hold out an olive branch and you beat me over the head with it.

If you want to contribute here you have to make an effort toward contributing to the body of knowledge... of the forum.

Pure cynicism is a waste of valuable bits and bytes.

So, give the process a try... find a credible researcher who share your position and I'll get them on Skeptiko for an interview.

[P_Synthesis]

@FastEddieB:

I know its difficult to detect sarcasm in a post.

But if you meant this seriously, it really points out the very wide gulf in world views between what...believers and skeptics? Romantics and classicists? Right brain and left brain?

Were you serious? Do you actually weigh your own personal experiences and those of others more heavily than clinical trials? [...] It is an "Interesting" world view, but not a great one for discerning fact from fiction.

This is something that so many skeptics don't quite get; it's not as simple as that. For example 'all the trials show this medicine works -- but I am still ill.'

James McClenon, who is a social scientist with interests in this area, found in his book Deviant Science which surveys elite scientists for their views on parapsychology, that belief in the worthwhileness of the research or otherwise depended on personal experience to an overwhelming degree. Still a very relevant book, that. Academic, not populist.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You mean the kind where they are proposing that our entire view of reality is wrong?

I really try not to say "outrageous claims require stupendous evidence," but this is one case where it's appropriate.

~~ Paul

The "outrageous claim" here bring "life after death"? As I've said many times before current science completely leaves out consciousness in its description of the world. Consciousness is causally redundant. From the scientific perspective consciousness does not exist (at least if we ignore the implications of QM).

Therefore given this it seems bizarre indeed to assert that it's an outrageous claim to suggest it continues to exist after the death of our bodies. You don't know why consciousness exists at all. Why is it any more of an outrageous claim that it might exist independent of ones body?

[tux0]

maybe consciousness is created by invisible fairies at the bottom of the garden, is that an outrageous claim?

[P_Synthesis]

maybe consciousness is created by invisible fairies at the bottom of the garden, is that an outrageous claim?

Yes. It is.

[FastEddieB]

This is something that so many skeptics don't quite get; it's not as simple as that. For example 'all the trials show this medicine works -- but I am still ill.'

Maybe its just me, but that seems a trivial example.

A clinical trial would normally conclude: "Treatment "x" has been show to be 97% effective in treating "y".

What would some individual being in the 3% say about that conclusion that a skeptic wouldn't "get"?

[FastEddieB]

As I've said many times before current science completely leaves out consciousness in its description of the world.

Wow! You're right on this one!!

I just Googled "scientific papers on consciousness" AND NOT ONE SINGLE HIT CAME UP!!!

Just kidding...

About 1.2 million hits*. In .37 seconds. That was hard work.

But you're right in that if we ignore those, then "current science completely leaves out consciousness in its description of the world".



*I have not quite reviewed all of them for relevance, but if I get started right now...