So ethics really has no foundation at all? — Astrophel

It has philosophical foundations. Philosophy is also a product of human thought in response to human social interaction. Moralities are founded in the perceived welfare of the social unit.

"Outmoded" and "counterproductive" confer nothing beyond utility of ethics. — Astrophel

Exactly. If a rule doesn't apply to current social reality, or is no longer useful in promoting the well-being of the polity, why keep adhering to it? In fact, people don't. Laws usually get struck off the books long after people have been ignoring them and officials ceased to enforce them. It's how a society that actually operates that determines what's good and bad for it. How it usually happens is: social philosophers publish treatises, then journalist popularize their ideas, then people protest - it's the legal machinery that lags far behind.

Ethics thus just stands exclusively in the social construction. — Astrophel

What else could it be? Of course, you have to remember that 'social construction' has its roots in a 250 million-year-old termite mound. We descended from a very long line of social animals, all of which had and have rules of acceptable behaviour. When a species evolves out of a previous one, its abilities, requirements and behaviours change accordingly, an so must its social conventions. When the environment changes, or the social organization gains complexity, its mores are adjusted to the new configuration. The conduct or war is different from the rules of peacetime; what is acceptable in times of plenty becomes a crime in a time of famine.

The ethical violation of Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov lies beyond breaking a society's rules, don't you think? — Astrophel

Beyond.... to where? Seems a common enough crime to me. Of course, most criminals do not confess voluntarily.

But how does one separate what is "merely" said from what has a grounding apart from the mere saying? — Astrophel

One doesn't. One separates the mores and laws that make sense according to one's own judgment from those that are outmoded or counterproductive. Beyond socially imposed limitations, there is no "law of the jungle" or "natural law".

Ethics gets interesting when we move into the uncertain territories of underlying assumptions. Laws, rules, norms, principles are at best, prime facie compelling. Is there anything in ethics that is more than this? — Astrophel

Not unless they're handed down from heaven.

The question is, is cannibalism, or incest, or any of a number of victimless immoralities, only "bad" because "we" say so? — Astrophel

Everything to do with morality and ethics is good or bad only because "we say so". This includes crimes like murder (killing a member of one's species not only okay but applauded in one situation, punishable by death in another, but the one who kills the illegal killer is hired for the task but shunned socially.) Our ideas of right and wrong originate from what is, or once was, considered harmful or beneficial to the social unit.

Much of written law is a holdover from religious taboo - not necessarily rational; often anachronistic. Some of it is preemptive against the threat or perceived threat of the abuse. For example, legalizing assisted suicide could result in murders in the guise of assisted suicide; legalized incest could lead to child abuse; letting people smoke marijuana could tempt them into the use of hard drugs. What our lawmakers don't like to admit is that people don't wait on legal permission to commit harmful acts, and that decriminalizing the harmless ones make no difference to social welfare - only to arrest statistics and police funding.

But language is the only place in this universe where something might truly be fixed, made absolute. — Fire Ologist

This why humankind invented specialized language for those subjects in which it's important to communicate precisely: mathematics, musical notation, maritime signal flag code. Scientists and engineers also have standardized terminology in spoken languages.
For day to day communication, most people make do with context-recognition. This leads to many misunderstandings, arguments and even accidents, but on the other hand ('other'? 'hand'?), the malleability of words and grammar also engender poetry, drama, rousing and moving rhetoric. Not to mention the need for dictionaries, thesauruses and discussions of linguistic peculiarities.
Of course, not all spoken languages are as rich in vocabulary or as flexible as English.

I was drawing out the implications — Antony Nickles

You were drawing out the inference you made of what I said. Your interpretation.

This is forcing two statements into the same requirements by dictating a question; that is not there ordinary contexts. — Antony Nickles

What is the ordinary context? People don't normally come up to one another on the street or at a cocktail party and announce: "I think there is a god." or "I believe there is a god." or "I believe in God." (But I have had people come to my door and ask whether I've been saved.) These statements are normally made in a larger context - the discussion of deity and one's relationship to deity. Before every such statement, there is an expressed or implied question. The question doesn't force a response; the statement points back to a requirement for making it.
This is true of most conversations. "Four dollars a dozen." doesn't come out of the blue; it's an answer to "How much are the eggs?" Even "I think it's raining," is an answer to a spoken or implied question, such as "What's the weather like?" or "Do you hear something?" It is not true of proclamations, announcements, preachment or political speeches.

What's considered immoral in one culture may be perfectly normal in another. People may not always agree with the judgements of their culture, but we can't help being influenced by early indoctrination: our reasoning self may be well aware that a taboo is silly, but our emotional self still recoils from it.

Is there anything wrong with seeing the nakedness of one's father? Or anybody? The people who had not yet invented clothing couldn't afford to think so. Contrary to the biblical version, people invented clothes to keep their bodies warm, and only much later realized that clothes also concealed their genitals.

Is there anything wrong with eating the flesh of a member of one's own species? Some tribes considered it a homage to the departed relative to retain some portion of their being; some paid their slain enemies a compliment by partaking of their might, or to communicate with the gods or to demonstrate their power over another group. There is some mystery (and pay-walls) over how cannibalism actually become a taboo. But you still wouldn't want to be the guy that ate his neighbour.

You also probably wouldn't want to be the kind of person who pisses in bus shelters (somebody does!) or wipes his nose on his sleeve or never leaves a tip at restaurants. There are many, many social conventions that we observe simply because we have been brought up to respect the sensibilities of our fellow citizens.

Appetites, maybe; and therefore sympathy for the weaknesses of other men. To what degree did he satisfy them? There is very little indication in the gospels - but then, I suppose those chroniclers would want to present him, and themselves, in the best possible light.
(You've put me in a mood to watch Jesus Christ, Superstar again.)

He is the ideal in many ways, if not all ways. So he is potentially something to emulate. — BitconnectCarlos

Might that be why the modern capitalist Christians shy away from him and cleave to Moses? And why the punitive, repressive evangelists prefer the OT?

I found that through internalizing at least some of his teachings the person becomes transformed — BitconnectCarlos

I don't know about that. Certainly, some of the most altruistic (though not necessarily sensible) people I've met were devout Christians - but I wonder whether it was Jesus who changed them or if they were drawn to Jesus in the first place by their own character?

I don't believe in a divine Jesus - which is just as well, since the sacrifice of animals, people or demigods is an abhorrent practice and any god who demands it is abhorrent - but the biblical character had some good speech-writers.

The characterization of language as irrational, unable to be clarified, etc. — Antony Nickles

And where did you find such a characterization of language? I believe this is one of those misconstructions through the substitution of similar but not interchangeable words. The words 'slippery', amorphous' and 'ever-changing' do not mean 'irrational'; nor does 'difficult' mean 'unable to be clarified'.

That words are sometimes interchangeable; that communication involves difficulty, laziness, manipulation, vagary, and the ultimate possibility that we may reach an impasse on the means of understanding, does not mean that language is relative or imprecise. — Antony Nickles

It is subject to imprecise applications and interpretations.

[ 'think and 'believe' ] Each has its own separate criteria and contexts in which they apply. — Antony Nickles

Not really. In many contexts, they can be used interchangeably without causing any misunderstanding, and people do use them interchangeably, due to custom or manners, even when the same application conveys a somewhat imprecise meaning. Using one in a context where both may apply, and than the other - with the addition of a crucial preposition - does show that they can mean very different things also.

And so here we are mixing up the criteria and context and way in which belief works differently in each sense — Antony Nickles

Yes, you did.

To say “I believe in God” in the sense of an expression is not the conclusion that starts with the other sense of belief as a hypothesis of knowledge (“I think there is a god”). They are two separate uses (senses) with different criteria in different contexts. — Antony Nickles

They're three separate uses - very possibly by three different speakers - in the same context: answering the question: "How do you regard God?"

nor does that imply that belief as an expression of faith needs to include any proof, — Antony Nickles

Nobody's implied that. The statement "I believe in God." is about the speaker's internal conviction of the existence of a particular deity, whereas "I believe God" at suggests either a a personal communication from the deity or a conviction that some text was written by the deity. Neither has anything to do with proof. (Which is pretty much the definition of 'faith'.)

“It’s raining” is not a claim to knowledge; it is a report of knowledge — Antony Nickles

Can't report it till you've owned it; can't own it till you claim it. It's very rare for anyone to come in from a downpour, dripping proof all over the carpet say, "I know it's raining since I experienced it."
Knowledge, the accuracy of the speaker's information and the basis of his conviction do not figure into a declaration about one's own state of mind.

Spoken language is a vehicle for communication, transactions, instruction and entertainment. It is a great amorphous, ever-changing mass of words and grammar to represent things, actions, persons, states and conditions, relationships, concepts, images and ideas.
In English, many words have two or more accepted meanings. In common parlance, words are often used imprecisely in various constructions. Rise up; hurry up; I give up; hold up; serve up; throw up; step up; break up; cover up...

Verbs replace nouns; nouns are used as verbs, either can become an adjective. Religious and political rhetoric co-opts words and alters their meaning; the military invent new ones from acronyms.
In scientific and technical communication, terminology must be better controlled to prevent misunderstanding. In academic debate, terms need to be defined and agreed-upon at the outset; in internet forums a slight shift in meaning can be employed to misconstrue or misrepresent another poster's comment. Even when every attempt is made to write precisely what one means, the result is still open to some range of interpretation. Even dictionaries are not in total accord.
Language is slippery; difficult to handle effectively. I doubt any hard rule can apply to all the words in one language, let alone across the spectrum of languages, regional variants and dialects spoken in the world.

In the sense of a guess or hypothesis, I think and I believe are the same. “I think it is raining.” is interchangeable with “I believe it is raining.” In either instance, we go outside and confirm if it is raining or not—they are both a claim of knowledge. — Antony Nickles

Not exactly a claim to knowledge: that would be "It's raining."
"I think it's raining" generally means one is responding to sensory input - say, pattering on the roof, diminution of light, moisture on the windowpane. "I believe it's raining" may mean exactly the same as think (depending on habits of speech) or might mean that the speaker has heard a credible weather report.

But “I think you are mistaken” is in the sense of a claim to a judgment, while “I believe in God” is an expression of faith or an attitude or a duty. — Antony Nickles

Now, why did you change the example? A valid comparison would be of "I think you're mistaken" - where the speaker has some knowledge of the subject, but not enough to be certain the other is wrong - and "I believe you're mistaken." - where the speaker is confident of his own superior knowledge, but too polite to say "You're wrong!".

If God comes into it, it should be by way an example such as: "I think there is a god" - uncertainty leaning toward belief - "I believe there is a god" - growing conviction - and "I believe in God" - declaration of faith in a particular deity.

Afterthought: I just noticed I didn't use the word in the thread title to deal with the subject of the thread, because "sense" is itself ambiguous, used differently in too many contexts to have one precise meaning.

Jesus first came for the Jews but he later sent his disciples out among the nations. — Moses

After he was dead. Not much indication of universalism in the gospels. Some tolerance, yes: even a centurion's servant is worth healing; (though it sounds as if this particular Roman had gone native - "Luke 7:4And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: 5For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.) that even a lowly Samaritan may be charitable - and there's Mark 7:28, which puts Greeks firmly in their place under the table.

I dont read Jesus as an ascetic because of passages like Matt 11:19. — Moses

That's more an accusation that he consorts with the common people. I make it two actual instances of indulgence: the wedding in Cana and the farewell supper. Not a strict ascetic, I agree, but mostly they seemed to be as the fowls of the air, trusting God to feed them, or fasting in the desert or subsisting on a few loaves and fishes or plucking corn along the roadside - on the (gasp!) Sabbath. Cursing the fig tree sounds to me as if he were hungry and pissed off that it had no fruit. (Makes him sound less than divine, that bit.)

I read Jesus without any Christian background (obviously) and I just can't get over the strangeness of the character. — BitconnectCarlos

He (if he existed and there's any truth in the gospels) was not interested in other nations - his teaching was exported years after his death. He was concerned with reforming the Judaism of his time. Something like Martin Luther with a state of Christianity that he considered corrupt. Jesus is a singularly Jewish character, no matter that Paul and Christian proselytizers co-opted him and European artists systematically lightened his complexion.

But Jesus never seems to care about his followers' physical life or well-being. — BitconnectCarlos

Or his own, for that matter. Asceticism was a well established practice among the many prophets of the time, as it was also in India, among Buddhist monks.

*sigh* again

Capitalism exposed. Very nice!

It's three different available categories. There are several more, but I doubt scientists would hold those.

Of course. Assuming that physical manifestations are caused by physical means through physical processes is a prerequisite of sound scientific method.
But that doesn't mean a scientist can't have irrational, fanciful and religious beliefs in his personal life.
Science is fact-based; human thinking is not not necessarily so.

Allegedly, this happened in 1976. — Truth Seeker

Sure, they didn't have the same equipment then to determine whether 'life is extinct'. The morgue is kept very cold, and that slows down all biological processes. But it doesn't explain the autopsy incision. Perhaps he actually started showing some signs of life, and they were using peritoneal irrigation to warm him up. They would also have to examine the effects of whatever first aid measures had been applied immediately after the accident.
In any case, such a narrow escape, whether you experienced a conversation with St. Peter or not, often prompts people of wavering conviction to renew their faith and show gratitude.

He woke up as soon as the first incision was being made on his abdomen. — Truth Seeker

That makes me skeptical. The standard post mortem begins with a Y incision: diagonal cuts from each shoulder to the tip of the sternum, then a straight line down to the pubis, or a modified Y, which starts under the ears. And it hast to be a deep incision, so that you can retract the skin flaps and underlying fat for access to the body cavity.

I've never known a pathologist start with the abdomen; bowels are the least valuable organ in determining cause of death. The only reason I can think for why one might is if it's a limited post, following unsuccessful abdominal surgery or a gun shot wound. Sometimes the next of kin refuse consent for a full autopsy, but we still need documentation of what happened, to learn from a mistake in technique or treatment and to preserve evidence for legal proceedings.

the only thing they're almost guaranteed to believe in is the efficacy of learning about the world through observation and experiment. — flannel jesus

Not guaranteed but required. It's the fundamental requirement for their discipline. Physics is singularly unforgiving, it's almost impossible to drag fanciful beliefs into the work. But a complex science, like medicine and climatology, can be contaminated by philosophical vagaries - especially lucrative ones.

Waking up during an autopsy is problematic, unless it had only just begun, and blood was seen to ooze from the incision - in which case, the pathologist would immediately stop and look for life-signs.
I knew a man who woke up in the morgue. (and lived to egret it) This was in the 1950's, when medical science was less sophisticated. The man was a crane operator, hit by a cable whiplash. The majority of his bones were broken. It took many years and surgeries to reconstruct him, and he was never free of pain. But he didn't bring back any stories from Beyond.

Someone could be a definition 1 materialist and not a definition 2 materialist - and vice versa. — flannel jesus

You're right, of course. I was using the the more common definition tongue in cheek.

Science doesn't require one to "believe in" anything. A physicist can be a hedonist, an ascetic hermit, a fervent Muslim, a nihilist, a Marxist, a Quebec separatist or whatever in his personal philosophy. In his work, however, he studies the nature of physical matter and phenomena. If any philosophy, or ism, is allowed to influence the work of a physicists, he comes up with absurd, unprovable hypotheses, the way ancient philosophers did, and their experiments won't work.

If there's only a narrow separation between materialism and physics, — ucarr

There is a huge gulf between physics and materialism. Physics describes how matter behaves; materialism is the desire to acquire wealth and comfort. How did isms get mixed up with science in the first place?

Some scientists are very firm on a big difference between the two fields: Richard Feynmann. Must they wax philosophical when they describe the difference? — ucarr

Neither college-anointed nor self-styled philosophers have a monopoly on articulating what their field of study is about.

Science of Philosophy, or philosophy of science? — ucarr

You can philosophize about science, as you can about anything, real or imagined. But a science of philosophy would have find something to measure, some process to follow from one state to another. That's not impossible, maybe, but it sure isn't easy!

Can scientific truth and philosophical truth contradict each other and yet retain their validity, respectively? — ucarr

I don't see how. But that's okay, because philosophers catch up with scientific discovery sooner or later, and change their conjectures accordingly.

Does science deviate from the philosophical project when it rolls up its sleeves and gets down and dirty with observation of nature, experimentation, and double-blind testing? — ucarr

Science was never in the service of a "philosophical project"; observation of nature and experimentation is what science does.

If science discovers a posteriori the facts of nature, then does it follow that science, being the source of empirical truth, equates itself with materialism? — ucarr

Science doesn't equate itself with an ism; it just tries to discover how things work.

Is every category of science a type of materialism? — ucarr

Again, without any ism, real, tangible things and real, observable relationships is what science deals with. Immaterial things are too hard to study.

Does philosophy hold aloof from science within an academic fortress of abstract math and logic? — ucarr

I never have the slightest idea what philosophy's up to.

If philosophy of science governs scientific practice, then does it follow that philosophy, being the source of the rules, equates itself with metaphysics? — ucarr

Philosophy doesn't govern science or anything else. It wonders, postulates, theorizes, formulates and advances theories that cannot be tested. Certainly, metaphysics falls within that realm. Philosophers may propose rules, but they don't make rules.

Is every category of philosophy a type of metaphysics? — ucarr

Is every category of science a type of physics?

You say 'outre' but panpsychism is pretty fashionable now as far as I can tell. — bert1

And powdered wigs were pretty fashionable in the 18th century. People seemed to get over that fashion.

Does the human race really any need any more outre theories of consciousness?

The real difficulties come when their knowledge of solutions to immediate crises are rejected by people through their own free will, even when failing to deploy these solutions will lead to definite harm and suffering. — Benj96

That's been the fate of every person in history who was able see farther than their contemporaries. Your being would just sigh and accept it as human nature.

you people — Lionino

Nice riposte! Covers all the bases.

Me. I am Castilian. — javi2541997

I had no idea, Your Majesty! I'd go an erase every negative comment I've posted about you, if you could please point them out.

Do they all behave in the same way? — Vera Mont
No. Absolutely not. — javi2541997

I didn't think so!

We already discussed this, Vera... In this thread and another with Ciceronianus. — javi2541997

Oh, I see. Telling the truth about the history of a nation. Can't be helped I'm afraid, especially as Ciceronianus is not my sock-puppet.

But they quickly spread negative comments on the inheritors of the Crown of the Castile. — javi2541997

Who are the inheritors of the crown of Castile? Do they all behave in the same way? Who here has commented on them, negatively or positively?

Absolutely non-judgmental? That's a rare skill! I'm sure I couldn't master it, so I won't even try.

It seems like not a just investigation but the typical bias that we see coming from the people of certain societies. — Lionino

Make that all societies.
There are lots of biases and prejudices flying around, being reinforced by like-minded, same-interest factions.
That's the reason I dislike collective characterizations of any group, large or small, majority or minority. None of those bad things that were done by humans were done by all Cahtolics, all French people, all Muslims, all old people or teenagers, all men or women or whites or Asians. Those acts were committed by a variety of human beings for a variety of reasons. I don't judge them en masse, and I question anyone who does.

That is an acceptable demand, in court. But if I comment that elderly people drive poorly, people outside the internet will not demand studies on the matter, because they know my conclusion comes not from the authority of a peer-reviewed doctor but from my eyes. — Lionino

People who share your bias with you will accept your opinion as evidence? No doubt.

but if you read enough old Chick tracts, and observe enough of the people who pass them out, — wonderer1

I haven't read any and I don't know what a Chick is. Are these tracts representative of all Protestantism? Might the American perspective colour your judgment? I don't know how many people share your perspective, but I do see why you wish to support an accusation against a religion you dislike. Since I dislike them all, I consider all religious intolerance equally intolerable.

Christianity is made up of a bunch of different people with beliefs that exist on a spectrum, but they are all derived from the same scriptures from the same book. — ToothyMaw

And a wonderfully big, rich book it is! You can fish in it for justification of any damn thing you want to do.
It's the leaders who decide which bits to extol and which to ignore; the flock simply follows them, even to their own detriment, so strong is the desire to belong.
But it doesn't matter which doctrine you profess; it matters what you do. If you're a killer, you might kill for Allah, or Dixie, or the Holy Land or the empire, or to save democracy or your family from some purported threat, or revenge or as a punishment for crime, or for pleasure or profit. If a leader inspires lots of killers, they'll go kill for his cause - whatever it is, and give that cause a reputation for violence.
If a leader inspires lots of altruists, they'll go forth doing good works and give their cause a reputation for benevolence.
So do religious sects change from generation to generation, under the influence thinkers, reformers, zealots and megalomaniacs.

If evidence is given, you will go "but it is just one person!". — Lionino

What I said was: If you accuse one person, you are expected to show evidence against that one particular person. If you accuse and entire religion, you should be expected to produce evidence that either the doctrine of the religion or the majority of it practitioners are guilty of the transgression. And since I am one person, and you accuse me of doing something in the future, I'd like to see some some evidence that I ever went "but it is just one person!" in whatever context.

Christianity is not a good or bad influence on people.
People are a good or bad influence on Christianity.

Junkies may opt out too, — 180 Proof

I should think being a junkie as close to opting out as you can get this side of suicide.

I don't know who's the fault. — javi2541997

Nobody. People are crazy; when they fall into the sway of religious and nationalist leaders, they act crazier than usual. It's fine to acknowledge that Christian sects are no saner than Muslim ones, and that they have been at one another's throats since long before Martin Luther protested the selling of indulgences https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1414/six-great-heresies-of-the-middle-ages/#google_vignette It's a history site, not a Protestant one.

Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars, Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites
All six of these were suppressed by the Church, often resulting in the slaughter of populations which had nothing to do with the heresy, as the Church continued to insist on its spiritual authority as the representative of God on earth.

But that's no excuse for a smear.

The mass propaganda of Protestants against Catholics is well known. — javi2541997

Is it? By whom? Which particular Protestants are waging what propaganda campaigns? If you accuse someone, you're expected to provide evidence. If you accuse millions of anonymous people, we should just let it slide?

Not only to Spanish Inquisition but other recent crises in Europe. — javi2541997

How does the Inquisition suddenly segue into "other crises in Europe"? The persecution of heretics, Jews and Muslims was practiced by all Catholic countries, though it may have been done with more zeal in Spain - possibly due to the legacy of Muslim occupation. That's entirely separate from English, Flemish and German royal families fighting over thrones, or modern nationalists of predominantly Catholic and Protestant countries objecting to Arab immigrants. And it's nothing at all to do with the British occupation of Ireland.

Would I not behave like them if I had their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? — Truth Seeker

Then you would be them. There is no point holding anyone responsible for any atrocity, since, if you were them, you'd rape and pillage, too, and I assume you would not take the blame either. But since I have only my genes, environment and experiences, I can't help feeling the way I feel about them.

I am agnostic about blaming and praising anyone. — Truth Seeker

Of course - you cannot be otherwise.

You may opt out. Remember, he is not omnipotent. He can only show you, not force you.

No room left for 'human agency' which would be contrary to the entity's all-knowing omnibenevolence. How can such an entity not be the Keeper (caretaker, game warden) of 'the human zoo'? — 180 Proof

Easy. He knows that one of the of the things that are good for us - and important to our mental heath - is the illusion of agency. The global economy runs on convincing people that they decide which products they buy and it's worth getting into debt for, that they have choice in health care, so they should oppose a national health insurance plan, that the gasoline engine gives them unlimited freedom of movement, and it's worth killing the ocean for, that they love bacon and heart disease is a small price to pay. Costly, fruitless wars are waged by untold casualties who were convinced they chose to fight for the right side.

Dictators and prelates use that illusion to their own benefit. AI or a benevolent entity would indulge the human desire for autonomy - at no cost to the human - up to the point of irreversible harm. Wanting what will benefit a child does not consist of forcing him to eat kale or keeping him locked inside the house; it's about exposing him to positive influences and showing him how to avoid negative ones.

Jacques Fresco said the majority of people are unsane (not insane, which is what I usually believe) because they have been trained to use the wrong methods of evaluation. He said 'outmoded' for wrong; I think it's more like 'inappropriate' - the wrong metrics for the wrong object. The illusion of agency is shoving us down the hill in a handcart.

I understand there is a lot of debate regarding The Troubles in Northern Ireland, but one of the specific reasons was the critical differences between Catholics and Protestants. They couldn't live together. — javi2541997

And it's all the Protestants' fault. Obviously, since they made up all those terrible lies about Catholic church... Fake news!

I don't blame them for being wishful thinkers. — Truth Seeker

Nor do I. But I do blame people whose life is anything but harsh taking advantage.

That would explain why it doesn't appear as a research paper. Apparently, the follow-up on cardiac patients was legitimate. Most people who have been close to death do change their lifestyle and I wouldn't be surprised if those who had visions while in critical condition were influenced by those visions. I venture to posit that these visions were the product of their own minds, made of memories, regrets, suppressed desires. It's not their personality that changes; it's their attitude.

I imagine the team collected a huge pile of information from these patients. All of it anecdotal, of a very subjective experience. You can't blame someone for trying to make sense of it. You can blame him for seriously touting made-up theories and using his degree to lend them credence. A whole lot of wishful thinkers would happily fork out for the book.