Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
including testimonial evidence, which is how we know most things anyway (your birth date, Antarctica's existence, DNA's structure, — Sam26
You're comparing corroborated, empirically verifiable testimonies with NDEs. Many people have been to Antarctica, birthdates are verifiable through official documents, and DNA's structure was ascertained via a falsifiable model that was rigorously tested. NDEs do not benefit from predictive models (e.g. DNA) or external datasets for empirical verification. So what's left to make that comparison sound?
You seem to be appealing to a volume of data while ignoring whether or not the data is even quality data:
think Pam Reynolds nailing surgical details during flat EEGs, confirmed by her neurosurgeon — Sam26
Without getting into the specifics of this, it seems that this can be critiqued from so many angles: we don't know when the memories were formed, possible confabulation, conflating functional shutdown of an organ vs the death of the organ...etc.
consistency (75-85% OBEs and 70-80% life reviews per Greyson's scale) — Sam26
You're basing consistency off of a measurement that
employs ZERO rigor..
But let's cut the crap: your lab-only fetish reeks of selective skepticism — Sam26
Ditch the lab. The dichotomy between a lab based experiment and whatever approach you think you're doing is false. The demand is for verifiable evidence. But you've already defined NDE's out of this scope while pretending it's similar to other areas of science.
.
If you applied this absurd standard consistently, you'd trash epidemiology (inductive correlations from patient testimonies, not causal proofs) or even your own scientific beliefs (peer papers are testimony, buddy). — Sam26
Sure both start with testimony. The main difference is that epidemiology is transformative. Patient data is collected in ways that minimize biases (placebos, control groups, double blind spot protocols..etc), confounding factors are explored and findings that persist after attempts to falsify them are presented. This is different than just a collection of uncontested stories.
Knowledge isn't about lab reproducibility; it's about probabilistic inference from the best evidence we have, and dismissing testimonials that meet courtroom-level standards while accepting them elsewhere is just hypocritical scientism. — Sam26
Dismissing anecdotes that don't live up to the scrutiny that science generally thrives on isn't scientism. Also not sure why you mention "courtroom-level standards". In a courtroom, we need a binary verdict to make a
practical decision when we have less than perfect information. When we do science we want to approximate the truth beyond an
unreasonable doubt.
It sounds like you're making an argument to
reduce the standard of evidence for NDE's because you find them conceptually interesting.