If we accept well documented case studies as scientific (in the sense of scholarly) evidence, we must conclude that there is plenty of evidence for paranormal aspect of Near-Death Experiences.
In fact, the best cases of anomalous NDEs are described in the book The Self Does Not Die by Rudolf Smit (Smithy), Anny Dirven and yours truly.
However, if we want to limit scientific or scholarly evidence exclusively to easily repeatable data in experimental research, there is absolutely no evidence for anything paranormal in the field.
In my view, limiting evidence to experimental evidence, and dismissing case studies or clinical data as useless anecedotes, is downright foolish and indefensible.
Here is what we say about it in our book:
(This post was last modified: 2017-09-01, 10:18 AM by Titus Rivas.)
In fact, the best cases of anomalous NDEs are described in the book The Self Does Not Die by Rudolf Smit (Smithy), Anny Dirven and yours truly.
However, if we want to limit scientific or scholarly evidence exclusively to easily repeatable data in experimental research, there is absolutely no evidence for anything paranormal in the field.
In my view, limiting evidence to experimental evidence, and dismissing case studies or clinical data as useless anecedotes, is downright foolish and indefensible.
Here is what we say about it in our book:
Quote:Kinds of Evidence
There are roughly two views of the proper scientific method in the empirical sciences. Some researchers argue
that in any kind of investigation, one should strive to stimulate or elicit phenomena using the experimental
method, whereby all the conditions under which the phenomenon occurs are kept under control as much as
possible. When, for whatever reason, this procedure cannot be performed in practice, investigators must strive
toward an approach that is as close as possible to the experimental method. This, in fact, is the attitude behind
the worldwide AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation) Study headed up by physicians Sam Parnia,
Peter Fenwick, Stephen Holgate, Robert Peveler, and others. Reflecting research methods from five similar
studies dating back to the late 1980s, they are attempting to determine whether patients are able during an
NDE to see visual targets: pictures placed outside their physical field of vision but presumably within an NDE
field of perception. In early 2013, Parnia published a book titled Erasing Death in the United States and The
Lazarus Effect in the United Kingdom, in which he discussed the initial results of this investigation. Several
new (not previously published) pieces of evidence for the continuation of consciousness during cardiac arrest
that meet our own criterion of external confirmation do, indeed, appear in this book.
Until now, however, not one patient—in this or any of the previous studies—has observed the visual targets.
In other words, experimentally, even this most recent study has not yet produced evidence of an experimental
nature. Parnia (2013) therefore argued for adapting the experimental setup in a follow-up study. In December
2014, various aspects of Parnia’s study that he had reported were reiterated in an AWARE Study report in the
peer-reviewed journal Resuscitation.
This method involving visual targets, preferred by investigators like Parnia and his predecessors, conforms
to earlier experimental (parapsychological) investigation of extrasensory perception during intentionally
produced out-of-body experiences (OBEs). During an OBE, a person perceives his or her consciousness to be
functioning outside of the physical body; though the experience is usually spontaneous, as during an NDE or
circumstances not involved in a close brush with death, some people report they are able to induce the
experience at will. Probably the most well-known example of a positive result in investigation of such
individuals is that of parapsychologist Charles Tart’s research subject, Miss Z, who observed a number
containing five digits during an OBE (see “Two Investigations Into Out-of-Body Experiences,”
https:// youtube.com/ watch?v=UwmZ1JohClc). Other famous test subjects in this area are Stefan Ossowiecki,
Alex Tanous, Ingo Swann, and Keith (Stuart Blue) Harary. Some of the field’s best-known investigators are
Stanley Krippner, Karlis Osis, and Robert (Bob) Monroe, the last of whom experimented particularly with his
own OBEs. In Spain a few years ago, successful out-of-body experiments were conducted by someone using
the nickname “qbeac.”
According to proponents of the experimental approach, the closer investigators stick to the ideal of
experimental research, the more scientific—and, therefore, the more credible—the investigation is.
Convinced of this perspective, proponents can go so far as to believe that only experimental research can
really be called “science.” All other kinds of investigation, then, are based on anecdotes, which can at best
offer a rationale for “real” scientific research, although they themselves are not classified as such research.
Proponents of another view hold that the experimental method simply is not equally suitable for all scientific
fields. Some phenomena can rarely, if at all, be summoned on command. For these types of phenomena, it
might be better to examine spontaneous cases that are studied or reconstructed as much as possible.
According to this view, these different methods are complementary, and the experimental method does not
constitute the sole or ultimate criterion for scientific research. So, from this perspective, it is wrong to dismiss
all the evidence that is not experimental as purely “anecdotal” and thus unscientific. It is possible to document
someone’s story and to support it with third-party witness statements. From this perspective, the more evidence
there is that a particular NDE entails verified paranormal aspects, the stronger that “case” becomes.
We are explicitly among the proponents of this second view. Obviously, we think it is fantastic when
evidence of paranormal aspects of NDEs is collected under strictly controlled circumstances. But that does
not mean that all other cases automatically become unscientific. There are simply many kinds of evidence,
and they can all have scientific value. For Parnia’s investigation, this perspective would mean that specific
cases of extrasensory perception that, strictly speaking, do not meet his experimental requirements should still
be considered scientific evidence.
Reducing scientific evidence to experimental evidence logically implies taking an agnostic position
regarding phenomena that cannot be demonstrated experimentally. Notably, if not surprisingly, skeptics
usually do not assume this agnostic view, opting instead for a militant naturalism. This stance applies to leading
authors like Susan Blackmore, whom we mentioned before, and Kevin Nelson, as well as other currentparlance
skeptical spokespersons such as Dick Swaab, Michael Shermer, and the late Rob Nanninga. From a
purely rational perspective, however, it is either/or: Either one seriously accepts as evidence case studies of
reported phenomena that can be duly investigated as cases or one takes an agnostic position with respect to the
reality of those phenomena (Barrington, 1999).
Besides the experimental and case-oriented approach, there is also the possibility of investigating reported
NDEs for patterns. Through this process, investigators can, for instance, try to determine just which attributes
NDEs might have in common. This method is important for finding out whether something like an NDE
phenomenon exists at all. It is also important to be able to systematically compare NDEs with related
phenomena such as the preexistence memories of young children (memories of a nonphysical existence as a
spiritual being without a physical body, prior to conception or birth) and to compare NDEs across cultures. The
possible outcome that they strongly correspond with each other could indicate a common or comparable
source or cause of the experiences. We are, however, of the opinion that encountering patterns in large
numbers of NDEs is not in and of itself enough to determine whether NDEs have paranormal aspects. Rather,
we believe that proper investigation of paranormal aspects must involve evidence at the level of the individual
case. We differ in this respect from experts such as radiation oncologist Jeffrey Long (2011) and his wife and
colleague, attorney Jody Long, even though we sincerely value their work in other respects.
And finally, we offer this point. Critics of this book should know that we certainly are not under the illusion
that we did not make any mistakes in our case summaries. However, if critics do find errors, we request that
they ask themselves how important those errors are in light of all the information presented; minor errors
presumably would not nullify an otherwise substantial amount of material. In any event, we will correct in any
future edition any errata of which we become aware.
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
