Dagny wrote on another thread regarding NDE research with signs in the OR:
The hidden sign thing wouldn't convince me very easily.
There is no way those signs are kept secret. All it would take is for the person who made copies of the sign, or who suspected they might be around, or who did the research to mention them and the gig is up.
It would be very difficult to prove with certainty that the person claiming to see the sign didn't have access to that information some other way. A person who is practiced in asking leading questions could probably guess what was on the sign (I'm seeing an S...yeah, it was an S or a T). You know how psychics can work people to make it look they guessed out of the blue.
Also, surgery rooms don't generally have places that sit and gather dust where some sign would be lying unnoticed. The tops of shelves, light fixtures, etc. get cleaned. I'll bet the whole cleaning crew knows what is on the signs.
You never know though. I have to wonder why someone who managed to leave their body would be snooping around reading things.
Dagny, do you believe NDE researchers are more prone to cheating on their results than other researchers? We know it happens in mainstream science in spite of protocols and peer review. If you do you believe NDE researchers are more prone to cheating than others, why do you think that would be?
> If you do you believe NDE researchers are more prone to cheating than others, why do you think that would be?
I'm not Dagny, but I would think the field itself would tend to draw those that wanted to believe in NDE's rather than those that didn't. Why would a person that could study virtually anything else that added to the body of scientific knowledge take up a field of study they didn't believe in? And how many compared to believers?
Even a so-called "neutral" person wouldn't be neutral if they're willing to accept a supernatural explanation for a natural study. At what point does the researcher stop inquiry and insert a supernatural explanation? And how can that be justified when the process is non-natural and therefore can't be reproduced or observed directly by science?
NDE believers want to leap the gap every time when even the best study can't prove NDE's exist, but only eliminate specific natural explanations. But that still leaves all other natural explanations that might not have been thought of or tested.
I don't agree that researchers who choose to study NDEs are biased or disposed to believe.It is possible to have an open mind on the subject.If it turns out that NDEs are proof or evidence of life after death then life after death would not be supernatural. It would be a fact and it wouldn't necessarily prove there is a God. I can see why people with open minds and curiosity would want to study the issue.
I understand why protecting the integrity of the information is important and why anyone would what to know how that is done. I would want to look at the protocols and methods--in other words, review the study for integrity. What bothers me is the comparison with cold reading--the implication of cheating. I don't know what the results of the AWARE study will be but to essentially say "I will suspect cheating" if the results aren't what is expected or wanted is to draw a conclusion before the results are in.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2011 10:08AM by robertb.
I agree totally. What the safeguards are is a question worth asking and it should be asked, but if you say in advance that if it turns out in a way that you don't expect, then there was cheating, then you are NOT being objective. You have made up your mind in advance.That is not the way science works.
What about the story / incident with the doctor who had gone blind years earlier, then died on the operating table and read the med charts out in the hall with his regained spiritual eyesight & was then revived back into his blind body & recalled in detail the info from the charts and other details that only a sighted person would be able to know?
I am not swearing by the story myself, it just one that I recall that would be a premier example of these kinds of elements. I read it in a published book, it was not something I just heard on the bus. sorry I dont recall the name. this was being touted as proof at the time. it should be a premier account. was it debunked?
What I really want to know about is simultaneous NDE accounts/claims. where more than one person goes out of body at the same time same place, like a bus or plane wreck, and then revives. can they see/sense each otherwhile out of body ? or even other ppl that dont make it. THATS what I want to hear about if there are any examples.
I wouldn't want to guess about cheating but ultimately if the scientific process is working it would be exposed.
I think the kinds of topics that are researched sometimes are biased, and sometimes the scientific models are pretty lame.
However, ultimately the mechanism of science will weed out the fluff. Any claim with legs is going to get attention and the claim had better be verifiable and replicable by other scientists. Subsequent research verifies, builds upon or discredits the original study.
So, if someone cheats, he likely will be exposed over time as doing shabby work that is discredited. There are plenty of grad students and other scientists who would LOVE to refute poorly researched conclusions. They would love to find something spectacular that revises or clarifies current thinking in a big way with possible applications.
That's the great thing about science. It self corrects over time. It constantly clarifies itself. Grants with special interests and agendas might create cheaters but over time the findings had better pan out. Other studies probably won't be as biased and the data will tell the story.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2011 09:32PM by dagny.