nde--read the interview with fenwick

[Mercutio]

Not at this time. At one time we couldn't examine molecules either. I don't see why I need to tighten any definitions. If it exists then we should be able to study it if we are technologically advanced enough.

Without proper operational definitions, of course we cannot adequately study it, no matter how technologically advanced we are. This is why science has such a rich history of classifying things, and why it is so exciting to be able to use, say, genetic information rather than simple morphology to do so. If you and I both study NDE's, but due to lax definitional standards, you are using "retrospective accounts" and I am using "heart stoppage for 4 minutes or more" (other researchers may use different definitions than either of us), we will fail to find agreement about what a typical NDE looks like.

Seriously, I am dumfounded by the reluctance to use better experimental controls. Plain and simple: if there is a real effect, tighter controls will make it easier to see; if there is no real effect, tighter controls will show that too. If I were cynical, I could see this as researchers who know there is nothing there, trying to keep whatever source of funding they have. I am not that cynical, though, and so I am simply dumfounded. It's not that much harder to do the research well, than it is to do it poorly.

 

[Mercutio]

That's what science is all about, figuring out mysteries. If there is such a phenomenon then we would need to study it and figure out what exactly is going on. Is it some extra sensory capability of the brain or is it something else.

Remember step one? You need to tighten up methodology to even demonstrate the existence of this alleged phenomenon. Then demonstrate that it is not explainable by our current understanding. Only then do you get to your last sentence here.

 

[hamelekim]

Without proper operational definitions, of course we cannot adequately study it, no matter how technologically advanced we are. This is why science has such a rich history of classifying things, and why it is so exciting to be able to use, say, genetic information rather than simple morphology to do so. If you and I both study NDE's, but due to lax definitional standards, you are using "retrospective accounts" and I am using "heart stoppage for 4 minutes or more" (other researchers may use different definitions than either of us), we will fail to find agreement about what a typical NDE looks like.

Seriously, I am dumfounded by the reluctance to use better experimental controls. Plain and simple: if there is a real effect, tighter controls will make it easier to see; if there is no real effect, tighter controls will show that too. If I were cynical, I could see this as researchers who know there is nothing there, trying to keep whatever source of funding they have. I am not that cynical, though, and so I am simply dumfounded. It's not that much harder to do the research well, than it is to do it poorly.

Doctors recently discovered that the body can survive for hours after the heart has stopped beating. The key is to drop their body temperature and don't pump oxygen into the system right away. If you do this you can bring people back from being "dead" for hours. It really challenges the current understanding of death. Of course the brain doesn't last as long but it's still interesting to note.

But that isn't the issue here. You don't need to define what death is to discover if they are seeing things they shouldn't be able to, such as what someone is doing in the next room or in the hall. We can't tell if a persons brain has completely stopped all activity as people have mentioned in this thread. So why bother trying to do so? People have NDE's when they are having heart attacks and they are not dead and their brains are still working.