The Paranormal (Where is it now?)

by dhw, Thursday, January 15, 2009, 11:52 (5790 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George writes, of eyewitness accounts: "Independent evidence is needed before the conclusion can be called "scientific". - I have two problems with this statement. - Firstly, what constitutes "independent evidence"? If BBella and her family, David, his wife and his medical colleagues have personal knowledge of information obtained in a manner they can't explain, I will not insult them by questioning their intelligence or their integrity. I will join them in looking for an explanation. - Secondly, I couldn't care less whether you call the conclusion "scientific" or not. I only want to know whether it's true. That is not to denigrate the vital role of science (although it too has had its share of frauds and blunders, and not infrequently has to change its tunes), but it does not have a monopoly on truth. On this thread we're not discussing obvious fakes, or "mass hysteria". I have read David's book, have followed up his references earlier on this website to Pim van Lommel, and have taken into account certain experiences of my own and of my wife's. If we limit the field to NDEs and OBEs, my first conclusion is that there is plenty of evidence to confirm that they happen, and that during NDEs and OBEs, information has been obtained that could not have been known beforehand. In some cases, the information has been corroborated by independent third parties. I cannot dismiss such cases as "just material for science fiction", though I would prefer at this stage not to draw any further conclusions. I'd simply like to find an explanation for a phenomenon I can't understand, but I do not subscribe to the view that if I don't understand it, then it can't be there.