The Paranormal (Where is it now?)

by David Turell , Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 00:38 (5780 days ago) @ John Clinch


> On the one hand, we have the True Believers' hypothesis which, although ill-focussed and vague, appears to contain one or more of the following elements: that our minds are (oh, sorry, "might be") profoundly independent of our brains and maybe even survive brain-death; that we can predict a reality that has yet to happen; and that we can see without the aid of the body or machinery. This is, by any stretch, an extraordinary and radical hypothesis that runs directly contrary all of the neuroscientific evidence and observable data. 
 
> Yes, I know you claim to have a handful of (disputed) studies on your side but you must ask yourselves why, if there were any grounds at all to take your hypotheses further, scientists just aren't interested. There's gotta be a Nobel prize in it! And if, in response to this posting, there is even a sniff of your old friend "conspiracy", then it will be clear that pseudoscience has you it in relentless grip. - May I suggest that you don't read enough. I haven't had one myself but in my practice I have had 12 patients tell me about their near-to-death or out-of-body
experiences. That is what make me read. May I suggest 'Mindsight", by Ring and Cooper, both Ph.D. in psychology; studies of blind who had episodes when they saw. "Light and Death" by Michael Sabom, M.D., accounts of NDE's. Raymond Moody's 'Life After Life". He's an MD psychiatrist. Dr. van Lommel's article in Lancet, fully discussed here. This is a small sample of a large literature by scientifically trained authors. Please tell me about your declarative sentence that these have been adequately disputed. Where and by whom with the same or better training?