AWARE study II?

#2
#4
Talking of the Aware study - I spotted this piece from the James Randi Foundation.

I hate to say it but isn't it quite fair?

http://web.randi.org/swift/no-this-study-is-not-evidence-for-life-after-death
You hate to say it, but you say it.

No, it is not fair, it is the usual bias from closed minded, so called sceptics. The case of Mr A is not explainable by reductionist/materialist sceptics. It is explainable.. if you choose to believe that the individual who reported the OBE/NDE was motivated to perpetrate a hoax, which is possible. Personally, I would hedge my bets on listening to the guy who actually had the experience, a social worker who was completely taken aback by it, rather than a determined closed minded debunker.
 
#5
My point was that the evidence is scanty if you're sceptical and the writer was correct in that the news stories were OTT.
If we could just have a couple of authenticated readings of above-bed signs, then we would have something to crow about.
OK the sceptics would argue fraud etc but the writing would be on the wall for brain based consciousness.
 
#6
My point was that the evidence is scanty if you're sceptical and the writer was correct in that the news stories were OTT.
If we could just have a couple of authenticated readings of above-bed signs, then we would have something to crow about.
OK the sceptics would argue fraud etc but the writing would be on the wall for brain based consciousness.
There's nothing wrong with being sceptical but the evidence is certainly not scanty.
 
Last edited:
Top