@The Ethical Skeptic
I'm curious, as a learned man, if you've any opinions on the validity of the ideas of life after death, psychic phenomenon and so forth.
Two disciplines of skepticism which I apply to this topic you mention LetsEat, are
Ockham's Razor and
The Elements of Hypothesis.
1. Sufficient induction (probative amplanecdote - over 1 million anecdotes, and research data which provide for consilience, but not final proof) has been accomplished to suggest that the Alternative that there is an Afterlife, must be considered as part of the plurality of science. In other words, the idea has surpassed Ockham's Razor, much to the disdain of philosophical nihilists (masquerading as atheists, as an atheist can freely consider NDE's - but a nihilist cannot).
2. Once an idea has surpassed Ockham's Razor as a possibility, it must be matured into actual scientific hypothesis. This requires a certain amount of diligent work, crafting of a critical path (from prior art) of incremental conjecture, development of intelligence and finally a mechanism which can be tested for both explanatory and predictive power. The problem is that we have a group of fake skeptics fighting tooth and nail to make sure that this process (science) never happens. They are the Deputy Sheriffs of Doubt. Fake skeptics and self-identified 'science enthusiasts'. And their work in blocking - attacking anyone who would develop this construct into a real hypothesis, is both malicious and pseudo-scientific.
I do hold open the proposition (not yet a hypothesis either) that all our NDE observations can be explained by the natural neurological processes of death. But am really concerned as to how evolution would develop 'natural neurological processes of death' - given that any predecessor life form or especially human predecessor who indeed had died, would not reproduce and hand their death-process advantage genes to the next generation, and myriad generations of culling and mutation would be required for such a sophisticated body/cerebral function to evolve in the first place - even if an accidental vestigial effect, it is still magic. If it is a process of 'making death easier', then those species who bore such disadvantage, would have died out compared to those who fought to the very last firing of an objecting neuron. But set that aside, I do consider the idea in the set of Ockham's Razor plausible constructs.
Both Alternatives involve some key magical assumptions which bypass Darwin. That does bother me, but that is what we have. The second problem is that certain forces would slam this construct of the neurological processes of dying, in as truth before the idea is even mature as a hypothesis, much less as the result of any kind of research. What they have done is to create a very familiar fake scientific play wherein we have two alternatives:
Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – Is the idea declared correct at first mention, or of such importance or virtue, that its adoption as truth now stands more important than science itself? Does the idea leave a trail of dead competent professional bodies behind it - those who dared to research any alternative? Was the idea installed as truth before any substantial research was even conducted?
Embargo Hypothesis (Hξ) – was the science terminated years ago, in the midst of large-impact questions of a critical nature which still remain unanswered? Is such research now considered ‘anti-science’ or ‘pseudoscience’? Is there enormous social pressure to not even ask questions inside the subject? Is mocking and derision high – curiously in excess of what the subject should merit? Is the subject patrolled by hordes of self-identifying 'doubters'.
My hackles are raised when I see an Embargo Hypothesis being targeted by social skepticism. Such as is the case with NDE's. That means that someone somewhere is afraid of the idea. I do not hold any answer beyond those two points of ethical skepticism. Other than of course my own personal stories.
TES