You didn't understand, did you?
What you've there isn't science, it's called pseudo-science and it's based upon "observations" and "deductions". The funny part is the peer-review claim and yet, past 48 years of the last claim no valid review exists. And if such exists then the kid will come speaking in Aramaic, Latin or other ancient language.
There are
many reviews and replication studies of Stevenson's work; there is even detailed criticism, but it does not measure up to the weight of the strong cases.
In 1975, in a review of Stevenson's "Cases of the Reincarnation Type" in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Lester S. King concluded that Stevenson had "painstakingly and unemotionally collected a detailed series of cases in India, cases in which the evidence for reincarnation is difficult to understand on any other grounds....[H]e has placed on record a large amount of data that cannot be ignored."
In any case, one can run (further) experiments and investigations, or one can realize that the evidence (52 salient points) already merits a conclusion, and that
a discovery is at hand. NDEs have already advanced the fields of philosophy (point #24), psychology (#21), and genomics (#20). People having NDEs have even brought back
scientific discoveries (#19, #20)!
Because there already exists a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence supporting
veridical perception [during a "Near-Death Experience"], it may only be a matter of time before hard, scientific evidence of an afterlife is found.
Even more importantly: Skeptical arguments against NDEs are
not valid (#34-36, and others). NDEs support the reality of rebirth (#38). I conclude that the burden of proof has shifted to skeptics of an afterlife (#36).
It simply will not do to reject all qualitative observations. Many lines of evidence unite in supporting the reality of rebirth (#37). The rhetorical opinions of some NDE theories are presented
as if they were scientific. Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from
pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Pseudo-skeptical arguments are sometimes made that do not consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival or do not consider the possibility of new paradigms.
Such pseudo-skeptical claims are often made without any scientific evidence.Also, if the dying brain creates NDE illusions, what is the purpose for doing it? If our brains are only a high-tech computer-like lump of tissue which produces our mind and personality, why does it bother to create illusions at the time of death? Even if NDE elements can be reduced to only a series of brain reactions, this does not negate the idea that NDEs are more than a brain thing.
And about "old science is bad science", when it comes to medicine it is for sure! If you get a respiratory disease that 1967's doc would recommend you to start smoking 3 packages of Marlboro a day, and the 1922's one will give you some cocaine.
Ah, but you are possibly unaware that
medicine is not a science! So, old science does not
necessarily make for bad science, these reincarnation studies can be replicated, and the lessons learned upon replication (check the literature) stimulate the self-correcting process and improve systematic controls in future studies, strengthening the quality of the evidence.
Here is an example of strong controls being implemented, the result is evidence of veridical perception during NDE which supports the hypothesis (survival), and shows that more research is merited in order to record even stronger evidence; this is science at its finest and there is nothing "funny" about it:
Quoting from the recent
AWARE study:
"One case was
validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest... [C]onsciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat.
This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted.
Furthermore, the
detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with
verified events."
“Thus, while it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness, (due to the very low incidence (2 per cent) of explicit recall of visual awareness or so called OBE’s), it was impossible to disclaim them either and more work is needed in this area.
Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”
That site reminds me of CBS Reality shows about paranormal activity. Always dots filmed with a very old camcorder and interferences caught with old radios... guess the ghosts don't like HD and digital recording...
Surprise! There does exist
Supporting Material in the Form of Direct EvidenceTranscommunication is an umbrella term used for many types of trans-etheric influence. Visual and audible forms of Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC) produce important forms of objective evidence.
The fact of anomalous voices and images is well-established and mundane explanations have not explained their existence. In some instances, visual ITC images have been identified as clearly indicating a known discarnate person. The nature of EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) is better understood and they provide most of the supporting evidence for survival. Common characteristics of EVP that indicate intelligent interaction with an aware personality include direct response to questions, comments about local activity and reference to prior activity.
The direct implication of ITC is that the communicating personality is the same as that of the person while still in a lifetime, but now operating under different circumstances.
It is easily seen how TransCommunication relates to what is often referred to as the best evidence for survival--OBE, NDE, reincarnation, and mediumship. Check the ethericstudies site for more details on ITC, perhaps after you have reviewed the 52 points on the near-death site (especially point #49).
