People on every side of every controversy don't play fair. Unfairness is not concentrated on one side of the NDE controversy. Unfair attacks appear in this thread. Either I'm so obstinate that I appear lazy or I'm so lazy that I appear obstinate. That's called a false choice fallacy.
Yeah but Martin bud, you came in with guns drawn dude. Skeptics drift through this old mining town like 16 year-old gunfighter-wannabe's on a regular basis. (You are not one of those - btw). When people imply that there is a hypothesis of science here, and that such a hypothesis is the null hypothesis as well, when this is indeed not the case - most of us associate that with imperious thought. We've seen that puppet show before, at least 10,000 times. We know the arguments.
However, I understand some of your contentions better now and see where you are leading with your thoughts. I carry these same possibilities as constructs (not hypotheses).
When science lacks a real null hypothesis - a claim to the absence requires much more substantiation and work than does a conjecture to the presence. One cannot just flippantly declare an absence to be the more likely alternative (Einfach Mechanism). If one does so, it can tender the appearance of being lazy, yes.
Shortcuts to the denial are more oppressive than are shortcuts to the affirmative. Because the former is granted free pass as truth.
The reason I am here is because we have a group of sincere, science literate, spiritually connected and incredibly intelligent people who have demonstrated a willingness to risk their allegiances (although painful). Not because everything said here is correct. I do not want to frequent a board where science communicators just patrol about and instruct everyone as to what is what - and everything is forced correct. We got tons of that out there.
Skeptiko is a quite bit different than the conspiracy forums. Get to know Alex, David, Andrew, Malf, Eric, Michael P. and Michael L., Typoz, SuperQ, Steve, et. al. You will find a rather robust cache of scientific literacy (and in some cases way more qualification and experience than the average scientist) - a LOT of bloodhound work and direct experience which one will not find with science communicators - along with an eventual willingness to consider a variety of ideas.
One cannot fully eliminate bias nor ignorance - but one can eliminate agency, and there is a difference.