5th Dimension documentary on nde & the skeptics

#1
Hi all,

I just watched an nde documentary by 5th Dimension: <
.

The documentary is quite ok and I did learn something new: it was a surprise to me that children who have had an nde are more prone to attempt suicide later on (they are longing for the profound experience).

I am generally in favour of balanced treatment which in this context means that skeptics' arguments should be heard as well. However, what bothers me is that Susan Blackmore is once more treated as a main scientist who has "studied hundreds of nde cases". Indeed, she appears to be very persuasive that there is nothing there. I recall that she herself admitted that she has not followed the field since 1990's.

It may be that this documentary has already been discussed here. If that is the case, my apologies.

Regards,

Dr. Savant
Finland
 
#2
Saiko,

you are right: I should have been more cautious in believing the claimed connection between the nde children & suicide likelihood. To accept the claim, there should be more than one study, with a sufficiently large amount of subjects, to allow proper meta-analysis. So I shall reformulate my statement: I haven't heard before that a researcher would claim that children with nde would be more prone to attempt suicide later on in their lives.

Your second point was about balanced treatment (a reason for the ambiquity might be that I am not a native speaker of English).
I mean the nde data and its interpretation. My personal view is that the naturalistic framework does not suffice to explain the nde phenomenon. Having said this, I think that we should listen carefully what the critics say; this is a key aspect in the scientific process. Well, it is also true that there are critics who will never change their minds no matter what the evidence might be. It means that not all people are engaging with the debate in good faith as Alex has shown in many Skeptiko interviews.

Cheers,

Dr. Savant
 
#3
Your second point was about balanced treatment (a reason for the ambiquity might be that I am not a native speaker of English).
No. I'd love to claim it was your fault but the stunning misread was all mine. Your use of the word is correct both grammatically and contextually - my misread was not. I've erased it as it served no purpose.

I don't think paying attention to naysayers/critics is part of the scientific method.Quite the opposite. Paying attention to an open-minded criticism from someone investigating in a similar way can be useful.
 
Last edited:
Top