Why does science tend to ignore evidence of life after death?

Question

Especially when some of their own scientists are researching the topic and coming to vastly different conclusions then other "reductionist" scientists?

Cardiologist Michael Sabom reported a famous case in which a woman underwent deliberate "stand still" to stop bleeding in the brain. Her EEG registered absolutely nothing, including her brain stem. Yet, during this time she reported a profound NDE, which stunned scientists:

http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue61/r61_Grossman.html

Paul

All of you seem to be missing the following:

(A) NDEs have occured in the blind, during which time the person could see while out of the body, but their blindness returned once they were brought back to life.

(B) OBEs (Out of body experiences) have verified events that were not known to the OBEer (e.g. such as the passing of a loved one thousands of miles away).

(C) Ghosts have been verified to exist with scientific equipment, and have also been seen by more than one person at the same time (e.g. by definition, two people cannot hallucinate the same thing at the same time).

(D) The patient in Michael Sabom's study had *zero* EEG activity; the purpose of the stand still was to drain blood from her brain in her to repair and otherwise impossible near rupture of an artery in the brain (that if repaired when the brain had blood would have killed her). Yet, during this state of being she experienced a classic NDE. In order for this state to be reached, they lowered her temp to 60 f.

Answer 1

there is no real evidence of life after death, this is all rubbish

Answer 2

most scientists I know are VERY open-minded, actually much more open-minded that the average of the population. This is why they became scientists in the first place, by the way - because they were curious.

Most scientists would be only too happy if anyone was able to come to them with evidence of any until now unproven thing, evidence that would be solid. And they'd be even happier where it would be possible to have the experiment reproduced by an independent group, and obtain similar results.

NDEs are not scientific proof of life after death, since the brain was not really dead and they could just as well be illusion. That's too bad, but that's the reality.

The example you mention proves nothing - many wonderful / weird things happen with human bodies, daily, as witnessed by doctors, and none of these require life after death as an explanation.

The same applies to a lot of other, less symbolically important, but just as interesting stuff: mind-reading, telekinesis, etc. Most physicists I know would just LOVE it if somebody came to them, said they're able to read minds, move objects with their minds - and were able to do it in controlled lab experiments (as opposed to using tricks common on some shows). On top of this, huge rewards (over 1 million dollars) have been offered to ANYONE who would come up with evidence of any of these phenomena.

However, no one has come forward.

Which leads one to believe that, either, sadly, none of those things exist, or, people with these super-human capabilities do NOT want to come forward.


But again: most scientists would just LOVE to have any solid evidence. So if you know some such evidence, go to any physics or medicine department at any university, they'll greet you with open arms!

Answer 3

Near death experiences can be induced, and explained, by depriving areas of the brain of blood.
The "White Light" appears just before people black out, usually this lasts just a fraction of a second, you faint, and then recover. If this is prolonged, such as during an operation, people may remember this and call it a near death experience, and then may introduce their own beliefs and interpret this accordingly.
NASA, I think, has looked at this while testing pilots in those big centriguge things to simulate high G-forces.
Next time someone faints, ask them if they saw a flash of light before they passed out.

Answer 4

Because the word "evidence" is a strictly defined term in the context of science, and anecdotal reports don't qualify. There has never been any reproducible experiment whose results indicate that this phenomenon is scientifically valid.

Answer 5

People with a belief system they cling to will regard as evidence what can more objectively be identified as hearsay. Doesn't mean that you can't believe whatever you like. But trying to justify your belief as fact doesn't make it true.

Answer 6

Since there is no real, provable, un-subjective evidence, there is nothing for science to ignore.

Answer 7

so its called a near-death experience
and not an after death experience