Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well the scientist who did the experiment disagree with you guys and who cares what rag as you put it told the story. Unless you can prove the experiment wrong your just disagreeing with science.
No it is YOU and the paper not understanding the science, not me disagreeing with science.
I am not proving it wrong, because I do not need to. The experiments do not actually SAY what the news paper you linked to claim they say. That is the problem. I am saying the interpretation of the Experiment is wrong, not that the experiment is wrong. Quite a difference there, so do not mix them up.
That said though, disagreeing with papers is not "disagreeing with science" at all. You simply fail to understand the scientific method. Evaluation of, and yes disagreement with, papers is the very CORE of science. It is what the entire endeavor of science is about. Read about repeatability and falsification.
Sam Parnia, the scientist in question, is HEAVILY biased towards finding evidence for an after life. He has been at it for years. He has simply failed to find any at all. The news paper simply has a poor science writer who has tried to spin the paper.
What the experiments show is not evidence for an after life. It shows that there are residual levels of awareness retained during medical contexts where we previously believed otherwise.
Nothing more.
So no one is "disagreeing with science" here, so much as one Journalist is failing to understand science. In fact quite often Sam Parnia does not appear to understand things. “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia <----- that is simply a false statement. There are MANY differences between brain function and heart function and either of them CAN function for a time without the other even in natural situations. Let alone situations where the operations of one are being simulated and supported in a medical situation.
In fact the criteria for calling "brain death" upon losing a patient has been changed between heart and brain for the very reason that Parnia's assertion is false. If you want to learn more about that you can learn it here in this video for lay people. From 1:05 to 2:20. There is a reason the heart is no longer used to call brain death any more. And Parnia SHOULD know that.
But take this paragraph here "“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped."
This only tells half the story. In a medical situation the heart does not stop and then 20-30 seconds later the brain shuts down. Rather what happens is that using manual, or automated, methods we do the work of the heart FOR it, while we try and re-instate function. And so the brain is often unaware of the death of the heart of MUCH longer than 20-30 seconds before it "shuts down". And "shut down" itself is not even a simply flick of a switch from "on" to "off". It is a process in stages and things are also happening DURING those stages.
So again, the problem here is not with anyone disagreeing with science. The problem is with yourself, and a handful of journalists without a science background, failing to understand what the science is saying. Or..... more often........ twisting what it says in order to sell papers.
There is a reason people like yourself quote news paper articles and not the original study.
No it is YOU and the paper not understanding the science, not me disagreeing with science.
I am not proving it wrong, because I do not need to. The experiments do not actually SAY what the news paper you linked to claim they say. That is the problem. I am saying the interpretation of the Experiment is wrong, not that the experiment is wrong. Quite a difference there, so do not mix them up.
That said though, disagreeing with papers is not "disagreeing with science" at all. You simply fail to understand the scientific method. Evaluation of, and yes disagreement with, papers is the very CORE of science. It is what the entire endeavor of science is about. Read about repeatability and falsification.
Sam Parnia, the scientist in question, is HEAVILY biased towards finding evidence for an after life. He has been at it for years. He has simply failed to find any at all. The news paper simply has a poor science writer who has tried to spin the paper.
What the experiments show is not evidence for an after life. It shows that there are residual levels of awareness retained during medical contexts where we previously believed otherwise.
Nothing more.
So no one is "disagreeing with science" here, so much as one Journalist is failing to understand science. In fact quite often Sam Parnia does not appear to understand things. “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia <----- that is simply a false statement. There are MANY differences between brain function and heart function and either of them CAN function for a time without the other even in natural situations. Let alone situations where the operations of one are being simulated and supported in a medical situation.
In fact the criteria for calling "brain death" upon losing a patient has been changed between heart and brain for the very reason that Parnia's assertion is false. If you want to learn more about that you can learn it here in this video for lay people. From 1:05 to 2:20. There is a reason the heart is no longer used to call brain death any more. And Parnia SHOULD know that.
But take this paragraph here "“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped."
This only tells half the story. In a medical situation the heart does not stop and then 20-30 seconds later the brain shuts down. Rather what happens is that using manual, or automated, methods we do the work of the heart FOR it, while we try and re-instate function. And so the brain is often unaware of the death of the heart of MUCH longer than 20-30 seconds before it "shuts down". And "shut down" itself is not even a simply flick of a switch from "on" to "off". It is a process in stages and things are also happening DURING those stages.
So again, the problem here is not with anyone disagreeing with science. The problem is with yourself, and a handful of journalists without a science background, failing to understand what the science is saying. Or..... more often........ twisting what it says in order to sell papers.
There is a reason people like yourself quote news paper articles and not the original study.
So what if Parnia spends all his time studying life after death. What do you think science is all about?
Now you say Parnia is wrong, yet Parnia's credentials tell us otherwise. Yet you expect me to take your word over his, come on.
So what if Parnia spends all his time studying life after death. What do you think science is all about?
I am not sure what you are asking here as I said nothing about science that suggests he should not be studying whatever the hell he wants to study. Perhaps you need to read my post again, only slower, and work out what it is you think you are replying to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Now you say Parnia is wrong, yet Parnia's credentials tell us otherwise. Yet you expect me to take your word over his, come on.
Mostly the people I called "wrong" were you AND the news paper for putting a false interpretation on the results of Parnia's work. Because the study in question simply does NOT say what you and the news paper pretend it does. Simple as.
But I think you put too much stock in credentials. Credentials do not make a person right or wrong. What they actually say and claim does that. And I pointed out two things Parnia was quoted as saying in that news paper that are, simply, wrong.
Scientists are not infallible, especially (but not only) when they wander outside their specific field. For example Eben Alexander is a neurosurgeon who had an NDE and even as a neurosurgeon he made some comments about the workings of the brain that any non-surgeon neuro scientist would find laughably false. His credentials as a neurosurgeon in not way prevented him from espousing unsubstantiated and false nonsense.
I could list any number of well credentialed scientists who showed their expertise in one field and then espoused egregious nonsense in another. From Newton to Lynn Margulis there are any number of examples of this.
So I would urge you to evaluate what people say, not what credentials they wave around while saying it. Appeals to Authority are fallacies for a reason. And good reasons at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I suppose this site does not know what it is talking about either.
AGAIN I think you need to slow down and read what it is I am actually claiming. AGAIN my claim is not that studies of awareness on "clinical death" are wrong. What I think is wrong is the spin and interpretation you, and some poor quality journalism, puts on the results of such studies.
And if you continue to write replies to my that pretend otherwise, then you will continue to pay a price in credibility that I am not paying. Because you are contriving to simply talk past me and straw man my words.
AGAIN...... "Clincal Death" and "Death" are two different things. Clinical death does not assume the brain has entirely stopped functioning, or that some level of awareness is not possible during that period. There are any number of arguments, and reasons, to actually expect to hear the kind of NDE anecdotes that we do hear.
The problem is when people like yourself, or journalists, decide to pretend that this is evidence of an after life. It simply is not. A near death experience is no more an experience of the after life than me walking up to a plane and then walking away is an experience of a weeks holiday in Morrocco.
And the clue is in the NAME for you, so it should not be this hard to understand. NEAR death experience. An experience had while NEAR to dying. The patient did NOT die. See the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
so if Parnia was such a crack pot why did the Medical journal accept his study?
Because ONCE AGAIN, the spin lay people like yourself put on the study does not take away from the genuine utility of the study. It is a good study, and a useful addition to the world of human knowledge. It just does not way what YOU want it to be saying. But what it DOES say is useful stuff.
I can not say this often enough for you, so I will keep saying it........ my attack on false interpretations of the results of a study should NEVER be conflated with an attack on the study itself.
I am doing the former.
You are desperately trying to pretend I am doing the former.
I am not sure what you are asking here as I said nothing about science that suggests he should not be studying whatever the hell he wants to study. Perhaps you need to read my post again, only slower, and work out what it is you think you are replying to.
Mostly the people I called "wrong" were you AND the news paper for putting a false interpretation on the results of Parnia's work. Because the study in question simply does NOT say what you and the news paper pretend it does. Simple as.
But I think you put too much stock in credentials. Credentials do not make a person right or wrong. What they actually say and claim does that. And I pointed out two things Parnia was quoted as saying in that news paper that are, simply, wrong.
Scientists are not infallible, especially (but not only) when they wander outside their specific field. For example Eben Alexander is a neurosurgeon who had an NDE and even as a neurosurgeon he made some comments about the workings of the brain that any non-surgeon neuro scientist would find laughably false. His credentials as a neurosurgeon in not way prevented him from espousing unsubstantiated and false nonsense.
I could list any number of well credentialed scientists who showed their expertise in one field and then espoused egregious nonsense in another. From Newton to Lynn Margulis there are any number of examples of this.
So I would urge you to evaluate what people say, not what credentials they wave around while saying it. Appeals to Authority are fallacies for a reason. And good reasons at that.
AGAIN I think you need to slow down and read what it is I am actually claiming. AGAIN my claim is not that studies of awareness on "clinical death" are wrong. What I think is wrong is the spin and interpretation you, and some poor quality journalism, puts on the results of such studies.
And if you continue to write replies to my that pretend otherwise, then you will continue to pay a price in credibility that I am not paying. Because you are contriving to simply talk past me and straw man my words.
AGAIN...... "Clincal Death" and "Death" are two different things. Clinical death does not assume the brain has entirely stopped functioning, or that some level of awareness is not possible during that period. There are any number of arguments, and reasons, to actually expect to hear the kind of NDE anecdotes that we do hear.
The problem is when people like yourself, or journalists, decide to pretend that this is evidence of an after life. It simply is not. A near death experience is no more an experience of the after life than me walking up to a plane and then walking away is an experience of a weeks holiday in Morrocco.
And the clue is in the NAME for you, so it should not be this hard to understand. NEAR death experience. An experience had while NEAR to dying. The patient did NOT die. See the difference?
Because ONCE AGAIN, the spin lay people like yourself put on the study does not take away from the genuine utility of the study. It is a good study, and a useful addition to the world of human knowledge. It just does not way what YOU want it to be saying. But what it DOES say is useful stuff.
I can not say this often enough for you, so I will keep saying it........ my attack on false interpretations of the results of a study should NEVER be conflated with an attack on the study itself.
I am doing the former.
You are desperately trying to pretend I am doing the former.
You would do well to stop.
actually all i did was provide a link, you are the one who is making an issue out of it.
And you did say Parnia was wrong and then go on about credentials don't mean everything, and although I agree with that, your still telling me to take your word over Parnias. Do you have any credentials in the medical field? if not why should I believe you over Parnia?
actually all i did was provide a link, you are the one who is making an issue out of it.
And you did say Parnia was wrong and then go on about credentials don't mean everything, and although I agree with that, your still telling me to take your word over Parnias. Do you have any credentials in the medical field? if not why should I believe you over Parnia?
In other words do you disagree with Parnias findings? if not then this issue that you are making out of it is not an issue at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
