V
"vieras"
Vieras
Otteita tuosta Neurologica blogin kirjoituksesta:
GM Woerlee wrote an extensive piece on this topic focusing also on the medical aspects of what happens during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). His primary point is that CPR generates enough blood flow to the brain in order to explain the experiences that survivors report. He also emphasizes that this research into NDEs has been done enough to arrive at the reliable conclusion that it is the experience of an anoxic brain and that this further research is unecessary.
Susan Blackmore, however, disagrees. She herself had a drug induced out-of-body experience and then spent years researching such things only to conclude that there is no evidence for the paranormal and what she experienced was a brain phenomenon.
The final concern that was raised was about Sam Parnia, the head of this new NDE study. He is clearly a believer. The concern is that the execution of the study will be tainted by Parnias clear bias. What protections will there be, for example, against simple cheating? We will have to wait and see. Hopefully the protocol will be documented sufficiently to evaluate the quality of the studys execution.
But this also brings up another point that if this study is positive it will need to be replicated. As the recent stem cell saga and the experience with Benvenistes lab (doing homeopathy research) reminds us, there is fraud in science. Other than the occasional tattle tale, the only way to root out fraud is with replication. If NDEs truly represent the mind leaving the body, then anyone can follow this protocol and get positive results. Basic findings in science, ones that establish new paradigms, are typically replicated dozens or hundred of times. They become standard experiments on which grad student cut their teeth. New paradigms are never established by a single study, no matter how good they look on paper.
GM Woerlee wrote an extensive piece on this topic focusing also on the medical aspects of what happens during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). His primary point is that CPR generates enough blood flow to the brain in order to explain the experiences that survivors report. He also emphasizes that this research into NDEs has been done enough to arrive at the reliable conclusion that it is the experience of an anoxic brain and that this further research is unecessary.
Susan Blackmore, however, disagrees. She herself had a drug induced out-of-body experience and then spent years researching such things only to conclude that there is no evidence for the paranormal and what she experienced was a brain phenomenon.
The final concern that was raised was about Sam Parnia, the head of this new NDE study. He is clearly a believer. The concern is that the execution of the study will be tainted by Parnias clear bias. What protections will there be, for example, against simple cheating? We will have to wait and see. Hopefully the protocol will be documented sufficiently to evaluate the quality of the studys execution.
But this also brings up another point that if this study is positive it will need to be replicated. As the recent stem cell saga and the experience with Benvenistes lab (doing homeopathy research) reminds us, there is fraud in science. Other than the occasional tattle tale, the only way to root out fraud is with replication. If NDEs truly represent the mind leaving the body, then anyone can follow this protocol and get positive results. Basic findings in science, ones that establish new paradigms, are typically replicated dozens or hundred of times. They become standard experiments on which grad student cut their teeth. New paradigms are never established by a single study, no matter how good they look on paper.
