I am not sure I follow you here. I mean, can you “explain these things”? No one can explain these things because the fail to fit into a naturalistic nomological network of explanation. From our current conventional metaphysical ontological
scientific perspective, there is no other medium for mental behavioral processes than living (and material) behavioral processes. Certainly, a first person out-of-body experience does not justify much in terms of claiming that is not the case, ontologically.
I certainly agree that science should be interested in NDEs, and we should be open. At the same time, the logical “press” of claims must be fully grasped. If I told you that I came out side to find my car hovering a foot off the ground,
the correct response is NOT, “It is rare but cars sometimes behave that way. They have spirits that cause them to transcend gravity.” That kind of explanation is non-scientific precisely because it accounts for phenomena outside the general nomological network.
Anyway, my basic point is that I certain do not think that the woman would informed you that the arch angel Michael was following you was operating anywhere near the ballpark of a scientific justification system. Indeed, to the extent that
is the case, then who is not?
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Nicholas Lattanzio
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 10:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Seeking Info on Angelic Teams
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Well there have been many studies conducted by the likes of Raymond Moody and Ian Stephenson on subjects related to Near Death experiences, with sample sizes in the thousands and cross culturally superior to typical Western samples that
have generated reasonable qualitative and quantitative findings, such as the tendency to experience something like 3 or 4 of a list of 12 common NDE experiences, one of which is seeing a deity of one's religion, another is angels.
While that is hardly proof of their existence in the same realm as our earthly human perception, there is no reason to discount things related to a construct such as death, which science is utterly stupid about. At that point, I feel it
is the fault of science, and even MENS, that it cannot explain these phenomenon.
It is too convenient for science to ignore these things because it is too limited to study and measure them like an apple falling from a tree. If we are left with this version of MENS and then merely rely on technological advances to improve
research, then we're all going to have to wait until our moment of death to figure out these truths from what at that point will be 1st person empiricism.
Regards,
Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
On Tue, May 3, 2022, 1:30 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
This is an interesting conversation for me, as it brings up the parameters of what I labeled in this blog as Scientific Worldview D thinking.
I would posit that for someone to claim the mantel of scientific thinking the would AT LEAST have to anchor themselves either to the methods of science or a naturalistic scientific ontology. If someone eschewed both of those aspects of the scientific system of justification, it is hard for me to consider them operating within even the broadest construal of the word.
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Peter Lloyd Jones
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 1:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Seeking Info on Angelic Teams
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Nicholas,
With humility and great respect for you, I conceded there is a high chance of me missing the point. We also, though, might have differing interpretations of evidence. That is some of what makes life so interesting.
Peter
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1