Why the NDE fails to become accepted as science by paulbudds

VIEWS: 14 PAGES: 3

									    Why the NDE Fails to become accepted as
                  Science
                               Paul Budding


There is most definitely hope for consciousness continuation following
bodily death. It’s true that I have no confidence whatsoever in normal science
accepting this… but you must take into account my logic. I am saying that
normal science derives from a paradigm based on the reality of MATTER
and CAUSE AND EFFECT. Therefore normal science is the most
effective tool we know concerning dealing with phenomena that fall into this
category. But phenomena like near death experiences (NDE’s) and
precognition… will always be dismissed out-of-hand. Most Scientists (who
think about potential science) try and make what they hear about such things
fit into the prevailing paradigm. If they cannot make the anomaly fit they
assume that they have failed to find the answer or even more commonly they
just ignore phenomena such as NDE’s and precognition etc. But this is
precisely why people who want NDE’s to be real should have confidence.
The only reason why NDE’s are not accepted is because they cannot be
understood by our CULTURAL EXPERIENCE. Normal science
considers matter and cause and effect to be so real that it equates to our
EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE. So let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say
that the majority of western civilisation experienced an NDE today. That
would mean that the general population would be ready to accept new
scientific premises. Sure, matter and cause and effect would still maintain
great power because much of reality would still be explained by the paradigm
of materialism. But no longer would the general public be suspicious of
phenomena that falls outside of everyday life experience. On the contrary,
they would demand that NDE’s be taken seriously. It would be a priority.
Hence, my point is that NDE’s (and other phenomena that are outside of the
materialism paradigm) are ignored due to SOCIETAL/CULTURAL
POWER THAT IS BASED ON LIVED EXPERIENCE.
If you think I take a strange route to attain confidence I will put it another
way… THE PREVAILING PARADIGM EQUATES TO A BIAS.
Given that it’s a bias we can take confidence from it. The prevailing paradigm
is effective (even brilliant) within its domain but it doesn’t understand
phenomena that is not in its domain… and doesn’t try very hard to
understand phenomena that falls outside of its area of expertise. An analogy
can be drawn with a sports fan. They know the strengths of their own team
very well and therefore predict victory for their team concerning the
forthcoming game. However, they are not very smart concerning the
strengths of the opposition team and therefore do not take them into
account. Thus they have a biased perspective.


Why Opinion Polls are Irrelevant


Opinion polls tend to give the impression that the public are ready for a
paradigm shift. Frequently they seem to show that the public believes in the
Extraterrestrial hypothesis in Ufology and the Afterlife hypothesis
concerning NDE’s. However on such topics the public WANT TO
BELIEVE… and are therefore as biased as the paradigm that their ‘wants’
contradict. The vast majority of the public do not look into these issues
objectively and neutrally. If they did then a lot more of them would be
unsure… and answering that they haven’t reached a conclusion yet. Contrast
this with the general publics faith in the premise of normal science. You
wouldn’t even ask the public in a poll whether or not they have belief in the
reality of matter and cause and effect. This is because the pollsters and the
general public consider such things as self evident realities.


CONCLUSION
Polls are excellent in politics… who will you vote? (Democrat/Republican?)
This is because in politics we expect voting habits to change for many
reasons (demographics, personality, fate of the economy etc). They tell us
roughly what the public thinks now. The polls know that they have to keep
asking the same questions because fortunes change in the world of politics.
But scientific paradigms are seemingly forever. Hence you don’t ask the
general public about the reality of matter and cause and effect. And if you
have to ask about the NDE then you are treating it in the same way as you
treat a political party… opinions about it are subject to change. Thankfully
the NDE isn’t the original premise of what should be a second scientific
paradigm. THE NDE HAS TO BE MADE TO FIT INTO
PARADIGM 2. (THE CONSCIOUSNESS OR DEEP
UNCONSCIOUS PARADIGM). In Paradigm 2 the original premises are
(1) CONSCIOUSNESS AND (2) THE WORLD IS SEEN
DIFFERENTLY WITHIN A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT
STATE OF MIND FROM NORMAL CONSCIOUSNESS. Therefore
INCOMMENSURABILITY between Paradigms 1 & 2 is effectively stated
within the logic of the premise of Paradigm 2. No synthesis or making
phenomena fit (from one paradigm to another) can occur. This is precisely
because THE LAWS OF REALITY IN PARADIGM 2 ARE
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF PARADIGM 1 AND VICE VERSA.


NOTE


See also http://www.docstoc.com/docs/160116587/The-Addition-of-a-
New-Scientific-Paradigm

								
To top