Quote:
|
We understand dreams to be purely subjective, yet the scientific community is interested in studying them.
|
How do you mean, exactly? Anyway, the circumstances of dreaming are more controllable than near-death experiences. There is no telling when and where there will be a near-death experience or if it is appropriate to study it when doctors are trying to save a person (wouldn't scientists and their devices get in the way?), but everyone dreams peacefully and quietly in their sleep.
The best a scientist could do is, if by some chance they hit the jack pot and it was legal for them to be in the emergency room, is see what kind of chemicals are going off in the brain while a person is undergoing a near death experience (and they would only be able to confirm this experience if the person was brought back to life and remembered what happened during their episode).
Quote:
|
The only way to be sure would be to study this claim objectively, which mainstream science currently chooses not to.
|
Correction: Can't do, no more than it can
study or
make predictions with Intelligent Design. The logic behind NDE is non-scientific in nature, in that there is no way it can be affirmed or denied positively. All scientists can do is conjecture, which they do: the most likely explanation is near-death experiences are fantasies induced by sporadic chemical processes (aka, people imagine afterlife's while they die).