{Near-Death Experiences [continued]}[19th June 1988]

[Redbook5:179-181][19880619:1707j]{Near-Death Experiences [continued]}[19^th June 1988]

19880619.1707

[continued]

The article* raises interestingly the problem of selecting tests for verification of a theory. The point about a prediction is that it should only be fulfilled if the theory is correct and all other theories are false:** otherwise there is no test.*** In the article, Dr. Blackmore advances a theory of the out[-]of[-]body experience as a mental model, and suggests that (if it is correct) people who have out-of-body experiences ought to be those who can more easily imagine scenes from a bird's eye view, or more easily switch viewpoints in their imagination; and [suggests] that she has confirmed this. But from the point of view of a counter-argument, it is conceivable that only those who fairly advanced powers of imagination**** would also have this 'psychic' ability to see without eyes.

This is rather borne out by her second test, that these people might also be those who recall dreams in a bird's eye view. She and another experimenter have found that people with out-of-body experiences tend to be those who recall dreams in a bird's-eye view, though not events from waking life. 'The reason for this is not clear....'# Opponents would simply argue that this suggested that dreams also involved a 'psychic' point of view appropriate to an out-of-body experience, whereas waking life, as one might expect, did not. This rather supports the E[nyclopedia ]B]ritannica] assertion (for metaphysics)#* that one should look for examples which falsify the theory, not just those which support it: one should also, I guess, learn to play Devil's Advocate to oneself (not easy!).

*[New Scientist 19880505,1611,43ff; see last previous entry.]

**{ref [(probably) [Redbook5:176][19880619:1707c]{Theory and Verification [continued (5)]}[19^th June 1988],] p176}

***{(In practice, one can never be certain that this condition has been fulfilled.)}

****[The clue is perhaps in the word: imag(e)-in-ation. <20180708>]

#[ New Scientist, ibid, presumably.]

#*[Ref not given.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger08for11072018]