why is there no support from science with research of life after death?

liamwhite · 27-12-2010 12:40am #1

Hi guys,

something that has caught my attention lately in documentaries is the subject of life after death, i find it very interesting.

my question is there no real scientific experiments into the whole life after death phenomenon? I mean there are millions of people who claim it is very much real, not just religious people but scientists themselves, what a lot of scientists say is that it could be proven but the funding is the problem. since this is such a huge topic why is there no real funding if there is a chance it can be proven, im not really religious myself, i tend to lean more towards the science ends of things in life, bu i think if that this could be proven it was be so life changing for a lot of people in the world, so back to my question... why is there no support from science in putting the whole big question to rest? and what do scientists here believe themselves from a scientific view on life after death? can people live on out of there bodies? or when your dead is that it? its game over?

Thanks

denisor · 27-12-2010 12:51am

Well this is a very interesting question, I'm curious as to how this one gets answered!

Not going off topic but, the question got me thinking, would anyone any ideas on the population in heaven? No really! Anyone any idea on how many humans may have died since A. We arrived, and B. Christianity arrived?

liamwhite · 27-12-2010 1:08am

Not going off topic but, the question got me thinking, would anyone any ideas on the population in heaven? No really! Anyone any idea on how many humans may have died since A. We arrived, and B. Christianity arrived?[/QUOTE]

Depends on what one calls heaven? is heaven a place were people dress in white and live on the clouds? or is heaven space or a place out there beyond earth? or is it on earth? Thats a question that could possibly be answered by somebody with a higher caliber brain than mine of course, and a higher degree in the subject f science, but what i believe is that heaven is a place written and created by the church as a comfort for those who have lost a loved one. Nothing wrong with that of course.

But my question is not really aimed at how many people are living on the other side, i mean we don't even know how many people exactly live on earth in a physical form so i dread to even ask that question

But what id love to know and what i am very interested to know is if there is indeed anything at all after we inhale our very last breath, i suppose it would be nice in a way to know if there is.. but my main question mark goes behind the words of " why does science not REALLY investigate this phenomenon and reveal the answers??"

djpbarry · 01-01-2011 6:11pm

liamwhite wrote: »

since this is such a huge topic why is there no real funding if there is a chance it can be proven...

Applications for funding need a pretty solid rational for the proposed scientific investigations for which funding is sought. They need to be evidence-based with very clear objectives outlined. So an application for funding which states as an objective “we hope to find out something about some kind of afterlife” is unlikely to attract too much interest from the funding body.

Let me put it another way – what exactly would such experimentation entail?

liamwhite wrote: »

and what do scientists here believe themselves from a scientific view on life after death? ... when your dead is that it? its game over?

In my opinion, yes, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

dlofnep · 01-01-2011 6:14pm

It's virtually impossible to prove. Although, there are ongoing scientific studies with regards to near-death experiences.

FleurBelle · 01-01-2011 6:48pm

liamwhite wrote: »

Hi guys,

and what do scientists here believe themselves from a scientific view on life after death? can people live on out of there bodies? or when your dead is that it? its game over?

Thanks

As a medical scientist, my mind leans towards the negative - there is no physiological basis for life after death. When cells die that is it. Simple as that.

I really wish I could believe differently, because honestly, it's a very depressing way to think! I almost envy people who have a more optimistic view on this topic!

At the same time, this is just my opinion and I am always open to other ways of thinking

Tonyandthewhale · 01-01-2011 7:15pm

You say a lot of scientists think that this is an area deserving of serious research. What scientists are these and where did you find them?
I accept that a fair percentage of scientists have some sort of religious/spiritual belief but I don't believe more than a tiny minority of these think testing for heaven is a good way to use research funding.
I don't want to turn this thread into another after-hours God debate so I'm not saying there is nothing after death (although personnally I don't believe there is) but from the point of view of pursuing credible scientific research it's a matter of faith and as such a complete non-starter.
There's no observable data, there's no testable hypothesis, there's nothing to suggest there's anything going on after death and everything we know about being a life (or not as the case may be) contradicts the life after death scenario.
Out of body experiences and such are interesting psychological phenomena however but it's not quite the same thing.

liamwhite · 04-01-2011 2:01am

Hi, and thank you for the reply's.

If you have time take a read/look at these links below, some of them are quiet time consuming so you will need at least 30 + minutes but they are well worth the time.

I hope these links will answer my recent post regarding science and the afterlife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Crookes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Joseph_Lodge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAt0zeiiAc8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-xBTipxos&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFv5UcxQ7Xs

Some of these links provide you with the first you tube video of a few if you want to see the rest they will be on the side bar to th right of the screen

I hope to hear back from people in the science community with there view on these videos, but not just the science community. Everybody!

Regards,

liamwhite · 04-01-2011 2:11am

Also i would like to add that in the links above, would there not be enough there for science to take a step towards advancing the research that was put on the table by all parties in all the articles??

To be very honest this time last year i was a complete skeptic, but for whatever reason (i suppose the fact i have a lot of deceased relatives) made me lean more towards looking more into the subject and the more i leaned toward it the more my mind opened.

I have never experienced a ghost and have never met a medium that was genuine but that is not to say that they do not exist, i still approach this subject with a skeptic mind to a degree.

I am not into the heaven and white pearly gates book, i am more into the scientific end of it.

CramCycle · 04-01-2011 4:03pm

liamwhite wrote: »

Also i would like to add that in the links above, would there not be enough there for science to take a step towards advancing the research that was put on the table by all parties in all the articles??

Not really since the experiments have not been published and no tangible proof has been made available. Can you provide any links for the experimental results?

I am on neither side but you will not get funding until you can give a reproducible experiment, so far the claim is that they are reproducible but there is no proof, do the mediums allow recording of these experiments? Did he take videos, recordings, anything at all. Has he published any of these? Not just Michael Roll anecdotes, who are these scientists who are refining ectoplasm? Not too belitte him but it sounds more like he wants to believe and sees what he wants. What are these experiments that are reproducible?

liamwhite · 04-01-2011 6:44pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Not really since the experiments have not been published and no tangible proof has been made available. Can you provide any links for the experimental results?

I am on neither side but you will not get funding until you can give a reproducible experiment, so far the claim is that they are reproducible but there is no proof, do the mediums allow recording of these experiments? Did he take videos, recordings, anything at all. Has he published any of these? Not just Michael Roll anecdotes, who are these scientists who are refining ectoplasm? Not too belitte him but it sounds more like he wants to believe and sees what he wants. What are these experiments that are reproducible?

There are no experimental results because the experiment has not taken place. I think what Michael Roll is trying get at is that he has the foundations to giving proof, but he needs the backing power which he does not have to build the rest. He says it in the interview, he explains it that he has everything there to prove it. Everything except the backing of other scientists.

Correct me if i am wrong but that is what i am getting from it.

I doubt he is seeing what he choses to believe, i admitt he does seem rather eager and excited but what about the other scientist with Michael Roll, what about Sir William Crook and Sir Oliver Lodge? All four of these men are claiming to have the same proof. All four of these men are reputable scientists, Sirr William Crook was a very very reputable one as was Sir Oliver Lodge, surely there is something there. Why would they all put there scientific careers that they spent so many years building at stake for such a belief if what they are saying is not true?

There must be something there. I dont know myself i have not got the capability to even look at what they have to offer in the slightest, but i am sure there are many scientists out there that could look at this with them and might say "hang on a minute this could be realy something"

My personal belief is that science does not like to be proven wrong, nor does the church, because according to Michael Roll... this proof is the opposite of an afterlife than what the church believes!

CramCycle · 04-01-2011 7:12pm

liamwhite wrote: »

There are no experimental results because the experiment has not taken place. I think what Michael Roll is trying get at is that he has the foundations to giving proof, but he needs the backing power which he does not have to build the rest. He says it in the interview, he explains it that he has everything there to prove it. Everything except the backing of other scientists.

He says he has done the experiments, and he has used infrared cameras instead of red light as apparently the shock of a police raid caused ectoplasm to kill a medium?!?
Unless he changes his mind later on as I did not finish it as it started to delve into the realms of rubbish quite quickly.
Basically if he has done them and cannot get published he should put up the results for free and give the world the ability to discredit them or prove that so far there is an inability to discredit them, eg a viable theory exists.

I doubt he is seeing what he choses to believe, i admitt he does seem rather eager and excited but what about the other scientist with Michael Roll, what about Sir William Crook and Sir Oliver Lodge? All four of these men are claiming to have the same proof. All four of these men are reputable scientists, Sirr William Crook was a very very reputable one as was Sir Oliver Lodge, surely there is something there. Why would they all put there scientific careers that they spent so many years building at stake for such a belief if what they are saying is not true?

I did not say they are wrong or speaking untrue, just that they have given no evidence other than their anecdotes. The only attempt at a verifiable experiment was by Lodge himself with his "7 envelopes" which would at the very least have given a basis but the test was a failure as no psychic was ever identified or came forward to open the envelopes with the correct envelopes. No psychic had ever come forward with the correct final message which was opened 7 years after his death. This experiment also required the death of the scientist so for his sake I hope he was right in the end but the experiment as with most of this type just leave a so far seemingly unanswerable question.

There must be something there. I dont know myself i have not got the capability to even look at what they have to offer in the slightest, but i am sure there are many scientists out there that could look at this with them and might say "hang on a minute this could be realy something"

But most people who have looked at them have come to one of two conclusions that are the proof was fradulent or does not lead to a reproducible experiment which means it is statistically unlikely to be correct (although not impossilbe)

My personal belief is that science does not like to be proven wrong, nor does the church, because according to Michael Roll... this proof is the opposite of an afterlife than what the church believes!

Science does not care if it is proven wrong or right, in essence you could simplify science to the fact that all we do is try and prove things wrong, a true scientist does not care either way (obviously we get annoyed if years of our work is disproven but if we had not put in that time someone else would not have had the basis to prove us wrong, so in the end we should be satisfied). The truth of Micheal Roll is that he has no proof, as soon as he does I would be quite interested. And if he does please link to it as it would be something of interest, not the interviews but a link directly to proof for analysis and experimental guidelines so anyone of us can have an attempt at reproducing it.

2Scoops · 04-01-2011 7:24pm

How can you test for life after death? How can it be measured? I think that explains why no scientific research is done in this area. Roll has no science at all. Crook and Lodge used mediums, which are simply not reliable.

I think nearly everyone in the world would love to see the results from a study in this area but, in the absence of a testable hypothesis, it's not science. If Roll has a testable hypothesis that will shed light on these issues, there is almost no end to funding opportunities, not least of which is the Templeton award. Given the magnitude of his claims, I imagine most secular organisations would also be eager to fund him... unless of course he doesn't really have one. It wouldn't be giving anything away to tell us what his hypothesis and methods are.

liamwhite · 04-01-2011 7:50pm

CramCycle wrote: »

He says he has done the experiments, and he has used infrared cameras instead of red light as apparently the shock of a police raid caused ectoplasm to kill a medium?!?
Unless he changes his mind later on as I did not finish it as it started to delve into the realms of rubbish quite quickly.
Basically if he has done them and cannot get published he should put up the results for free and give the world the ability to discredit them or prove that so far there is an inability to discredit them, eg a viable theory exists.

I did not say they are wrong or speaking untrue, just that they have given no evidence other than their anecdotes. The only attempt at a verifiable experiment was by Lodge himself with his "7 envelopes" which would at the very least have given a basis but the test was a failure as no psychic was ever identified or came forward to open the envelopes with the correct envelopes. No psychic had ever come forward with the correct final message which was opened 7 years after his death. This experiment also required the death of the scientist so for his sake I hope he was right in the end but the experiment as with most of this type just leave a so far seemingly unanswerable question.

But most people who have looked at them have come to one of two conclusions that are the proof was fradulent or does not lead to a reproducible experiment which means it is statistically unlikely to be correct (although not impossilbe)

Science does not care if it is proven wrong or right, in essence you could simplify science to the fact that all we do is try and prove things wrong, a true scientist does not care either way (obviously we get annoyed if years of our work is disproven but if we had not put in that time someone else would not have had the basis to prove us wrong, so in the end we should be satisfied). The truth of Micheal Roll is that he has no proof, as soon as he does I would be quite interested. And if he does please link to it as it would be something of interest, not the interviews but a link directly to proof for analysis and experimental guidelines so anyone of us can have an attempt at reproducing it.

How can i argue with that response :P You just gave me an idea though. I am going to send Michael Roll an email and ask him if he really does have faith in his proof that he should
"put up the results for free and give the world the ability to discredit them or prove that so far there is an inability to discredit them" as you said. I think that would be fair to ask him? would it not?

2Scoops · 04-01-2011 7:57pm

liamwhite wrote: »

I think that would be fair to ask him? would it not?

It would be fair. I am sure he will either not agree, either for some vague legal reasons (e.g. he's writing a book) or else he will direct you to the historical record of medium studies as though they speak for themselves.

CramCycle · 04-01-2011 8:09pm

2Scoops wrote: »

as though they speak for themselves.

even i could not argue with that

CramCycle · 04-01-2011 8:17pm

liamwhite wrote: »

How can i argue with that response :P You just gave me an idea though. I am going to send Michael Roll an email and ask him if he really does have faith in his proof that he should
"put up the results for free and give the world the ability to discredit them or prove that so far there is an inability to discredit them" as you said. I think that would be fair to ask him? would it not?

To be honest, if I could not get someone to publish my work (so far no one has :eek: but thats cause I have a bit more work to throw into it), I would do the same. I think it is a fair question unless he genuinely has a paper/review/book in the works and if he does he should mail you back an expected date or a promise to inform you of it's release.

At the very least parameters or protocol could be asked if he cannot get his results published.

2Scoops · 04-01-2011 8:19pm

CramCycle wrote: »

even i could not argue with that

Pun unintended... but so clever I think I'll pretend it was! :pac:

liamwhite · 04-01-2011 10:02pm

Well, what i got from Michael Roll in those videos was that he seemed very excited about the whole thing and he seems to want us to believe and i think the only way about that is by showing the world his proof or how he intends on proving it!

Just out of curiosity, what are your beliefs of the whole thing guys?

2Scoops · 04-01-2011 10:04pm

liamwhite wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what are your beliefs of the whole thing guys?

Open to evidence-based persuasion. :pac:

liamwhite · 04-01-2011 10:54pm

2Scoops wrote: »

Open to evidence-based persuasion. :pac:

lol as am i, i suppose at the end of the day the only way of really knowing is by being dead. Any volunteers? :P

All joking aside, i hope one day something comes out of it, but then we have to ask ourselves this.. if we all knew there was life after life.. would we respect life as much??? It could back fire if we knew. Then again, these days there is not much respect for life i suppose with the volatile extremes terrorists and criminals ect go to.

Supercell · 04-01-2011 11:09pm

OP you might find the following article in New Scientist interesting. I read it today and it touches on research loosely related to the topic in hand:-

Near-death neurologist: Dreams on the border of life

liamwhite · 05-01-2011 12:46am

Supercell wrote: »

OP you might find the following article in New Scientist interesting. I read it today and it touches on research loosely related to the topic in hand:-

Near-death neurologist: Dreams on the border of life

Yes i always found N.D.E to be a bit fishy, there is a huge study taking place at the minute see here:

http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38

the results will be interesting.

liamwhite · 05-01-2011 2:20am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMGskL_bujE&feature=related

The above link is an interesting video i have found also of a documentary on NDE

liamwhite · 05-01-2011 2:57am

Seems i need not send an email to Michael roll after all, the question i was just about to email him was on this very page on his website as i opened it to find his contact details

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/recommended/video/secularcase.html

From what i gather here is that he is offering a 30 minute video of a detailed explanation to his theory with a cost of £5 inc postage. Which to me seems fair, that would obviously only cover his costs of the dvd, postage ect. So the fact that he is not trying to make money off of this makes me even more interested.

Only problem is

i know for a fact when i order it i will not be able to make head nor tail of it.

So here is my proposition... I will order it, and make my own copies of it and will arrange to give a copy to anybody here that has an interest and has a great understanding in science i.e will be able to make better understanding of what he says as i know it will be a very complex piece of footage.

Then we can come back here after and discuss it more...?

Is that a good idea?

Gaspode · 05-01-2011 8:49am

OP, I would imagine that one of the main reasons for the lack of scientific support is the fact that getting funding to research in what is basically the 'paranormal' arena is just to difficult.
To do research you need to be able to objectively observe and measure something, and I cant see how that can be done. The paranormal arena is so full of quacks and charlatans anyway, few funding agencies are going to take such proposals very seriously.
I think all of the data to date shows that when you die, you die. I've yet to see any scientifically verifiable data indicating otherwise.

PS regarding the links you posted above, dont you have any from a reputable scientific source?
I would never trust anything I read or see on wikipedia or youtube as 'evidence'.

djpbarry · 05-01-2011 10:26am

liamwhite wrote: »

From what i gather here is that he is offering a 30 minute video of a detailed explanation to his theory with a cost of £5 inc postage. Which to me seems fair...

Why can’t he just post said video online at a cost of £0? I is fraught with scepticism.

liamwhite wrote: »

So here is my proposition... I will order it, and make my own copies of it and will arrange to give a copy to anybody here that has an interest...

That’s copyright infringement dude. I may think the guy is a quack, but it’s still his video and he has a right to sell it if he wishes.

liamwhite · 05-01-2011 3:31pm

Somebody said something to me today, they said " A skeptic will always find a reason not to believe and a believer will always find a reason to believe"

Those words are very true, i think to wrap this thread up we will leave it that. Yes it is very hard to prove such a thing via science because how can your prove something that is not visible to the human eye, i think its down to our own experiences. I could experience something tonight and tell you guys tomorrow and you would think i was mental but i would know i was not mental.

I suppose what i am trying to say is that the proof is for those that experience it personally and for those of us that do not experience it, well...
we will just have to wait a couple more years hopefully decades and see.

Over and out

Herrmann · 22-02-2011 4:03am

There are many reports of similar observations and feelings of people during and after successful cardiopulmonary resuscitationor severe trauma; people who according to our standards had been dead already. Those phenomena first were described in the vietnam war and some books about "near-death-expriences" exist (the journey home; when morning never comes); there is a site taking care of it (nderf.org) but some of those sites are rather esoteric and this one i haven't checked. The best links are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experience

why is there no support from science with research of life after death?

Comments