“DCP’s favorite book on NDEs” wrote: By scientifically studying the more than 1,300 cases shared with NDERF [by the time the book was written, more than a decade ago], I believe that the nine lines of evidence presented in this book all converge on one central point: There is life after death.
The convergence of several lines of evidence — like the nine presented in this book — builds a much stronger case than only a single line of evidence.
For example, suppose we had only two lines of NDE evidence. We may not be 100 percent convinced that these two lines of evidence prove an afterlife, but perhaps each line of evidence by itself is 90 percent convincing. Combined, these two lines of evidence by mathematical calculation are 99 percent convincing that the afterlife exists. (4; italics in the original)
If each of two lines of evidence from near-death experiences (NDEs) is 90 percent convincing of the existence of an afterlife, then the combination of these two lines of evidence may be considered as follows: The probability that either of these lines of NDE evidence individually is not convincing of the existence of an afterlife is 10 percent, or 0.1. The probability that the combination of these two lines of NDE evidence is not convincing of the existence of an afterlife is (0.1 x 0.1), or 0.01, which is 1 percent. Thus the combination of two lines of NDE evidence, each of which is 90 percent convincing of the existence of an afterlife, gives 100 percent minus 1 percent, or 99 percent confidence that the afterlife is convincingly felt to exist. (203, note 1; italics in the original)
“DCP” wrote: I’m interested in feedback on the reasoning that is set forth above. Not so much about reader opinions regarding near-death experiences in and of themselves but on the subject of whether the methodology of assessing levels of persuasion is substantially sound. Please advise.
“DCP” wrote: I was nonetheless concerned at IANDS, and have been concerned for quite a while when I’ve seen it elsewhere, to see a mingling of what I regard as pretty solid material with other things that seem to me rather dubious at best — e.g., crystal-gazing, drum circles, mediums, past-life regressions, and various kinds of New Age spirituality that have been cherry-picked and decontextualized from world religious traditions and Third World indigenous practices. (I know from speaking with him that at least one of the officers of IANDS himself shares my concern, that association with a whole host of such fringy and undisciplined things detracts from the credibility of what we both see as credible claims of out-of body experiences [OBEs] and near-death experiences [NDEs]. And they are already dismissed by quite a few people without serious consideration.)
I think Daniel is starting to actually get at the heart of his long-standing epistemological problem. He has yet to finally realize it, but the scientifically dubious company he was surrounded with (crystal healers, etc) at the NDE conference he spoke at seems to have got him really thinking.
Do all of DCP’s deep seated beliefs rely on this faulty (many assumed 90% true lines of evidence multiplied together) thinking?
Peterson and other hokum peddlers love these nonsensical and arbitrary statistical arguments. Doing math on concocted probabilities has no meaning. It's like claiming to find an alphabet from scattered peppercorn arrangements. I'm sure one could actually do such a task. But because the fundamental premise is wrong, it's an absurd enterprise.