4 ms·
His conclusion is based on anecdotal evidence from his French friend's mother: "This experience could well have been delusive. A slight indication that it might
by oxag3n 6mo ago
His conclusion is based on anecdotal evidence from his French friend's mother: "This experience could well have been delusive. A slight indication that it might have been veridical [objectively real] has been supplied by my French friend, or rather by her mother, who also underwent a heart arrest many years ago. When her daughter asked her what it had been like, she replied that all that she remembered was that she must stay close to the red light."
A "slight indication", which if I read correctly leads to "slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death...". Isn't this kind of reasoning common for metaphysics but is met with skepticism by empiricists?
- slibhb 6mo agoHis conclusion is based on his own experience first and foremost. But your use of "anecdote" in a derogatory way is misplaced. There's no "rule" in empiricism that says "anecdotes are off limits" -- anecdotes are legitimate data. If you experience X and someone says "I experienced X too" there's no reason to disregard their testimony. Anecdotes are suspect when there's a large amount of evidence that contradicts them. Also, they should only cause you to update your beliefs slightly (which is the case here). > A "slight indication", which if I read correctly leads to "slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death...". Isn't this kind of reasoning common for metaphysics but is met with skepticism by empiricists? Using evidence (experience) to update your degree of belief is in every way empiricist. Metaphysicians have often been criticized for making claims without evidence, or claiming to make deduction from little/no evidence. But that's not happening here.