So what makes for strong testimonial evidence? Let's consider five criteria that strengthens testimonial evidence.

First, a high number of testimonials gives a better picture of the events in question. So the greater the number the more likely we are to get an accurate report, but not necessarily, i.e., high numbers don't always translate into accurate testimonial evidence, which is why one must also consider other important factors.

Second, seeing the event from a variety of perspectives will also help to clear up some of the testimonial reports. For example, different cultural perspectives, different age groups, different historical perspectives, different religious perspectives, different times of the day, and even considering people with different physical impairments (like the blind) will help clear up some of the biased and misremembered reports.

Third, is the consistency of the reports, i.e., are there a large number of consistent or inconsistent reports. While it is important to have consistency in the testimonial evidence, inconsistency doesn't necessarily negate all of the reports. When dealing with a large number of testimonials you will almost certainly have contradictory statements, this happens even when people report on everyday events. Thus, one must weed out the testimony that does not fit the overall picture, and paint a picture based on what the majority of accounts are testifying to. It doesn't necessarily mean that what the minority is saying is unimportant, only that accuracy tends to favor what the majority are reporting.

Fourth, can the testimony be corroborated by any other objective means, thereby strengthening the testimonial evidence as given by those who make the claims.

Fifth, are the testimonials firsthand accounts, as opposed to being hearsay. In other words, is the testimonial evidence given by the person making the claim, and not by someone simply relaying a story they heard from someone else. This is very important in terms of the strength of the testimonials.

Each of these five criteria serve to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of these work hand-in-hand to strengthen a particular testimonial conclusion, and they serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on these five criteria we can say with confidence that the conclusion follows. In other words, we can say what is probably the case, not what is necessarily the case.

What other criteria would help to strengthen testimonial evidence?

Trustworthiness of the reporter. If the author of the account has a strong track record for reliability, it makes for a more probably trustworthy account. (Compared to a reporter who lacks such a record; and, of course, even more so compared to a reporter who is notoriously untrustworthy).

I would expect some way of weighting the reports by the circumstances of the witnessing. At a baseball game, 30,000 fans might think the runner was clearly out at second, but none of them had as good a view as the umpire standing five feet away watching the play. In turn, if the umpire was poorly positioned, a crew of umpires watching video from another angle might be better placed to make the right call.

I will present the argument after we clarify these foundational issues, at least provide some clarification. — Sam26

After that shaggy dog story you didn't even say what you're posting about?

An inauspicious start.

The testimony of sages is regarded as a valid basis for knowledge in Indian religions (both Hindu and heterodox, i.e. Buddhism and Jainism) and is plainly accepted in the Christian religion in the form of Biblical accounts. This however implicitly recognises 'sagacity', i.e. the capacity for penetrating insight which is absent in the common man (puthujjana, hoi polloi) and also the veracity of witness testimony to events nowadays regarded as supernatural. This mitigates against the acceptance of such testimony in modern culture; instead we have the observation, reporting and peer-review which is the basis of scientific practice.

I agree, if you had witnesses that had a reason to misrepresent the truth that would definitely undermine the reports.

Yes, which goes to my point about having a variety of testimonial evidence. In such a case it's possible that one person's view might outweigh the views of the many.

No, but I did say there were some preliminary issues to get out of the way.

Yes, there are a variety of ways that people claim to have knowledge. Christians and those in other religions claim to have a kind of special internal revelation. However, I'm not able to make any sense of these subjective experiences in terms of having knowledge. It would seem to me that if we use these kinds of justifications we're in danger of equating knowledge with mere opinion; and not just any kind of opinion, but to reduce knowledge to purely subjective experiences. And if not to reduce knowledge to the purely subjective, to at least put it on the same level with other objective ways of knowing.

The following argument is concluding based on the testimonial evidence that consciousness survives the body. The basis for the conclusion is the testimonial evidence of those who have had an NDE (near death experience).

The Inductive Argument:

The following argument is based on the testimonial evidence of those who have experienced an NDE, and the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability. As such, one can claim to know the conclusion is true. This argument makes such a claim.

Each of the aforementioned criteria serve to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of the criteria in the previous paragraphs work hand-in-hand to strengthen the conclusion, and these criteria serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on these five criteria, we can say with confidence that we know that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, we can say what is probably the case, but not what is necessarily the case.

Again, if there is a high degree of probability that these testimonials reflect an objective reality, then we can also say with confidence, that we know consciousness survives the death of the body. Thus, our knowledge is based on objective criteria, not on purely subjective claims.

We will now look at the testimonial evidence in terms of the five stated criteria, and how these testimonials support the conclusion.

First, what is the number of people who claim to have had an NDE? According to a 1992 Gallop poll about 5% of the population has experienced an NDE; and even if this poll is off by a little we are still talking about hundreds of millions of people. Thus, the number of accounts of NDEs is very high, much higher than what we would normally need to decide the veracity or accuracy of the testimonials, and much higher that what is normally needed to draw a proper conclusion.

Also, as was mentioned in the previous post, numbers in themselves are not enough, which is why the other criteria must be coupled with numbers.

The second criteria of good testimonial evidence is variety, i.e., do we have evidence from a variety of sources? The answer to this question is in the affirmative. NDEs have been reported in every culture from around the world, which by definition means that we are getting reports from different religious views, and different world views. NDEs also span every age group, from young children, to the middle-aged, and finally to the aged. The testimonial reports come from doctors, nurses, scientists, atheists, agnostics, literally from every imaginable educational level and background. NDEs occur in a variety of settings, including drowning, electrocution, while awake, while on the operating table, after a heart attack, etc. People have also reported having shared an NDE with someone else, although rarely. They have happened when there is no heartbeat, with the blood drained from the brain, and with no measurable brain activity. They have been reported to happen with a minimal amount of stress, i.e., without being near death. Finally, there have been many thousands more reporting these and similar events happening to those who have taken DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine), which is an illegal schedule 1 drug. These DMT reports are also reports that are happening without being near death.

The third criteria is scope of the conclusion, and the scope of this conclusion is limited to consciousness surviving the body. The conclusion claims that we can know that consciousness survives bodily death.

The fourth criteria is truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It lends credence to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on Youtube.

Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?

1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, i.e., from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what's happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, and also intense feeling of peace.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving through the tunnel towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected to.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, viz., feeling that one is having an ultra real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life-review by a loving being who is not judgmental in any way, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though consciousness is at the bottom of everything.
13) Memories of who they really are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities.

These are just some of the reports from those who experienced an NDE, and some of these reports are confirmed by those who have taken DMT.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence are firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are literally thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near Death Studies. And according to polling, there are hundreds of millions of firsthand accounts of NDEs.

The fifth criteria is cogency of the premises. Whether the argument is cogent for you depends on many factors, but many people have heard of near death experiences, so the concept is not an unfamiliar one. It is not going to be cogent for everyone, but with a little study and reading it can be cogent. It is not difficult to understand the concept. Although it is probably going to be difficult to understand how it is metaphysically possible. This argument is claiming that it is highly probable that consciousness survives the death of the body, and that the conclusion is very strong based on what makes for strong inductive arguments.

The further claim of this argument is that I know that I know the conclusion is true. Is it possible the conclusion is wrong? Of course it is possible, but we do not want to base a belief on what is possible, but on what is likely the case. All kinds of things are possible, but that does not mean we should believe them.

The following is a deductive proof.
So how would I construct a proof? It is very simple. The following is a deductive argument based on the evidence of the inductive argument.

Modus Ponens:

(1) If it is true that NDE reports are accurate, just as any veridical experience is, then consciousness survives the death of the body.
(2) It is true that NDE reports are accurate, just as any veridical experience is.
(3) Conclusion: Consciousness survives the death of the body.

As with any deductive argument all you have to do is dispute any premise, i.e., show that any premise is not true.

I believe the inductive argument is more apt to be believed, so it is a stronger argument in some ways.

consciousness survives the body. — Sam26

This I don't see.

Death is the most extreme trauma one's body can suffer. What you have are reports of living people who experienced this extreme trauma.

What you do not, and presumably cannot, have are reports from disembodied consciousnesses.

I understand that the claim is that, perhaps for several minutes, someone's consciousness persisted during a period when their body met one or another definition of death. But you do not, and presumably cannot, have reports from people made during this period. You can only have the reports of those who were revived.

Those who were revived suffered extreme trauma. Isn't the most natural assumption that such a traumatic experience would leave traces? Wouldn't a neuroscientific explanation be the most natural?

I understand your point, and it's one that should be considered. After studying these experiences for over ten years I've come to a different conclusion. I don't want to get into a linguistic analysis of what's death, so let's just stipulate it's exactly what people say it is, namely, near death experience, not a death experience.

First, there are just too many reports of people seeing things from a perspective that is outside their body; and many of these reports are from a perspective that is nowhere near their body, that is, seeing and hearing things that are many miles away from their bodies.

Second, there are instances where there is no measurable brain activity, and even if you want to claim that there may be residual traces of neuro activity, that wouldn't explain how it is that people are claiming that what they're seeing and hearing is more vivid than the reality they are use to. It would seem to follow that if there are only traces of neuro activity, instead of full blown neuro activity, we could conclude reasonably that whatever they're experiencing would be less vivid and more dreamlike than normal reality. How does one explain what they are experiencing in terms of a brain that has no measurable activity? Moreover, when you say "leave traces" what does that mean? Because traces of neuro activity is certainly far from normal neuro activity, and these reports make claims that point to heightened sensory awareness, not dumbed-down sensory experiences.

I have found no neuroscientific explanation that would explain these experiences. In fact, Dr. Eban Alexander who is a neurosurgeon couldn't explain his NDE in terms of what he understood about the brain.

when you say "leave traces" what does that mean? — Sam26

Only that the brain is a pretty complex chemical environment. Who knows what the body might do when experiencing that degree of trauma. And then once blood has stopped flowing, various molecular machines stop doing their jobs as they run out of fuel. When you "reboot", I would expect the whole system to be a mess, and certainly not a typical environment for the brain of a living body. The bizarre chemical imbalances are what you wake up in since there's been no cleaning up going on.

The Wikipedia article describes many unusual circumstances -- injection of ketamine, oxygen deprivation, etc., etc. -- that reproduce some of the features of NDEs. It's clear that monkeying with the brain's chemistry can produce all sorts of effects. I'd just assume all sorts of such monkeying takes place in the moments leading up to and in the moments just after death.

Most of what you're saying is pure speculation about what might happen. I've given a ton of evidence about what is happening, namely, what people are experiencing.

The brain's job is to interpret its sensations. There are reported incidents of people losing part of their vision and the brain literally filling it in with garbage, like Mickey Mouse. There are reports of people experiencing intense religious experiences such as walking with Jesus when their temporal lobes were stimulated (also in epilepsy which can be a temporal lobe seizure).

Is it not perhaps more prudent to boil these experiences down to the baseline feeling - how did these experiences make them feel? Much of what you describe sounds pretty cozy to me, and is line with what I've heard about the massive flood of endorphins that happens near death.

Out of body experiences fall right into this category when in the room. The ears are passively picking up sound, the occipital lobe is trying to put an image to it.

There is also the expectation that they did see something. Perhaps they may choose to interpret their feelings in line with what their expectations are?

Having said that, I have heard some pretty whacky stuff too often throughout my life about clocks stopping, people knowing of a death at a distance - people with nothing to gain by saying so and a lot of credibility to lose.

Its a great mystery, and a great topic.

How does a massive flood of endorphins explain this NDE?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXE34msT0lE

One can always explain away any sensory experience one disagrees with by coming up with something that sounds plausible or possible.

What makes any sensory experience accepted by others? What makes it accepted by others is that it fits within a certain framework of objective experience, which bring me back to how testimonial evidence gets its strength. I don't think it's correct to assume that a particular experience is not real or not objective because it doesn't fit a particular world view. It's the evidence that should be considered, and nothing else.

Hi Sam, so you just want to know how we would evaluate if the testimony is plausible, and not discuss what might be happening in NDEs?

Ok, well, how dogmatically they cling to the claim even when everyone else thinks they're nuts might be a good place to start, especially when they stand to lose something by saying so and have nothing to gain.

That's no argument, you're just assuming their nuts because it doesn't fit a particular world view. Besides there is just too much corroborating objective evidence that belies what you're suggesting. Too many accounts of doctor, nurses, family, and friends who have given accounts confirming that what people claim to have seen is exactly what they did see.

First, that testimonial evidence is a valid way of justifying one's conclusions, and thus one's beliefs. Most of what we know comes from the testimony of others. Thus, it's a way of attaining knowledge. — Sam26

It's hard to trust someone who uses "thus" twice in three sentences. :p

First, a high number of testimonials gives a better picture of the events in question. — Sam26

More than 50% if the world (at least) believes there is a god of some kind.

Second, seeing the event from a variety of perspectives will also help to clear up some of the testimonial reports. For example, different cultural perspectives, different age groups, different historical perspectives, different religious perspectives, different times of the day, and even considering people with different physical impairments (like the blind) will help clear up some of the biased and misremembered reports. — Sam26

I really like this regard for a multitude of perspectives.

Third, is the consistency of the reports — Sam26

I believe consistency is a fundamental attribute of fair judgment.

Thus, one must — Sam26

Sorry, just thinking this would make an awesome short poem.

Thus, one must weed out the testimony that does not fit the overall picture, and paint a picture based on what the majority of accounts are testifying to. — Sam26

I have mixed feelings about this concept. The Bible says there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors, and yet, it also suggests that there is no substitute for personal conviction. Even if all but one human on the planet believed a lie, that one person would still be justified.

Fourth, can the testimony be corroborated by any other objective means, thereby strengthening the testimonial evidence as given by those who make the claims. — Sam26

When Jesus argued with the pharisees, they rebuked him for testifying of himself and having no second witness (which was required by their law). He acknowledged that there was no human who could accurately testify to his divinity, and instead said that the miracles he performed were his second witness; how could he do all those things if he was not from God? (that was his argument in this case).

Fifth, are the testimonials firsthand accounts, as opposed to being hearsay. In other words, is the testimonial evidence given by the person making the claim, and not by someone simply relating a story they heard from someone else. This is very important in terms of the strength of the testimonials. — Sam26

Interpretation of reality is ultimately held by the individual. We may choose to believe testimony by someone else, but that is a choice we make, even if it is a wrong choice. We are responsible for that choice.

Of course a high number of testimonials isn't necessarily evidence. The criteria for good testimonial evidence as given in my post is something to be looked at together, i.e., all of the criteria work together not separately. So high numbers work together with the other criteria.

To be honest, what Jesus said really doesn't concern me in terms of this argument.

I have found no credible argument against these experiences. I've read the counter-arguments, namely, that they are hallucinations, illusions, drugs, endorphins, residual brain activity, but none of these explanations explain NDEs.

I have found no credible argument against these experiences. I've read the counter-arguments, namely, that they are hallucinations, illusions, drugs, endorphins, residual brain activity, but none of these explanations explain NDEs. — Sam26

I don't think you can convince me by the method you propose that there is life after death, but I'm willing to give you a chance. If that's going to happen, you have to do a better job of presenting your argument. You speak vaguely of millions of people, common experiences, diversity of sources, etc., etc., etc. That's not the way it works.

Be specific. Reference studies, not anecdotal reports. Describe procedures, summarize statistics. They should be studies by credible sources trained in the kind of data gathering that is needed. You're right, testimonial evidence is unreliable. People can be fooled, deluded, drunk, or dishonest. It happens all the time. They can be heavily influenced by a desire for attention or a strong prejudice. That makes it more important that the people gathering the data are reliable.

You really haven't presented any argument at all so far.

I have given an argument. You have not given a counter-argument. The argument is clearly presented. Tell me why the testimonial evidence should not be accepted. You seem to think that scientific evidence is the only evidence needed to say that we know.

The argument said that testimonial evidence can be unreliable, but that it can also be strong based on certain criteria. The argument showed how the testimonial evidence in this argument is strong. So based on the strength of that criteria one could reasonably conclude that consciousness does survive bodily death.

And yes, that is the way testimonial evidence works. So if hundreds and thousands of people are making consistent claims about their experiences you require more evidence? You require more because no experience that seems to run counter to your beliefs would satisfy you.

The argument said that testimonial evidence can be unreliable, but that it can also be strong based on certain criteria. The argument showed how the testimonial evidence in this argument is strong. So based on the strength of that criteria one could reasonably conclude that consciousness does survive bodily death.. — Sam26

The argument did not show anything about the testimonial evidence. You sort of gave us the gist of your understanding. I didn't respond when you made your claim about the five criteria. I'll respond now - I think testimonial evidence is always suspect, but if you want me to believe it, show me that the information was collected under reasonably controlled conditions by reasonably qualified people from reasonably documented sources. I might be willing to settle for kind of controlled conditions by kind of qualified people from kind of documented sources, but I don't even have that.

And yes, that is the way testimonial evidence works. So if hundreds and thousands of people are making consistent claims about their experiences you require more evidence? You require more because no experience that seems to run counter to your beliefs would satisfy you. — Sam26

You say "hundreds and thousands of people are making consistent claims about their experiences." Show me evidence of that. Where did you get the information? How was it gathered? By interviewing people? How long after the experiences were the interviews done? By whom? What was their relationship to the issue? You talk about consistency - show me evidence that the experiences reported were as consistent as you say.

These requirements are not unfair or unreasonable. The rule is - if you have an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. You haven't really presented evidence at all. As far as I can tell, when I ask "how do you know?" you say "Somebody told me," or "I just have a general impression." How did you get the information? What books did you read? What journal articles?

That is a lot of effort to BS yourself.

That is a lot of effort to BS yourself. — Jeremiah

You need to be more specific. Are you talking to me or Sam26?

Either way, how does what you've written move the discussion forward?

That's a good argument Jeremiah. I have to say if someone tells me something is BS I surely conclude they are right. Man you're good.

Also correlation does not mean causation.