Quote Originally Posted by Porterhood View Post
I've read your statements where you say that Fenwick, Sheldrake, Parnia and whoever else's science is flawed. However I've seen some of their material and they counter-claim that the materialists' science is flawed.
The problem is it's not just about claiming a side is flawed - it is also about providing a reasoned case based on sound logic and evidence. The survivalists do not do this at all anywhere in their 'rebuttals'. They do not use real sound evidence or argument. As a consequence, it does not qualify as a rebuttal - it's just nonsense

These "survivalists" (I always thought that word meant these nutty Americans who live out in huts in the woods and have underground bunkers full of tinned food!) have the same scientific training and occupations as the materilalists.
No, not true again. 99% of them are medics, either GPs or cardiologists - these people have little is any real training on neuroscience and cognition. The exception is Fenwick, but none of his reasoning on these issues would be recognised by his peers. He clearly recruits his spiritual bias in reaching the conclusions he wants to be true.

How can I tell who's right and who's wrong? I know that the "survivalists" are in a small minority, but hey! Life is not an election! I'll have to listen to both sides of the story and decide.
Good question. Look for the conclusions that are most consistent with the highest quality reasons. How do you work that out? Critical thinking my friend.