“Surviving Death” by Leslie Kean
“Surviving
Death” is a book of accounts collected by Leslie Kean that she believes to be
proof that there is an afterlife, or consciousness about death. Leslie Kean
researched for years about certain people who had near death experiences. The
main research type she collected is stories in which children knew information
about real life people, but the children did not have any prior knowledge of
these people.
I am
very skeptical about paranormal research and E.S.P. phenomena. Although Leslie
Kean offers the names of many scientists and doctors, the evidence she provides
is mostly based on word of mouth. In many occasions in the book, Kean discusses
hypothesizes and conclusion. She mentions that hypothesizes should prove the
data to be true, but scientific theory asks the data to prove the hypothesis to
be true. We cannot use hypothesizes to explain data. Using the Scientific
method, if the hypothesis is not proven by the data, the experiment is not
accurate and must be tried again.
There
are many issues I have with this book. However, they are due to the content of
this book, and not how this is written. The book is segmented into chapters, in
which new stories are told in each. The first two chapters and half of the
third both are about a little boy named James, who knew a great amount of
information about a military pilot who died in Iwo Jima. However, can we prove
that the parents are completely truthful? If we believe every word they say,
can that be technically scientific proof? I don’t buy it.
The
writing skills of the author are great. She has a wonderful vocabulary. Her written
explanations content makes for a great read, however, the science behind the
content is a bit muddled. She is not a scientist, and she bases her research on
stories and events she had personally experienced. Can we trust her to be a
journalist who tells the truth and nothing but the truth?
The
author reiterated a Henry James quote, which is explained by if you don’t look
for a difference of opinions, a change in what you believe, if you don’t have
an open mind, you may not be enlightened. Does that not leave the burden of
proof on the reader? I shouldn’t have to be the one looking for the proof and
making sense of the evidence. If something is proved to be true, I shouldn’t
have to dissect it to understand it, to find connections and draw conclusions.
I liked
this book, because of the head ache it gave me. However, I did not like the
content.
No comments:
Post a Comment