2. State of the Art
Why Survival Research?
Facing current progresses in neuroscience, an image of man as somehow jointed together from two heterogeneous principles or substances – body and mind – seems to become more and more naive and outdated. According to a dominant neuroscientific paradigm, consciousness is held to emerge from complex interactions between body and brain, which proves the hypothesis of the continuity of consciousness after bodily death to be obsolete and theoretically superfluous.
This conclusion would be perfectly sound if all crucial data contradicting it had been examined and then refuted on scientific and logical grounds. While the reductionistic approach is not undisputed even within the neuroscientific community, empirical data have accumulated since the late 19th century which are at least inconsistent with the popular reductionist definition of consciousness, and which are - at least prima facie - suggestive of continuity after death. Since they have never been scrutinised by mainstream sciences, there is a scientific demand for properly examining those data before making definite scientific statements about the ontological status of human consciousness. Due to reasons of scientific thoroughness and social responsibility, we believe that survival research will continue to be a viable scientific enterprise until its findings and problems will be integrated into the agenda of mainstream sciences.
The Scientific Status of Survival Research
Survival research can hardly claim the status of a recognized branch of science, but rather that of a protoscience. The scarce reception of the scientific survival research literature is not only due to practical reasons (e.g. the economic uselessness of a proof for or against survival), but probably also of reasons pertaining to the history of science.
Science as we know it has gone through a long and hard struggle of secularization. It is only since a relatively short time that science has accomplished its emancipation and independence from institutionalized Western religion.
On this historical background, many members of the scientific community seem to regard religion as a synonym for cemented backwardness and irrationalism. At the same time the notion of survival is often unreflectedly equated with the religious doctrine of immortality, and as such surrendered to the 'administrative district' of organized religion. Therefore, reported phenomena which seem to question the prevalent paradigm of natural sciences, are often pre-interpreted as inherently quasi-religious and hence refused as irrational. This common attitude is comprehensible (as scientists are humans after all), but it is not justifiable on scientific and logical grounds.
Besides, it is evident that fraud, superstition and folly often contaminate the areas on which survival research has to operate. It may be argued, however, that this problem is a consequence of the scientific neglect of so-called 'anomalous' phenomena rather than a plausible argument for their exclusion from the agenda of science. We believe that the findings of survival research, inconclusive as they might be, are not only of scientific but also of educational value.
What Survival Research is Not
The public opinion on the topic of survival, and other phenomena which are often pre-interpreted as inherently irrational, oscillates between two extreme positions, which are – mostly in a lurid and unbalanced manner – promulgated in the media:
Many authors on and proponents of survival are scientific laypersons (but there are also scientists), who uncritically and rashly accept any reports of allegedly anomalous phenomena as 'scientific proofs for survival' in order to back up and propagate their private beliefs (or to serve other people's needs to believe). Most of popular books and web pages about survival are from such authors.
On the other hand, it is often scientists (but also scientific lay-persons) who portray their personal closed-mindedness or lack of scientific curiosity (often falsely referred to as 'skepticism') as a professional scientific attitude. It is evident, however, that most of such self-acclaimed experts, even when competent in their own field of conventional research, lack even a basic acquaintance with the scientific literature of anomalies research.
Common to both attitudes is the scientific disguise of private beliefs, which are motivated by a variety of psychological needs and personal hopes and fears.
What Survival Research is Presently
Those publications which have had the least impact on the public opinion on survival has accumulated since the 1880s from the efforts of both single and organised scientists and scholars, many of them respected members of the scientific community, which were and are utterly heterogeneous regarding their private convictions and biases about survival. Historically, the first scientific organisation of eminence with a focus on survival research was the British Society for Psychical Research, founded in 1882.
The sole university-based research unit devoted to the investigation of phenomena suggesting survival is presently the Division of Personality Studies at Virginia University, USA.
Despite its importance and its long history and tradition, survival research has typically been funded privately.
The Future of Survival Research
As can be derived from what is said above, survival research does not necessarily aim at the status of a permanent scientific discipline on its own right. It rather demands to be dissolved through an integration into the agenda of mainstream sciences, which need to handle data inconsistent with the 'annihilation hypothesis' in an appropriate scientific manner, and only then will be able to arrive at a definite and responsible conclusion about the ontological status of human consciousness.
3. Who We Are
(C) 2005 - All rights reserved