Does Science Reveal the Truth Behind Near-Death Experiences?: A Methodological Enquiry

Near-death experiences (NDEs) share consistent features across cultures, yet many scientists dismiss them as offering no genuine insight into reality. The authors argue this skepticism is unwarranted: NDEs meet standard scientific criteria for being a phenomenon that requires explanation. Using the scientific realism framework of Lipton and Bird, which holds that understanding requires the best explanation, the authors evaluate existing scientific theories of NDEs and find none satisfy the criteria for best explanation. Consequently, science cannot claim to explain or understand NDEs, and describing them within scientific metaphysics is unjustified. The debate over NDEs thus remains within ordinary philosophy.

Study at a glance

Abstract

The term ‘near-death experience’ (NDE) refers to particular encounters reported by individuals who have been revived from the brink of death. The narratives provided by such individuals exhibit a core set of characteristics that are consistent across diverse populations. Although this suggests that NDEs may offer valuable insights into our understanding of the world, many scientists hold the view that NDEs do not provide genuine insight into reality. What underlies this scepticism? Two answers might be given. Either they question the authenticity of these experiences, or they contend that there is nothing theoretically new that remains for which NDEs are evidence. In this paper, we argue that none of them has been the case. We initially demonstrate that these phenomena meet the standards that science typically considers essential for being an explanandum. For the rest, the philosophy of science can offer valuable assistance. According to the version of scientific realism proposed by Lipton and Bird, unless we have the best explanation of an explanandum, we fail to understand it. Therefore, our task is to scrutinize the proclaimed scientific theories explaining NDEs and see if any of them is the best. To this aim, after explicating Bird’s and Lipton’s criteria of the best explanation, we show that none of the explanations put forth in the literature satisfy the criteria. This shows that science can claim neither to be explaining NDEs nor understanding them. This diagnosis also leads to an important philosophical result. As science fails in explaining and understanding NDEs, we remain unjustified in describing them within scientific metaphysics. That being the case, metaphysical debates in this particular field remain within ordinary philosophy.