http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2893543/detail.html

It's a article about some scientists that say they have a proof of a Afterlife.
It's also a online movie on that link you may stream. (You can play it either with Real Player or Windows Media Player, who is built-in in the Windows operating systems).

__________________
The Heavenly Afterlife exist.

I had hopes when I saw the byline--Cleveland? If it is Cleveland, then it isn't that Schwartz fellow out in...oh, it is...Arizona. Yup. I don't know much about this one, other than that a friend in Arizona says that the university is embarrassed to be associated with Schwartz. He says that the big clue is that the story is not being publicised in the usual way--through peer-reviewed journals--but through the popular press.

I'll poke around a bit and see if I can find a better response, though.

Digital, this is the first time I have started a thread about something paranormal, when you don't actively disagree.
Thus, the reasons must be one of those:

A) That link made sense tou you at some extent.

B) You don't have enough knowledge about this yet to say it doesn't make sense.

If I know you well enough, you will say alternative B is right. (But I can't be quite sure.)

__________________
The Heavenly Afterlife exist.

Oh, it absolutely does not make sense! Everything we do know about our perceptual capabilities argues that what Schwartz is doing is pure hooey! But the way science works is, we follow the evidence. And there, you are right in your supposition; I don't know enough about his research to blast holes in it at this point. I won't simply make up something to tear it down, though; that would be intellectually dishonest.

I hope that you have noted from my posts here that I do not make claims that cannot be supported. I also do not tolerate claims that cannot be supported. In your link, we have a grey middle ground. Schwartz is making a claim which is absolutely earth-shattering in its implications, and yet is making it through the popular press instead of the normal peer-reviewed channels. This sends up warning flags, but the bottom line should not be his choice of media, but his evidence and the quality of his experimental design.

I had, truthfully, forgotten about this (something came up in the real world--go figure), but will look into it more thoroughly in a bit. I fully expect to be able to tear Schwartz's research apart...but my expectations do not matter. The evidence matters.

edit to add: In just one quick google, here is a critique of Schwartz's research. No, I have not read it just yet--I am about to--but I link it purely to show how quickly and easily one can begin to critically examine claims. Also so that you can have the chance to read it too.

Having read the critique, it would appear I don't have to blast holes in Schwartz's research--he does it all by himself. No wonder he chose to go to the popular media.

To answer your question, then..."Is this a proof of afterlife?" The answer is a resounding "no".

Of course, it is not evidence against one either, but the burden of proof is on Schwartz--if he is convinced there is a real effect here, he needs to tighten his methodology. It should be easy to do.