Good day! I do not speak a foreign language well, so I use a translator. In sentences, the word order may be disrupted, articles are incorrectly placed, or grammatical time is incorrectly chosen. I apologize for this. I will try to write simply (alas, translators are not omnipotent). It is difficult to deny the interest of people who are engaged in the study of the afterlife. Does this impose any additional restrictions? I'll be honest with you. Human fears and suffering have been exploited and exploited by scammers. Moreover, human fears and suffering are a source of self-deception. It's trivial. Now to the point. Why is there such a disproportionate number of references to old data in posthumous evidence reviews? If there is a reliable way to communicate with the dead through Electronic Voice Phenomenon, why not put more methodologically rigorous experiments? But in the books about the afterlife mentioned lived a long time ago mediums-facts from the life of which it is impossible to verify or reports about near-death experiences that are near-death and by definition have an indirect relationship to the afterlife (not to mention the fact that they are ambiguous as evidence of the afterlife). Were you holding a math or physics textbook? Of course! A proof is attached to the theorems. Usually one. Not a long list of mathematicians who are convinced that the theorem is true. In the textbook of physics mention the discoverer, but also indicates the experimental method of testing a law, mathematical calculations. Conan Doyle believed in spiritualism... Wonderful. But why is it mentioned? He wasn't able to distinguish between obvious scams and genuine spiritualists? (If there are any.) What is the point of such lists, if there is a reverse list - scientists or magicians who have studied this phenomenon, but came to the opposite conclusion? (For example, Dmitri Mendeleev or Harry Houdini.) It's reminiscent of the list of famous believers or atheists. Such, where alone consider albert Einstein faithful, and other atheists - although he was a pantheist distant from these extremes. I mean, all these review books are not built as scientific literature or textbooks, but as fiction. It's not bad just for someone who's willing to believe it all without opening the book. It is also worth noting attempts to stigmatize scientists or skeptics. There are real skeptics, and there are conservative. There are real scientists, and there is traditional science. Of course, there is some intellectual climate, prejudice. Thus, Kurt Gödel hid his logical proof of the existence of God from his colleagues. But it is not entirely fair to absolutize the mindset of individual communities. Enough and open-minded. Scientists, philosophers, skeptics. If your evidence is scientific and indisputable, lure some significant figure in the scientific world into your camp! Sam Harris isn't open-minded enough, is he? Not good? (This is a joke, but only partly.) It amazes me that some facts are not taken into account. A magician can fool scientists. A crook can trick the crowd. And such cases took place to be, and after were unambiguously exposed. That is why there is a strong skepticism towards extrasensory perception and spiritualism. The extent of the deception is enormous. Of course, this generates distrust. But, it seems that on your part this distrust is not, there is no healthy criticism of those who pretend to be psychics or mediums. I see this as a reduction in the threshold of entry of ideas. When you let one weakly grounded idea in, you're vulnerable to others. Needless to say, excessive skepticism can be taken to the extreme. Is there a Golden mean here? In general, although some afterlife researchers call themselves skeptics, I have a feeling that they are allergic to skepticism. I, like all normal people, consider myself an extremely honest and open-minded person (this is a joke, I'm just honest and open-minded, not extremely). And without being an asshole, I don't think everyone around me is stupid or dishonest. Some people who have asked the same questions as me above, who have noticed the same thing as I above, probably managed to make sure that the afterlife takes place. I haven't done it yet. My question is first of all to such people. I will be glad to hear from those who have had time to make sure otherwise or have not decided. Anyone who wants to know the truth should not be afraid of opinions and criticism. I will be glad to talk on this topic.