![]() ![]() Apparently, the kind that doesn't have to ever engage in the scientific method.įor the record, sharing stories of conversations is a great way to show compassion, but it is NOT scientific data. It's true because she SAYS it's true, and then she reminds you she's a scientist. Ross has never published ANY of the 20,000+ investigations/interviews/experiences she claims to have performed with drying and NDE people for peer-review? That's right! She tells us over and over again that her conclusions have been proved "beyond the shadow of a doubt," yet not one bit of her data has ever been produced. How many readers know, for example, that Dr. Nothing in this book backs up either claim. Ross purports to bring a scientific mind to her work indeed, she pitches herself as a skeptic who has been convinced. Ross' philosophy has appealed to them (the "cocoon" concept gets a lot of accolades), and how the book is "compelling." It's actually not, and here's why:ĭr. I keep seeing all these reviews that gush how magnificent it is! Over and over, people remark that Dr.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |