Read other letters about this article
First off, let me say that I'm reading and enjoying the book. The first two chapters were quite refreshing after a lot of the stuff I've read on this subject.
However:
"If that University of Virginia study [in which a researcher set a laptop near the ceiling so that if patients claimed to have an out-of-body experience, he could ask them what image was on the screen], if somebody did see an image on that computer on the ceiling, I don't think you would change the mind of any skeptic out there. I think they would come up with a reason why the study is flawed. People are devoted to their convictions."
This is just annoying! Possibly it's true for 5-10% of the people out there, but the fact is that scientists would like proof that it isn't a trick, please. If someone saw an image on that computer, the first thing I would do is check for a way that the person could cheat. If I altered the experiment some and the person could still see it, okay, that comes closer to proof.
A good scientist or researcher will in fact make sure that all other variables are accounted for. If you carefully arrange the experiment so that no cheating (conscious or unconscious) is possible, then what is left, however improbable, is likely the truth.
The example that frequently comes up is the Meteor Crater out west. There was a theory that it was created by, well, a meteor. Scientists were VERY skeptical about that, so they came in and did a bunch of testing. Now there is little scientific doubt that, yes, it was created by a meteor. And that's not a question of scientists "changing their minds," simply one of science proving out an initially outlandish claim. It happens, and scientists are actually thrilled when it does.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm eager to see that evidence myself, but I'm not holding my breath until then, lest I find out the hard way!