After reading the above argument. Did you agree with the conclusion before you read the argument? Did the argument give you any reason to doubt your conclusion if you did not agree, or further reasons to believe the conclusion if you did? What claims are made by the author, and what examples or evidence might the author have included? In either case, consider the following counter argument:

Counter argument. The author of the above claims that science is the only method by which things can be known, but this is not correct. Religion, meditation, and mystical experience are other ways things can be known, and for all the author or science knows some thinking might occur in the absence of any changes in the brain or brain chemistry. Since this can not be known for certain, the author's conclusion that when we die we no longer are able to think or experience anything can not be known for certain either.



The conclusion to this counterargument is that the conclusion to the previous argument is incorrect.