Mod+ 261. WHY SCIENCE IS WRONG...ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING

Alex raised the question as to what direction Skeptiko should go. Michael usually picks up those questions and reminds us of the question we should try to answer - so let's try to answer this one - the biggest of them all!

Rats: because this thread was posted by John Maguire, who is apparently now an administrator, I didn't pick up on the fact it was a new podcast--I certainly would have if Alex had posted it as usual. Hence I haven't yet listened to it. That's the reason that I haven't posted Alex's questions at the end of the podcast. I will now go off and listen to the podcast.
 
Last edited:
I also think there is a great show in this:

http://www.studyspiritualexperiences.org/

It is a group going for many years. From their website:

Have you ever had a spiritual or religious experience or felt a presence or power, whether you call it God or not, which is different from, or more than, your everyday self?
Alister Hardy TrustandReligious Experience Research Centre(RERC), and provides a focal point for people interested in the nature and study of spiritual, religious and psychic experiences.
 
Alex, some passing thoughts:

1. The folk you interview have often recently published a book, and presumably come on the show to get some publicity for it. Could that be a bit restrictive?

2. There are some sceptics who are much more open minded than others. One such I've recently posted about is David Eagleman:


With people like this, one could possibly have a constructive and honest interchange. So often, your guests are totally committed one way or the other. It might be interesting to explore something nearer the middle ground.

3. You say:

-- how can Christ consciousness be real (I think the evidence suggests that it is) and the historical record of Christianity be such a complete mess (I think the evidence suggests that it is)?
Christianity's history is a complete mess? Not sure what you mean, but if you're talking about the history of the early church, there's a lot more evidence than for other major religions. Even if you're talking about the verifiable historicity of the bible, there's still more of it than there is for the Qur'an, Sirah and hadiths, for example. Thing is, Christianity is an easy target because nobody's going to declare a fatwa or threaten to chop one's head off.

- religious cults (as explored a couple of times on Skeptiko)... what are we to make of this shadow side of religious practices.

Not sure why you'd want to go there.

- bit question... if God/Spirit/Truth shines thru regardless what are we to make of religion?

IMO, just as science, which has a noble aim, is distorted by dogma, so is spirituality. Genuine science and spirituality aren't at odds; the aim of both is to investigate whatever might be true without preconception or prejudice: the one in an "objective" sense (re: experience that can be shared), and the other in a "subjective" sense (re: experience that can't be shared). Alas, in virtually every human endeavour, there's inertia arising from preferred beliefs and worldviews.

Hence we have the terms religion and scientism, which stand in similar relation to spirituality and science respectively. It's a pity we don't use the one word to cover all genuine attempts to investigate reality, whether objective or subjective: truthseeking is the nearest I can think of at the moment. Then we could talk of it and its antithesis, misguided truthseeking, defined as what happens when we allow preconception and/or prejudice to derail it.

So: what are we to make of religion? The same as we are to make of scientism. They're both examples of misguided truthseeking, however sincere their proponents. I do think many are in fact sincere; not entirely without justification, because not everyone has had any convincing spiritual experience, so only belief (for or against), or agnosticism, is left. IMO, not enough people opt for agnosticism, which more truly reflects their actual condition.
 
I could try to get Sheldrake (or someone else from Open Sciences) and Talbott on the show?
Rupert is great, but he's been on many times. I think you said Talbott doesn't do interviews. Moreover, how would we cover this from a new unique angle?
 
I think Dean Radin would be someone to start with. He's talked to the elite, been on Oprah , and has been invited to talk in a great variety of forums that one wouldn't necessarily connect to an interest in Psi. He's also the senior scientist at IONS, an organization founded by an astronaut (you don't get more elite than that), and a place that has hosted talks by the likes of John Mack and Jacques Vallee.

I'd like to know if the world's elite knows someone the rest of us doesn't, or do they just have more time on their hands to waste on silliness?
Radin is great also, but I'm not sure this is his thing. He sticks pretty close to his work... I respect that about him.
 
I guess I half expected that answer :(

Alex, people shower you with suggestions for possible interviewees, and I am sure some names come up over and over again, so suppose we have one thread devoted to this issue, and the first entry would be yours, and would contain a list of people you have contacted so far, and their response. The rest of the thread would be for people to suggest names, but the important point is that you could just edit that first entry and add names as and when you or anyone else gets rebuffed.

It might be interesting for people to see exactly who has refused to come on the show (and why, if they say why)

David
wow... I that would take awhile to put together. also, it's always changing. folks who aren't interested in an interview become interested when they publish a book :) I think the key is to keep trying and follow your/my genuine interest. what skeptics/atheists/science-as-we-know-it types would you like to hear from?
 
And you would record the podcast deep in the Amazon jungle (for legal reasons), and he would drink some in the interview.... :)

Seriously, I do think the whole issue of hallucinogenic/entheogenic plants and chemicals would bear more discussion. Maybe K9's suggestion or someone associated with Erowid?

David
:)
 
I also think there is a great show in this:

http://www.studyspiritualexperiences.org/

It is a group going for many years. From their website:

Have you ever had a spiritual or religious experience or felt a presence or power, whether you call it God or not, which is different from, or more than, your everyday self?
Alister Hardy TrustandReligious Experience Research Centre(RERC), and provides a focal point for people interested in the nature and study of spiritual, religious and psychic experiences.
do they have any traction?
 
crickets.... skeptiko 3.0?

Hey Alex, congrats on the book release. I have every intention of buying it once it's available for the kindle (is it yet?).

I noticed in one of the reviews for the book that Matt Dillahunty was mentioned. In what context is he discussed in the book?

Thanks, and looking forward to reading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
I've got a few people that I'd love to see. Have ya'll ever tried to get William Buhlman on the show? I feel like he would be an interesting guest. I'd also love to see Bruce Moen, but I've heard his health isn't so great these days so it might be hard to get him on. I'm a member of his forum too, so I could propose it to him if ya'll like. I only wish Bob Monroe was still "over Here" so Alex could interview him. I feel like that would be a great interview.

Tom Campbell's been doing quite a few interviews lately, and he helped Bob get the Monroe Institute going. I feel like he takes his virtual reality analogies a bit too far sometimes, but he might be an interesting one to have on.
I think the Monroe Institute would be a great topic for Alex to explore. Maybe he should talk to Nancy McMoneagle, Joe's wife and Bob Monroe's step-daughter. She is currently the executive director of the Monroe Institute and recently gave a talk about Bob Monroe that can be seen on the RRC website:

http://www.rhine.org/media-library/sermon/98-robert-monroe-the-man-with-the-wild-talent.html

I think many people have stopped waiting for the scientists to find all the answers and they are going looking for their own answers. People want to have experiences. That's what TMI is supposed to help them do. I think it's a fascinating idea, although I've never tried anything like that myself.

Apparently TMI is starting up NDE workshops done by Scott Taylor, who is fairly well known as a speaker at IANDS conferences. I'm curious about how TMI came to offering that kind of course. Here is an interview with Scott Taylor from the last IANDS conference:

 
Last edited:
I also think Skeptiko could cover the whole question of hallucinogenic drugs in more detail. These absolutely must be relevant to the nature of consciousness.
I agree. I've been wanting an interview with James Oroc, author of Tryptamine Palace. It explores what is possibly the single most powerful hallucinogen and is a very good, fun read.
 
By the way, Alex, I'm away from the house for a bit and won't be able to read for another week or so (bc my phone is too small to really read on) . . . I'm eager to, though, and will write a review on amazon afterwards!
 
This is not exactly Skeptiko 3.0 but it is an idea. The idea is that you could start a Skeptiko "Channel B". The purpose of this new podcast would be to host much (possibly much, much) longer interviews with guests and, perhaps, to document some other activities. Let me explain.

-To me, reading the books of certain guests (Ian Rubenstein, Gary Schwartz, Andy Paquette and especially Nick Bunick) has greatly deepened and changed my understanding. So longer interviews would offer this to people in an easier way than buying books. Also, these interviews could be more aggressive. Really digging into critical points in an investigative journalism sort of way (while still remaining friendly - we don’t want to scare off the guests either).

-Other activities. For example, Nick Bunick (http://www.skeptiko.com/122-reincarnation-of-apostle-paul-nick-bunick-scrutinized/). In his book he mentions multiple people who witnessed this and that. So, you could check Nick Bunick’s facts. You can get all of these people (or at least some) and ask them to tell the story again. In a similar vein you could get Rey Hernandez’s wife on. This is not to be rude and doubt his integrity but is rather to take this thing and "nail it to the floor” so that it is fully documented in a public forum. For guests who are telling the truth, this is in their interest (and I believe the vast majority of the guests are telling the truth).

Science advances on the edge cases. Stuff that doesn’t fit. In this paranormal field, the edge cases are often personal stories but many have witnesses. Call the witnesses to the stand. We can’t, of course, force them to the stand but I think many will come anyway.

I am happy to kick things off by doing this with Nick Bunick (assuming he agrees). This way it would no longer be Nick Bunick saying x and y happened to him but rather a group of people saying that x and y happened (which has far more credibility). I also have some awkward questions for Nick which I would like to ask him (for example, what is up with this - http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/240995-108035-west-end-building-will-go-back-on-the-market).

I think the key thing is this. All the Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake stuff if great. Trying to be scientific is great. It builds credibility. But, to me, the most interesting stuff is this personal stuff. It is much harder to progress but it is not impossible.

The “scientific evidence” paradigm is the "gold standard" but it is not always practical for all this stuff. So, let’s move on to the “silver standard” of the “legal” paradigm. Call all the witnesses and “cross examine” them.

(and, of course, this is only part of “channel B” - "channel B" is also just more in depth conversations).

One more thing, “channel B” would be free of the constraints of channel A. So, for example, interviews can be 3 hours long or 10 minutes long. There can be one, two, three interviews with the same person. Interviews come out whenever they are ready (not to any schedule). There are different hosts depending on who is interested and available (so it is crowdsourced Skeptiko). Shows can also have a laser focus on very specific points. It would be nice if standards of production (audio quality and transscripts) can be maintained but if they slip then that is OK too.
Several issues about the comment; There's a lot to be said for consistency and peoples expectations. There's time constraints as well, Alex's time, the person interviewed and Skeptiko followers. The length of these podcasts are about an hour give or take. Alex puts interviews in the can and releases every 2 weeks on the nose except for recently. (Is that a seasonal thing?) The discussions really tamp down the faster these interviews are released. Is that what we really want? The format is well established and slowly Skeptiko is gaining in audience. What's that expression? "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Tweaking a bit is OK.
My personal POV is I tend to be skeptical of singular accounts no matter how much other anecdotal connections there are. There's just too much variation with individual perceptions. We know how incredible sophisticated mind and brain is and that our POV of reality itself is the trickster. However I am willing to put worthy testimonials on that shelf of things to consider.
PS My personal favorites are NDEers. When compiled and considered, some of the more enlightened discourse experiencers relay over you tube is quite profound (I avoid the Christian agenda ones). I try to keep my belief system malleable, but I can't help but have a favorite but ever changing construct of how things are.
 
By the way, Alex, I'm away from the house for a bit and won't be able to read for another week or so (bc my phone is too small to really read on) . . . I'm eager to, though, and will write a review on amazon afterwards!
sounds good Reece. thx.
 
Several issues about the comment; There's a lot to be said for consistency and peoples expectations. There's time constraints as well, Alex's time, the person interviewed and Skeptiko followers. The length of these podcasts are about an hour give or take. Alex puts interviews in the can and releases every 2 weeks on the nose except for recently. (Is that a seasonal thing?) The discussions really tamp down the faster these interviews are released. Is that what we really want? The format is well established and slowly Skeptiko is gaining in audience. What's that expression? "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Tweaking a bit is OK.
My personal POV is I tend to be skeptical of singular accounts no matter how much other anecdotal connections there are. There's just too much variation with individual perceptions. We know how incredible sophisticated mind and brain is and that our POV of reality itself is the trickster. However I am willing to put worthy testimonials on that shelf of things to consider.
PS My personal favorites are NDEers. When compiled and considered, some of the more enlightened discourse experiencers relay over you tube is quite profound (I avoid the Christian agenda ones). I try to keep my belief system malleable, but I can't help but have a favorite but ever changing construct of how things are.
I appreciate where you're coming from and you make some good points, but I'm inclined to go for the "art." I think it would be cool to do some really in-depth shows.
 
Alex,

I have just finished reading the Kindle version of your book. It provides a wonderful reminder of the entire Skeptiko experience - I mean, it is easy to forget some of the idiocy/fraud that you have exposed, such as, for example, Ben Radford's attempt to rewrite the facts relating to one psychic detective case - and trying moreover to focus on that one detail in the hopes that the rest of the case would go out of focus.

I am sure you will be asked to write a sequel, or to update the book in due course, and my suggestion would be that you should really spell out the logic behind your 'biological robots' comments. I mean, if you ask a typical sceptic, they will almost always deny that materialism makes us into biological robots - only to, in effect, make that claim themselves in a different form.

I think the logic needs spelling out a little more:

1) That if the brain processes information by sending signals down neurons - or via chemicals to receptors - that is completely analogous to the way a computer, or other modern electronics operates.

2) Therefore if the brain generates the mind, it too must work in a way analogous to a piece of electronics.

3) Nobody believes that electronics or computers actually experience things - have an inner life - because since we make these objects, we actually know what is in there and what it does.

I just think that a wider audience - one that has not yet listened to the Skeptiko podcasts, or thought about these issues in depth, may need the idea of biological robots cementing into place.

David
 
Back
Top