Eban Alexander's New Book

[Arouet]

Unfortunately his evidence is not scientific, it's a 300 page book about a single anecdote. This doesn't mean I see NDEs as necessarily reducible or fully reducible, but his recollection doesn't mean much on its own. Despite my trepidation with the AWARE study, he has at least found indications, under certain conditions that people can recall memories from CA.

If its just anecdotal then it doesn't really damage him much if he has credibility issues since we shouldn't be considering the anecdote all that reliable in the first place, even without intent to deceive.

Now, I'm assuming he does have his medical records at least, perhaps he will be producing a more detailed analysis than he has in the past, quoting much more extensively from the data contained in the medical records - even better, making them available.

 

[malf]

Malf, you are Malfunctioning. surely ?

http://iands.org/news/news/front-pa...cle-on-eben-alexander-distorts-the-facts.html

I'm referring to the points in the Mail article, not the Esquire article. I am not malfing.

 

[Arouet]

It doesn't matter what someone's education was. If there is a malpractice suit against someone, and this someone happens to be Eben, then that is a serious concern.

Malpractice sounds like a really nasty word but it really just means negligence in a professional context. Most of the time it is an error. Having malpractice suits most of the time isn't in itself cause for concern from a credibility standpoint - it simply means they're not perfect.

What he got disciplined for was not making the surgical mistake but for what he did after to cover it up.

 

[malf]

Okay you are withdrawing the remark.

Withdraw? I still think he looks like a Bond villain. ;)

 

[gabriel]

He looks like a materialist medical scientist who gave up saving minds for Darwin when he had his blown by a reality check. Doubts about Alexander's previous behaviour, which seem to rest on one incident rather than a career of incipient skullduggery, is standard Randian skeptical pragmatism, surely?

 

[radicalpolitik]

Withdraw? I still think he looks like a Bond villain. ;)

He looks like a materialist medical scientist who gave up saving minds for Darwin when he had his blown by a reality check. Doubts about Alexander's previous behaviour, which seem to rest on one incident rather than a career of incipient skullduggery, is standard Randian skeptical pragmatism, surely?

So not agreeing with everything every proponent says is a "Standard Randian skeptical pragmatism" Putting more weight on the experimental evidence for psi rather than on the experience of one man with a distorted brain makes me a skeptic? so be it then.

 

[tim]

The malpractice part isn't the credibility damanging thing. It was the subsequent record altering that puts that into question. But that's just on any part that requires just taking his word for anything. If he's going to produce scientific evidence that will have to stand or fall on its own.

o

 

[tim]

o

O

 

[tim]

circular ?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I just think it'll be bad if Dr. Alexander ultimately confesses he made up his NDE.

He's an interesting data-point, given his low-probability recovery, but it seems like a bad strategy to make him such a major face of the NDE community.

 

[Arouet]

I just think it'll be bad if Dr. Alexander ultimately confesses he made up his NDE.

That's seems unlikely if we mean in its entirety. I suspect some artistic licence was employed though (IIRC he made some comment to that effect).

He's an interesting data-point, given his low-probability recovery, but it seems like a bad strategy to make him such a major face of the NDE community.

I think he's got better PR guys than other contenders for the role!

 

[gabriel]

I just think it'll be bad if Dr. Alexander ultimately confesses he made up his NDE.

He's an interesting data-point, given his low-probability recovery, but it seems like a bad strategy to make him such a major face of the NDE community.

I agree, but belief in a phenomenon shouldn't rest on any single account, any more than it can be considered debunked by a wonky testimony or flawed character. Alexander doesn't appear to have the imagination to make such a thing up, and his analysis of his experience is what one would expect of a linear thinker. Expecting a best seller from writing up a round trip to heaven is like buying a lottery ticket and assuming you'll win, so attacks on the cash aspect are just sour grapes. The fact it went viral is less to do with his account, and more about the appeal of a so-called logical thinker having his circuits busted.

I replied because Eben Alexander's testimony is given the dirty test tube treatment for reasons that have nothing to do with his story. Whatever the underlying truth, as a case study in the mechanics of skeptical debunking, Proof of Heaven has few equals. He may come across as smug and self satisfied, and his Map of Heaven may be the cash cow his publisher's expect, but the attacks on him are motivated by things other than scientific and moral scrupulousness. If ten years down the line Eben admits the whole thing was an elaborate ruse to show how the human animal is in thrall to belief and storytelling, will the same people who've condemned his character dismiss his trickery and deception? Or will they swoon in admiration at his audacity and clear thinking? What then of scientific disinterest and ethical standards?