Next time you're arguing against a skeptic, remember this is what your arguing against

#21
2:47 - Outright false. No serious researcher takes "Maria's shoe" seriously, and certainly not since Keith Augustine's 2007 entry into the JNDS on the subject.
http://records.viu.ca/www/ipp/pdf/NDE.pdf

That "debunking" was such a load of bollocks. A sad mishmash of far reaching ifs/buts and maybes, including a tale that the big talk of the hospital, among the staffs, before Maria even got there, would have been about this shoe on the ledge, which supposedly Maria would have picked up on. (Gimme a break...) A "theory" which they, first of all, have no basis, proof, or even a slightest hint of. And secondly they try to "shoe-horn in" the claim that Maria, brought to the emergency, in the middle of the night, suffering a severe heart attack, rushed in in an ambulance, most likely under severe stress and fear of her health/life, would somehow manage to focus her attention on a shoe, on a ledge, 3 stories up, in the middle of the night, noticing its colour, a smudge on the tip of the shoe, and that the laces where folded under the shoe. Yeah, right....

Those debunking skeptics..tsk tsk

 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#22
That "debunking" was such a load of bollocks. A sad mishmash of far reaching ifs/buts and maybes, including a tale that the big talk of the hospital, among the staffs, before Maria even got there, would have been about this shoe on the ledge, which supposedly Maria would have picked up on. (Gimme a break...) A "theory" which they, first of all, have no basis, proof, or even a slightest hint of. And secondly they try to "shoe-horn in" the claim that Maria, brought to the emergency, in the middle of the night, suffering a severe heart attack, rushed in in an ambulance, most likely under severe stress and fear of her health/life, would somehow manage to focus her attention on a shoe, on a ledge, 3 stories up, in the middle of the night, noticing its colour, a smudge on the tip of the shoe, and that the laces where folded under the shoe. Yeah, right....
First of all, note that Maria had the OBE after she had been at the hospital for two or three days. Second, the story was not published by Clark until seven years after the event. Finally, I don't believe anyone has contacted Maria (if she is still alive) to verify the story.

~~ Paul
 
#23
First of all, note that Maria had the OBE after she had been at the hospital for two or three days. Second, the story was not published by Clark until seven years after the event. Finally, I don't believe anyone has contacted Maria (if she is still alive) to verify the story.

~~ Paul
She was brought in with a cardiac/heart arrest/failure.

The premise was that, when she was brought in, with cardiac/hearth problem, and that when she was brought in she could/should been able (in the twisted logic of a skeptic) concentrated on, 3 stories up above the entrance of the ICU, to see a fuckin shoe on a ledge..and see its colour, and a smudge on on its tip...and that a lace was folded under it??.
Come on Paul...give it up.
Or, you mean that the nurse made it up...for what?...fame??? (I bet she got rich on this one)
 
Last edited:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#24
She was brought in with a cardiac/heart arrest/failure.

The premise was that, when she was brought in, with cardiac/hearth problem, and that when she was brought in she could/should been able (in the twisted logic of a skeptic) concentrated on, 3 stories up above the entrance of the ICU, to see a fuckin shoe on a ledge..and see its colour, and a smudge on on its tip...and that a lace was folded under it??.
Come on Paul...give it up.
Or, you mean that the nurse made it up...for what?...fame??? (I bet she got rich on this one)
She had three days to see it, or hear about it from another person who observed it from outside or inside. As far as the tiny details are concerned, I have no reason to believe that those were faithfully carried forward for seven years. And even if they were, how are we going to verify that the details were correct? And how much to we know about how people conflate previous memories into OBEs?

You're asking me to have too much faith in an oft-repeated story not written down until seven years after it happened.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#26
Does anyone truly believe shoes on ledges is a topic of casual conversation in an intensive care unit?
Sure, why not? It's funny and interesting. But I hope you'll agree that our opinion on whether it's interesting is irrelevant. Our opinion might simply be wrong.

Heck, all that's needed is for a nurse to say "There was a shoe out on the ledge and the poor maintenance guy had to crawl out there and remove it."

~~ Paul
 
#27
Why not indeed ?But that doesn't really fit.
The statement would need to be something more like. I saw a running shoe on a ledge. And a tie in the elevator.
 
#29
At this point I feel compelled to state that the irony of having a difference of opinion with a world class skeptic. ( and I mean that as a compliment) In this particular thread is not lost on me.
 

Brian_the_bard

Lost Pilgrim
Member
#33
Isn't the very title of this thread what they call "ad hominem" or something like that. Surely the battle isn't against people who, incidentally, can't help believing what they believe and therefore don't deserve to be attacked, but against ignorance - a battle that can only be fought with knowledge and discussion and a genuine desire to see the truth regardless of whether it turns out to be what we want to hear or not. I'm tired of "sceptics do this" and "sceptics do that" It's just another type of politics!
 
#34
Isn't the very title of this thread what they call "ad hominem" or something like that. Surely the battle isn't against people who, incidentally, can't help believing what they believe and therefore don't deserve to be attacked, but against ignorance - a battle that can only be fought with knowledge and discussion and a genuine desire to see the truth regardless of whether it turns out to be what we want to hear or not. I'm tired of "sceptics do this" and "sceptics do that" It's just another type of politics!
Perhaps you need to spend a few more years on these forums ;)
 
#35
As in much of life, it comes down to how one cares to parse information.
Man, it took me so long to figure this out, and how broad the application of this concept is. I used to be a prolific poster in my own field, until I realized that most people, even my closest friends with whom I usually agree, are only looking for data that confirms their own beliefs, no matter how open-minded they pose to appear. And I have seen smart people twist new information around in pretty interesting and painful ways so that it fits their current views. This is, in my opinion, a huge problem that limits advancement in every field. The anti-skeptic community that defines itself by its open-mindedness is not immune to this, either.
 
#36
Man, it took me so long to figure this out, and how broad the application of this concept is. I used to be a prolific poster in my own field, until I realized that most people, even my closest friends with whom I usually agree, are only looking for data that confirms their own beliefs, no matter how open-minded they pose to appear. And I have seen smart people twist new information around in pretty interesting and painful ways so that it fits their current views. This is, in my opinion, a huge problem that limits advancement in every field. The anti-skeptic community that defines itself by its open-mindedness is not immune to this, either.
I think it's probably in our nature. If we recognise it we can at least try to mitigate it.
 
#37
She had three days to see it, or hear about it from another person who observed it from outside or inside.
Who the hell goes around at work, making a mundane shoe on a ledge, a talking-point with their colleagues?? (a shoe that was hard to see even if you knew were to look)

Or that a women, fresh out of treatment from a heart attack, would wander off to the exact opposite side of the hospital, on to a different floor, in another patients room all together, noticing a shoe on the ledge (if she stood and looked in the right exact angle), then get the idea that this is a perfect opportunity to concoct a NDE-hoax that only involved some random nurse, that she would never see again, because of what??....the non-existing fame & glory?

As far as the tiny details are concerned, I have no reason to believe that those were faithfully carried forward for seven years. And even if they were, how are we going to verify that the details were correct?
Skeptics cant have it both ways, by first asking for more specific details, and when more specific details are given dismiss them as; "it is too much details, which make it suspicious" .

Happenings in life that are especially extraordinary, that forces you re-evaluate much of prior beliefs & convictions - from one moment to the other - makes an lasting impression. Events - that are so outside of what ordinary daily life gives you - tend to stick in memory.

Lets say that; if you walk to work everyday, and walk the same streets, with roughly the same amount of traffic & people every day - you can hardly differentiate one day from the other. But if one morning, on your way to work, a steam locomotive would be rushing down the street at 100mph, I bet you would remember that day vividly until you die. So why wouldn't it be reasonable that she - after an event in her life that apparently changed her to the core - would remember specific details? Details that were the reason that made this event spectacular, for both of them, in the first place. It was the details that really "hammered in" the extraordinary of her retelling. So yeah; we can have reason to believe that she ´faithfully carried those details forward for seven years´.
 
Last edited:
#39
Who the hell goes around at work, making a mundane shoe on a ledge, a talking-point with their colleagues?? (a shoe that was hard to see even if you knew were to look)

Or that a women, fresh out of treatment for an heart attack, would wander off to the exact opposite side of the hospital, on to a different floor, in another patients room all together, noticing a shoe on the ledge (if she stood and looked in the right exact angle), then get the idea that this is a perfect opportunity to concoct a NDE-hoax that only involved some random nurse, that she would never see again, because of what??....the non-existing fame & glory?


Skeptics cant have it both ways, by first asking for more specific details, and when more specific details are given dismiss them as; "it is too much details, which make it suspicious" .

Happenings in life that are especially extraordinary that, for example, forces you re-evaluate much of prior beliefs & convictions - from one moment to the other - makes an lasting impression. Events - that are so outside of what ordinary daily life gives you - tend to stick in memory.

Lets say that; if you walk to work everyday, and walk the same streets, with roughly the same amount of traffic & people every day - you can hardly differentiate one day from the other. But if one morning, on your way to work, a steam locomotive would be rushing down the street at 100mph, I bet you would remember that day vividly until you die. So why wouldn't it be reasonable that she - after an event in her life that apparently changed her to the core - would remember specific details? Details that were the reason that made this event spectacular, for both of them, in the first place. It was the details that really "hammered in" the extraordinary of her retelling. So yeah; we can have reason to believe that she ´faithfully carried those details forward for seven years´.
We have seen here a typical response from a diehard skeptic, in this case Paul C. Anagnostopoulos. It is impossible to have a serious discussion with him... his usual mantras: how do you know this, how do you know that? And, of course: "it is so long ago, how can you be sure that the story is not embellished?" Very, very tiring.

As for Keith Augustine's objections and the other skeptics, we dealt at length with it in our book The Self Does Not Die. We also had a detailed mail contact with Kimberly Sharp, whom I was also able to speak with in person at the IANDS conference in Orlando, last year. This is what we say about her in our book:

------------
In 2007, Sharp herself responded to this challenge to the facts as she knew them. The investigators who had tried to rule out her claims appear to have been rather dishonest and rude in collecting their information. More importantly, however, Sharp addressed their criticisms point by point with information directly opposing their claims. She insisted, for instance, that the characteristics of the shoe could not be seen from inside. The spot that the investigators had used for their experiment did not coincide with the specific spot from which Sharp had looked. And as for whether or not Sharp embellished the story, she claimed that over the years her own version had, on the contrary, grown less distinct because she had forgotten that (according to Maria) a Nike logo had been visible on the shoe near the ankle.

Incidentally in discussions of paranormal cases, “Maria’s Tennis Shoe” often morphs into “Kimberly Clark Sharp’s Tennis Shoe.” This shift probably has to do with the fact that the social worker herself also had an NDE and even wrote a book about it.

----------
So there you are. But of course, the skeptics will always have it their way (hence, say that Sharp has been wrong all along despite her having been the prime witness).
Why? because they are ideologists, not scientists.

Smithy
 
#40
So perhaps it was. But as I said above, how can we verify any of the details about the shoe?

~~ Paul
The problem is, Paul, that in order to discount all NDE's you have to beat extraordinary odds. Discounting a few NDE's just isn't good enough!

1) You have to face that fact that NDE's are pretty unlikely to begin with because they happen while the heart is stopped, and sometimes people actually transition from NDE to the waking state, so subsequent confabulation can't be the explanation. Let's call the probability of that happening under conventional assumptions, P1.

2) Then you have Maria's case, so lets say the probability of that happening conventionally is P2.

3) Let's take Pam Reynold's case - P3

4) Have you read Eban Alexander's book? The probability of some of the events there happening conventionally must be pretty low, let's call that P4.

5) Every case where people recall details while being resuscitated - such as the man who knew where his false teeth had been placed, or the person who saw a physician flap his elbows as a quirky way to protect his surgically clean hands, the patient that overheard a conversation in another room while being in cardiac arrest, etc etc - Probability P5, P6,.......Pn

The case you are arguing requires you to postulate a combined event of probability of P1*P2*P3*P4*P5*.....Pn .

This is the way science normally works - you can explain one meteorite as a lightening bolt that hit a rock and left it glowing, but once you need to explain multiple events of that sort, you need a new theory that doesn't require lots of very low probability events happening.

The index n is somewhere in the millions, and all those P's are less than one! These things happen in something like 10-20% of cardiac arrest cases! A lot of them involve reports of things 'seen' in the resuscitation room

Ultimately the weight of evidence just overwhelms your explanation.

What is your fear of admitting that NDE's are suggestive of consciousness beyond the brain? No materialist god is going to slay you for stopping believing in him! If someone suddenly someone came up with a really good explanation as to how NDE's happen - backed up with good data - you could still jump ship back again.

If you had been on the Titanic, it would still have made sense to get in a life boat, even if it turned out that someone came along in time and managed to pump the water out before it sank.

David
 
Last edited:
Top