Hi everyone, I am a new member here so I will give a little intro about me. I was raised in the LDS (Mormon) church from the time I was born until I was 15 years old. The next 5 years of my life was spent as a baseline Christian and the following 7.5 years as a hard-line, secular "New Atheist". Recently, I had the chance to really reflect on life and have a deeper conversation with myself wherein I decided that it was folly to cling to extremes, Atheism included. Over the last month, I have spent a lot of time researching, reading, listening, etc.. to bigger issues in our reality such as consciousness and specifically, NDE's (the Buddhists brought me to the NDE arena, weirdly enough.) I want to say that this forum and Alex's show are a real blessing to me because they have helped me realize that dogma comes in all forms. It is not exclusive to organized religion, but also to the anti-religion, Atheism. This has been a hard and arduous journey. Having experienced both sides of the aisle, meeting in the middle is still very foreign to me. It has also been hard for me because I have such a deep love and respect for science and trying to reconcile that with metaphysics has been very hard. However, I have found that there are many capable and smart minds dedicated to exploring the unknown instead of just ignoring it. It is refreshing to see that the secular opinion is just that, an opinion. Anyways, I wanted to share with you a personal way that I went about debunking a debunker. I came across a man by the name of Sadri Hassani. He runs a website called "The Skeptical Educator" in which he claims that "Pseudoscience is the #1 killer of rationality in the U.S." I came across his website when trying to verify a medical journal by the name of "Neuroquantology". In the results, his website came up and I thought I would check it out. Turns out that Sadri thought he had invalidated the majority of the peer reviewers and researchers. Either that they don't exist, don't have the right credentials to define consciousness, etc. So I set out to see if his claims were accurate. Not only were they not accurate, they were dead wrong. I will post the comment that I made on his website and the link to the article but you all should know that my comment is "Awaiting moderator" as it has been for about 3 days now. Interesting. http://skepticaleducator.org/science-education/peer-review-a-new-signature-of-quack-science/3/ First off all, I LOVE how you tried to pass this article off as fact. I have thoroughly researched all of your claims and found many errors. Personally, I am not a believer in what the dogmatic New Atheist Movement has coined "woo". I am, however, a believer in respecting my fellow man and giving them the benefit of the doubt before going absolutely (and blindly) crazy on them. I can't find much backlash against Neuroquantology other than you. Curious that you being a scientific skeptic has actually lead you to blindly present facts without proper evidence. So while I don't understand the hard-on's you and other skeptics, I mean "New Atheists", get from unabashedly railing against other scientists, I will present my evidence to you as to why this article is incorrect: Dr. Kemal Koc: obtained his PhD in physics (not education) in 1985. http://egitim.baskent.edu.tr/kw/ozgecmis.php?id=8376 Dr. Gustav Bernroider: well, rather than list his numerous degrees and achievement, includingn a degree in Neurobiology, I'll just give you the link to see for yourself. The first one is proof the the Ecology and evolution departments of Salzburg DO exist and the second is the universities page on the now retired professor. https://www.uni-salzburg.at/index.php?id=206373&L=0&MP=200203-200331 https://uni-salzburg.at/index.php?id=200701&L=1&tx_kesearch_pi1[sword]=gustav+bernroidev&tx_kesearch_pi1[page]=1&tx_kesearch_pi1[resetFilters]=0&tx_kesearch_pi1[sortByField]=&tx_kesearch_pi1[sortByDir]=# Alfredo Pereira Júnior: Professor of Philosophy of Science, Universidade Estadual Paulista Verified email at ibb.unesp.br Epistemology Ontology Neuroscience Biology Cognitive Science https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=pg3ZlaoAAAAJ&hl=en Burak Erdeniz - "In 2008, he moved to England to University of Hertfordshire to pursue his Phd on cognitive neuroscience of reinforcement learning and decision making. Burak completed a joint Phd degree from the School of Psychology and School of Computer Science of University of Hertfordshire in 2012, with a thesis titled “Computational Model-Based Functional Imaging of Reinforcement Learning in Humans.” After his doctorate he moved to United States and joined to Dr. Seidler’s Neuromotor and Behavior Laboratory as a post-doctoral research fellow to work on the NASA funded project titled “Spaceflight Effects on Neurocognitive Performance: Extent, Longevity, and Neural Bases.” Burak Erdeniz is a member of British Neuroscience Association and the Society of Neuroscience. I think that solves the mystery of "Not being found" lol. http://nbl-seidler.kines.umich.edu/lab-alumni/b-erdeniz Grandpierre, Attila: http://www.konkoly.hu/staff/grandpierre.shtml Donald Mender: https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/people/donald_mender.profile Michael B. Mensky: Michael was, I admit, hard to find information on. I did find some that I think looks okay but ultimately, can't stand up to scrutiny. Kak, Subhash: https://ece.okstate.edu/content/kak-subhash-phd In conclusion, I would say that the majority of your findings are inaccurate. Now, I know what most of you secular purists are going to come back and say "Well, they are still quacks." I put it to you that their education is just as valuable, real and comprehensive as any other scientist. They approach their findings and methodology differently. Maybe, just maybe if you took a second to step out of you narcissistic, egotistical and reductionist frame of mind, you might be able to appreciate that they are willing to explore things that you are afraid to explore. I would suggest, rather than relying on Google searches, that you look at their evidence. Is it wrong? Maybe. Are they quacks? Maybe. It is up to YOU to empirically prove them wrong. That is, after all, the scientific method, is it not? The problem is that you aren't willing to review the research as if it were your own. Instead, you hold onto some weird "woo" belief that science is only defined as how you see it. Without creativity and ingenuity, science cannot move forward. If you are unwilling to review the research, maybe just stick to your neck of the woods. As the revered Christopher Hitchens once said "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Though it would seem to me, that these scientists have valid claims to evidence and theories, but they are dismissed regardless. Learn the true value of being a skeptic and critic of all. Stay in the grey. ------------------------------------- Hope you all enjoy this as much as I did. Sorry if it is a little harsh. This guy is crazy so I wanted to put him in his place. I should also add that at the beginning of this, I say that I don’t believe in “woo”. That is and is not true. I’m of the non-dualistic thought and I would say me not believing in “woo” is more that I don’t believe how naturalist Atheism defines it.