Why We Need Skeptics in the Skeptiko Forum

Sorry, I can't find NDE or OBE in that list.

~~ Paul
Let's set equivocation arguments aside. I copied a clip below that as it fits into the subject of parapsychology. But the Wikipedia listing cannot reference NDE's as a single item because the subject is bifurcated; and you know this. If NDE research is regarded as a brain-only phenomena, then its research is a science. Hence it cannot be listed. If its research is regarded as pursuing more than potentially a brain-only constructs, ergo parapsychology, then it is a pseudoscience. The argument I have posed is correct.

The Skeptic's Dictionary lists NDE research in the set of "Strange beliefs, amusing deceptions and dangerous delusions" - its list of pseudoscience subjects. (http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html)
 
Last edited:
If you include your responses in the quoted message, they cannot be quoted. So I'll just pick them up.


It has very little to do with trust and much to do with the fallibility of memory. Proponents always focus on the distrust. I daresay this is because considering the fallibility of memory is to be avoided at all costs.


I'm not sure how you know the post-its were still there, but fair enough.


I was just interested in the fact that he would have his messages brought into surgery. It's not a big deal.


You mean as opposed to the apparent obsession not to focus on the details at all?


You think she remembered every detail? I'm not saying that having seen an OR on TV or in a movie explains everything. I'm just questioning the claim that she had never seen one.


I'm happy to contemplate other realms. Are you happy to contemplate the possibility that Rudy's patient learned the three things he said by means other than an OBE? Certainly not, if you're going to keep complaining about details.

~~ Paul
"I'm not sure how you know the post-its were still there, but fair enough."

These post its are bothering you, Paul, correct ? The man was "out" for a day or two so he couldn't have seen them even if they were stuck on the nurses forehead. You're doing your best though, going through the gears nicely. What scenario do you think you'll finally settle on ?
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
Let's set equivocation arguments aside. I copied a clip below that as it fits into the subject of parapsychology. But the Wikipedia listing cannot reference NDE's as a single item because the subject is bifurcated; and you know this. If NDE research is regarded as a brain-only phenomena, then its research is a science. Hence it cannot be listed. If its research is regarded as pursuing more than potentially a brain-only constructs, ergo parapsychology, then it is a pseudoscience. The argument I have posed is correct.
You said:

"I am commenting upon WHY NDE research is at a disadvantage, if you read my post. The problem is that the subject is characterized as pseudo-science by the community of science at large and skeptics ..."

So you meant that NDE research is at a disadvantage when it assumes that the NDE is a glimpse of the afterlife. Yes, I agree that it is then at the same disadvantage as the rest of parapsychology. Meanwhile, however, scientists will study NDEs and may come up with reasonable explanations, or may hit a brick wall and have to admit the possibility of some unknown aspect of reality.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
"I'm not sure how you know the post-its were still there, but fair enough."

These post its are bothering you, Paul, correct ? The man was "out" for a day or two so he couldn't have seen them even if they were stuck on the nurses forehead. You're doing your best though, going through the gears nicely. What scenario do you think you'll finally settle on ?
So you're saying that the only route to knowing about the post-it notes was to see them. For example, it is simply not possible that someone could have said, "Wow, I'm glad Dr. Rudy had not taken his post-it notes and gone back to his office."

~~ Paul
 
So you're saying that the only route to knowing about the post-it notes was to see them. For example, it is simply not possible that someone could have said, "Wow, I'm glad Dr. Rudy had not taken his post-it notes and gone back to his office."

~~ Paul
That comment Paul is classical Anagnostopoulos-opotamus talk. What do you mean someone could have said ...what someone ? someone who was in the OR who thought the patient needed to know who was trying to contact Rudy during the op ? So he went in and said "Did you see the post its, fellar ? ...Oh no I shouldn't have asked that...now I guess you're going to weave that in to your confabulation that I suspect you are currently confabulating

"Yes I am confabulating even while we speak and I would be grateful for any cues you can give me too, if that's okay with you, Doc. I always
wanted one of those NDE's and dang nab it I'm gonna bag myself one "
 
Nonetheless, the mind has extensive, lifelong experience at constructing fantasy material inwoven with reality, because it does it every night in dreams. Our ability to do this goes back tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years.

What it could not weave in this way by ordinary means is clearly experiences or perceptions that could not possibly be obtained. If pathways still exist for these perceptions to be obtained by ordinary means, then this is always going to be a fatal flaw in wider acceptance of these anecdotes *(not withstanding a societal revolution in which anecdote once more takes precedence over evidence in all things...which, while not impossible, doesn't seem likely...and even if that did occur, it would not make things *true*..only more staunchly believed true).

So if we really want to know what is true about these perceptions, there is only one possibility and that is to formally exclude ordinary-perception information flow. In a sense, these anecdotes are more or less useless for this purpose except perhaps as an increased motivation to set up such monitoring.

And there we come to the other problem...I cannot conceive of such levels of monitoring as would actually be required, being either realistic or even humane, in a real life critical care or terminal care establishment. The Parnia study was a brave attempt, but I'm not convinced that you can force the hand of near death experiences in any case. The Parnia protocol, not that we have been privvy thus far to the elaborate details of how it was carried out, could only furnish formal information flow concerning the targets, not other things that people may or may not have noticed in their environment, that was not under formal information flow. If the experience declines to be forced into that compliance, then we are back exactly where we were at the start (and I think that is pretty likely).

I guess this is my main problem with the question of how we attempt to resolve this matter. I don't *in practical terms* see how it can be resolved. An endless tennis match between those who believe that the socially-carried OR tale has an entitlement (in the age of entitlement) to be considered "fact" and the rest of us demanding a level of monitoring that realistically is impractical in any non-hypothetical care facility, is not something that is ripe for being resolved. Perhaps I am being harsh, but this seems to me the problem in its essence.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
That comment Paul is classical Anagnostopoulos-opotamus talk. What do you mean someone could have said ...what someone ? someone who was in the OR who thought the patient needed to know who was trying to contact Rudy during the op ? So he went in and said "Did you see the post its, fellar ? ...Oh no I shouldn't have asked that...now I guess you're going to weave that in to your confabulation that I suspect you are currently confabulating.
Someone could have said it any time during the next few days, while the story was cooking. Why are you assuming everything had to happen in the OR?

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
I'm not. What are you assuming ?
It seemed you were assuming everything had to happen in the OR when you said "... someone who was in the OR who thought the patient needed to know who was trying to contact Rudy during the op ? So he went in and said "Did you see the post its, fellar ?" My apologies if you were not.

~~ Paul
 
Nonetheless, the mind has extensive, lifelong experience at constructing fantasy material inwoven with reality, because it does it every night in dreams. Our ability to do this goes back tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years.

What it could not weave in this way by ordinary means is clearly experiences or perceptions that could not possibly be obtained. If pathways still exist for these perceptions to be obtained by ordinary means, then this is always going to be a fatal flaw in wider acceptance of these anecdotes *(not withstanding a societal revolution in which anecdote once more takes precedence over evidence in all things...which, while not impossible, doesn't seem likely...and even if that did occur, it would not make things *true*..only more staunchly believed true).

So if we really want to know what is true about these perceptions, there is only one possibility and that is to formally exclude ordinary-perception information flow. In a sense, these anecdotes are more or less useless for this purpose except perhaps as an increased motivation to set up such monitoring.

And there we come to the other problem...I cannot conceive of such levels of monitoring as would actually be required, being either realistic or even humane, in a real life critical care or terminal care establishment. The Parnia study was a brave attempt, but I'm not convinced that you can force the hand of near death experiences in any case. The Parnia protocol, not that we have been privvy thus far to the elaborate details of how it was carried out, could only furnish formal information flow concerning the targets, not other things that people may or may not have noticed in their environment, that was not under formal information flow. If the experience declines to be forced into that compliance, then we are back exactly where we were at the start (and I think that is pretty likely).

I guess this is my main problem with the question of how we attempt to resolve this matter. I don't *in practical terms* see how it can be resolved. An endless tennis match between those who believe that the socially-carried OR tale has an entitlement (in the age of entitlement) to be considered "fact" and the rest of us demanding a level of monitoring that realistically is impractical in any non-hypothetical care facility, is not something that is ripe for being resolved. Perhaps I am being harsh, but this seems to me the problem in its essence.
I don't share your view, Kai. I'm very positive that the conclusive proof will be caught.
 
It seemed you were assuming everything had to happen in the OR when you said "... someone who was in the OR who thought the patient needed to know who was trying to contact Rudy during the op ? So he went in and said "Did you see the post its, fellar ?" My apologies if you were not.

~~ Paul
No I thought you were assuming that the patient had been cued the info and built it into his NDE
 
No, you're not unreasonable, never :)....... The primary source is Spetzler and Karl Greene and the team who interviewed her straight away but the interview was not "have you had an NDE?" she just came out with it.
The primary source would be the transcripts or recordings from blinded interviews of Pam Reynolds. And the primary source for the events in the OR would be the operative report, recordings or transcripts of Spetzler's clarifications on any of the details in that report preferably while he was still blind to what Pam said, and his publications on the procedures used in the operation.

Linda
 
I'm still confused I'm afraid, I don't understand what you are trying to say... Lol... I'll go through this again, and perhaps you can explain in a longer version what you are trying to get over to me. At #224 you said:

"...None of the "veridical" elements of this case which Sartori lists as remarkable in her book (watching the doctor shine a pupil torch in his eyes, watching Penny clean his mouth and then put something long and pink into his mouth, watching the physiotherapist poke her head around the curtain looking very worried) are in the documentation..."

As I've understood it, you are stating that these 3 examples of veridical elements are not in the documentation. By '...documentation...', I am assuming you mean the transcripts.
Yes.

I made a mistake including the second statement - "watching Penny clean his mouth and then put something long and pink into his mouth" - mostly because I don't really think anyone regards it as important and any discrepancies seem trivial.

It's mostly the third statement, and to a lesser degree the first statement, which are held up as remarkable, which I have concerns about.

But I don't understand how you justify your statement in the light of these quotes from patient 10...

"...I could see everybody panicking around me. The blonde lady therapist boss, she was panicking; she looked nervous because she was the one who got me out in the chair. She hid behind the curtains, but kept poking her head around to check on me. I could also see Penny, who was a nurse. She was drawing something out of my mouth, which looked to me like a long, pink lollipop, like a long, pink thing on a stick – I didn’t even know what that was..."

"...I was speaking to Penny a couple of days afterwards and Penny asked me would I tell her what had happened - so I have. But anyway, I told Penny that I saw something pink coming out of my mouth. Eventually Penny said it wasn't anything pink, it was a mouthwash ... pink sponges to wash my mouth out."

"...the only words I heard were the doctors saying "There's life back in the eye..."

"... I heard voices down below but couldn't make out what they were saying. Only thing is life, something about my eye, life there ... I don't know what he meant by that..."

"...the only thing I know is the doctor said there's life in the eye..."

"...You were there Penny and two doctors. Always sticks in my mind, the doctor wearing the pink shirt. When he came onto the ward you could hear him coming from a mile away, a young boy with studs on his shoes, could see him plain. But you with the lollipop, sponge yes like a mouthwash. [Penny: I can remember doing that but at the time you were completely unconscious and your eyes were closed.] Well I could see that, as plain as I can see you now. [Penny: Did you hear me say I was going to clean your mouth.] No, I didn't hear anything. I was just looking back and could see you doing something with my mouth and seeing this long pink..."

"...I was still going up in the air, I could feel somebody going like this to my eye (puts his finger up to his eye). I eventually looked back and I could see one of the doctors pulling my eye, what for I don't know. Then I saw Penny the nurse drawing a little lollipop out of my mouth like a long pink thing on a stick - I didn't even know what that was..."

"...I told Penny I saw her taking something out of my mouth like a lollipop. Eventually, Penny told me it was a stick for wiping the mouth, like a moisture stick. That to me up there was huge but they're only about an inch square..."

"...I look back where I could feel somebody going like that (touches his eye). That made me look back. What you said about pressing my sternum, I didn't know anything about that. I turned back when the doctor touched my eye, I looked down and could see what was going on. You doing things to my mouth..."

"...I saw people around me. You taking something out of my mouth, around my lips..."​
It is stated in the paper that those quotes come from the transcripts of the interviews. And one can find all of the quotes in the transcripts, except the bolded statements about the physiotherapist. As you are aware, those quotes do not appear in the transcripts. As for the first statement, could you highlight for me what you quoted which you think represents "watching the doctor shine a pupil torch in his eyes" and "the patient correctly identified the consultant as having shone the light in his eyes", as I don't see that in what you provided (or in the quotes I provided in post 245 which cover everything said in the interviews, by the patient, about the doctor and his eye)?

Linda
 
Last edited:
The primary source would be the transcripts or recordings from blinded interviews of Pam Reynolds. And the primary source for the events in the OR would be the operative report, recordings or transcripts of Spetzler's clarifications on any of the details in that report preferably while he was still blind to what Pam said, and his publications on the procedures used in the operation.

Linda
The primary source would be the transcripts or recordings from blinded interviews of Pam Reynolds

Yes, Linda ..that is if you are in the business of pseudo-scepticism...you're not, are you ?? That is.. if you don't trust "your" fellow medical professionals to be able to make an accurate judgement on what occurred when, in the Barrow Institute.....then,,,,.

If you had been the director of the team in the OR at Reynolds surgery....or you if you had been the assistant surgeon ,,,,,,you would have come to a different conclusion, would you ?

On what basis would that be ? I've told you what Dr Spetzler has said......presumably you ( Doctor Linda with an amazing amount of spare time on her hands) would have said something different .... like ....lets ignore what she said... it's not possible, I'm a materialist and.. *I*.. do.. NOT.. want.. this.. to.. get.. out . GOT IT !!!
 
Last edited:
The primary source would be the transcripts or recordings from blinded interviews of Pam Reynolds

Yes, Linda ..that is if you are in the business of pseudo-scepticism...you're not, are you ??
I'm sorry, but I don't get this. Are you suggesting that anyone who is interested in reading the interviews of Pam Reynolds is a pseudoskeptic?

That is.. if you don't trust "your" fellow medical professionals to be able to make an accurate judgement on what occurred when, in the Barrow Institute.....then,,,,.

If you had been the director of the team in the OR at Reynolds surgery....or you if you had been the assistant surgeon ,,,,,,you would have come to a different conclusion, would you ?
Like I said, I'm not particularly interested in figuring out who may or may not be making an accurate or inaccurate third-hand report. There's no good way to find out if my conclusion is valid, unless it can be compared to the primary source. I'd rather skip all that and just look at the primary sources from the get go.

On what basis would that be ? I've told you what Dr Spetzler has said......
Right. You told me he said something which a) was contradicted by what Smithy said he said, b) doesn't make sense in light of how the operation usually proceeds per Spetzler's published reports on the operation, and c) is contradicted by Sabom's summary of the operative report. Something is wrong. In that case, is it really so unreasonable for me to try to figure out what is or isn't wrong?

Linda
 
Top