Mod+ 269. DR. MICHAEL SHERMER, SKEPTICAL SCIENCE REPORTING

Bleh. This guy is hardcore. No opening a mind that is closed shut like a virgin clam. You might as well try arguing with some bible thumping evangelist that the Old Testament was written by human beings, not God. You'll get nowhere.

There are no droids here. Move along.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Alex's complicated question at the end of the interview, which I hope I've summarised correctly:

In Dr. Shermer's article Demon Haunted Brain, published in the March 2003 edition of Scientific American, he reported on Dr. Pim van Lommel's extensive research that led him to the conclusion that a conventional explanation for NDEs was not possible. Dr. Shermer, however, said that Pim van Lommel's research delivered a blow to the idea that mind and brain could be separate.

Do you think that kind of science reporting crosses the line, or do you agree with Dr. Shermer that it was just his analysis of the discussion section?


[In Alex's opinion, it was way over the line, rather like reporting that Dr. Shermer's book, The Moral Arc, delivers a blow against the idea that religion hasn't played a role in defining our moral character as a country, because he cites religious leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King.

He does that, true enough, but concludes exactly the opposite: Dr. King's religiosity isn't important, but rather his reason and logic. Alex believes he has an obligation to point out that, despite quoting evidence from Dr. Shermer's book, the conclusion he'd be drawing about the latter's opinion would be incorrect.

The larger question is: why does Dr. Shermer care so much about NDEs? His strongest points are against religious orthodoxy, as if being sceptical about that somehow negates the spiritual significance of NDEs.]

My thoughts are:
1- It is perfectly reasonable for Dr Shermer to reinterpret Van Lommel's data. It is done all the time in science. I imagine when Copernicus did his work on heliocentrism he used prior experimental data which fit nicely with the bizarre mathematical machinations needed to explain retrograde motion of the planets. In this case Shermer used data which he saw as valid but argued against the interpretation of it.

I see nothing at all wrong with this approach. Would it be "nice" if he was more open about the original author's conclusions? Yes. But really, who cares?

2- I was "shocked,, shocked" to find that Alex's neuroplasticity argument didn't work on a scientist with a functioning intellect... : ) Of course it didn't work. If it did, I would seriously question Shermer's stature as a skeptic.

3- The real flaw in Shermer's argument comes when he dismisses end of life lucidity by saying, it's doesn't happen to everyone.. ?? What? That's one of the only truly stupid things said in this interview. It brings to mind the story from the video series about Dr Stevenson (of reincarnation study fame). The commentator said something like- imagine 100 people jumping off the empire state building, and 95 of them meeting the end that we would expect. Curiously though, 5 of them landed and walked away, unharmed. In this case, the interesting thing isn't that 95 of the people perished as expected, it is those 5 with wildly unexpected results that should get our full attention.

The fact that Dr Shermer can dismiss the very evidence that he says does not exist, is proof to me of either his disingenuous nature, or of his inability to see the limitations imposed by his own belief system. I have no basis to claim the former or the latter, but in either case, he is demonstrating his lack of a commitment to "follow the data". Which is the same as a lack of real commitment to the scientific method, which, to me, disqualifies him from being taken seriously at all.
 
Last edited:
And I am reminded of the time I didn't want to get out of the pool so kept diving under the water when my mom tried telling me that it was time to go home.
The problem is that you eventually need to come up for air.
Disagreement with my position is fine.
Calling me a liar is childish and churlish.
PS. Your pants are on fire.
Sorry, I suppose I wasn't clear. I wasn't calling you a liar. I'm sure that you sincerely believe that there is no materialist belief system. That is because you are embedded in it, like a fish in water. I've been there, it's OK.

So no, I don't agree with your position, but I have no problem with you holding it. I would love to see a diversity of opinions, even if they disagree with me. I'm just not a fan of preaching. You may think of Shermer as a scientist, but when's the last time he published a scientific paper? I think he's a preacher. Did you ever consider that some of the people you are arguing with may be actual scientists?

So when you read Shermer's book, do you just accept it because it wears the shroud of science, or do you apply the same "critical thinking" to it as well? I would argue your skepticism appears to only be aimed in one direction. Skeptics have their own brand of dogma to promote, and if you want the truth, you'll have to cut through that layer of BS too. It's hard to see when you're inside it.

Me? I'm just a simple agnostic. I don't claim to know much of anything. And I'm OK with that. I think it's closer to the truth. The only things I promote are humility and curiosity. Don't settle for easy answers...

Anyway, I've said enough... Carry on with your crusade.
 
, you should immediately apply to the James Randi educational foundation and get you that million bucks they are offering to anyone who can prove a claim like that.
Cash money, in your pocket.
rotfl
My interest in magical entertainment is limited. I take it you are not a researcher and are ready for the ignore list.
 
JKMac writes:
My thoughts are:

1. Shermer mischaracterized Van Lommel's data in a fashion that was deliberately misleading to those reading his article. He made it appear Van Lommel supported his Skeptical position when in actuality, Lommel came to a 180 degree different conclusion. Note, there is a difference between "reinterpreting" someone's scientific conclusions, and deliberately "mischaracterizing" someone's scientific conclusions.

2. As far as I know, Michael Shermer is not a scientist. He is a historian. In fact, the Skeptic's society which he directs is not even a scientific organization, and in the past, has forbidden its members to conduct science in psi.

3. Yes, I would agree there is a dearth of critical thinking in Skeptics like Michael Shermer. From my experience so far in engaging with Skeptics on this Skeptico board, I have found usually a very poor knowledge base regarding the scientific research in psi (and ndes) that they denigrate, and a repetitive parroting of Skeptical talking points that apparently they read off of some RationalWiki website - like it was the biblical truth (and I suppose to them, it is their bible).

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
"Jung...always used such care not to go beyond the demonstrable empirical facts."
~Edward Edinger, Jungian analyst

Somewhat related quote ...

My Best,
Bertha
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
My thoughts are:
1- It is perfectly reasonable for Dr Shermer to reinterpret Van Lommel's data. It is done all the time in science. I imagine when Copernicus did his work on heliocentrism he used prior experimental data which fit nicely with the bizarre mathematical machinations needed to explain retrograde motion of the planets. In this case Shermer used data which he saw as valid but argued against the interpretation of it. I see nothing at all wrong with this approach.
You point is quite valid, however your application to M. Shermer is not; and therefore very misleading. Copernicus's reinterpretation of the data was structured and defined mathematically!! Its resultant output of a model was based on data from objective physical relations that are computationally sound. The new model of Copernicus today stands as a generally true, mathematically defined, structure and can be adapted to new empirical data to improve its ability to predict. Epicycles were based on effects and not on direct measurement. It was his empirical measurements that made his well-formed data so strong. It was his advanced math (for the time) that made his analysis definitive.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/
Yet the widespread [planetary theories], advanced by Ptolemy and most other [astronomers], although consistent with the numerical [data], seemed likewise to present no small difficulty. For these theories were not adequate unless they also conceived certain equalizing circles, which made the planet appear to move at all times with uniform velocity neither on its deferent sphere nor about its own [epicycle's] center…Therefore, having become aware of these [defects], I often considered whether there could perhaps be found a more reasonable arrangement of circles, from which every apparent irregularity would be derived while everything in itself would move uniformly, as is required by the rule of perfect motion. (MW81).

Did M. Shermer offer anything of a process model for his "new" conclusion? If not - its nothing more than personal opinion.
 
I think this OT/NT stuff is a modern day invention... one more subtle way we cling to this religious craziness:

We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God’s Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And his testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).

http://www.bethinking.org/bible/q-how-did-jesus-view-the-old-testament

If you believe the Gospels are invention, how do you know that statements such as that weren't interpolated by those wishing to reconcile the OT and NT? But still, where did the beatitudes come from? Doesn't matter whether or not they came from Jesus, they came from someone, at around or just after the putative death of Jesus. Someone at that time was introducing a quantum leap in morality, the whole ethos of "do unto others...".
 
The scientific method works....
You might see my demand for things like 'objectivie' and 'reproducible'

Shermer made the same assertion about reproducibility. Essentially he said that "I'll believe it when I can reproduce it".

I hear this a lot from those who have bet everything on science. And I understand such thinking as that's where I was 10 years ago, until for some inexplicable reason, I decided to take a look at the actual data...

Is it really about being reproducible?

OK- so what happens when you have a impermeable barrier which requires X electron volts to cross, and it is subjected to a population of electrons which ALL have a lower charge than X? Well,,, 99.99999... % of the time, nothing happens. But every once in a while, inexplicably one crosses the barrier. It doesn't conform to Newtonian science and it happens only maybe once in a trillion attempts. But it is the basis of semiconductor technology: electron tunneling.

This impossible action happens with very low probability but it is significant and can be reproduced in the right conditions but only at very low frequency. And now of course we have explained it with quantum theory.

Various "Psi" phenomena certainly are reproducible within limits (unfortunately in many cases at very low rates that can only be detected with statistical methods) and your suggestion to the contrary only serves to highlight the fact that you haven't taken the time to objectively look at the available data, which is voluminous.
 
You point is quite valid, however your application to M. Shermer is not; and therefore very misleading.

Yikes- a whole lot of arm waving here that may or may not be valid. My point was simply that- people use other people's data all the time. There is nothing wrong with this on it's face. If you don't like my particular analogy then ignore it. It is not relevant to the case...

I am not making any claims about the validity of Shermer's conclusions. Which is I think where you have problems.... OTOH- Alex contends it is unprofessional and maybe immoral to not provide attribution. That may be true also,,, but I don't see that as a reason to get too worked up. And it certainly does nothing to support or refute either person's argument about the conclusions.
 
JKMac writes:


1. Shermer mischaracterized Van Lommel's data in a fashion that was deliberately misleading to those reading his article. He made it appear Van Lommel supported his Skeptical position when in actuality, Lommel came to a 180 degree different conclusion. Note, there is a difference between "reinterpreting" someone's scientific conclusions, and deliberately "mischaracterizing" someone's scientific conclusions.

I haven't read Shermer's piece but if this is the case, I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks for clarifying...
[/quote]


2. As far as I know, Michael Shermer is not a scientist. He is a historian. In fact, the Skeptic's society which he directs is not even a scientific organization, and in the past, has forbidden its members to conduct science in psi.

My bad. Thought he was a working scientist.
 
I actually read the book and was looking forward to hearing an interview with Michael Shermer.
It was almost 10 minutes before I realized that the name of the podcast was in error, there is a decided lack of critical thinking going on in the mind of the host.
When I heard Alex let the words "Cosmic Consciousness" out of his mouth I busted out laughing, I thought it was a prank!
Sadly, further listening didn't help his credibility. Believing in things like NDE, cosmic consciousness, and the concept that "religion has been good for society, mostly" are not based on facts. They are wishful thinking. Self-deception and trying to pull a blue blanket over your head might make you feel more comfortable, but they do not lead you to an honest and fulfilled existence.

LOL...what a hoot. What are you doing here Richard :)
Welcome anyway.
 
A non-conscious insentient meaningless universe designing conscious sentient meaning-creating human beings…sorry biological machines..???

A non-conscious insentient meaningless molecule designing a conscious sentient meaning-creating human being as a mechanism to propagate itself…???

A conscious meaning-creating human being declaring itself to be designed by a non-conscious meaningless molecule as a propagation machine for the molecule...???

Does any of this make any sense to anyone?
 
Last edited:
The whole religious evolution argument is a red herring.
He is right about it, as far as it goes, but it does not mean we are robots designed by insentient meaningless molecules....even quantum molecules!!
Quantum mechanics is not the way to go imo
 
Last edited:
People like Shermer and Dawkins and Krauss are performing a tremendous service to people like Alex and all of us
who don't buy into the radical system of postmodern reductive scientism.

The more reasonable among them, like Shermer, at least try to make rational arguments in favor of their reductive system
and thereby they demand we make a more radical critique of their system and their arguments
We have to present better accounts of the possibilities we perceive in the data....all the data!

Remember, they have to discount and/or ignore lots of data to maintain their system...which I regard as a belief system

Let's not be believers too.
Belief does not make truth.
Nor does it make good arguments.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read Shermer's piece but if this is the case, I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks for clarifying...

What Shermer did was quite sloppy. That sort of thing tends to snowball if you get more than one sloppy researcher who just repeats what the original sloppy researcher says instead of reading the primary reference material. Pretty soon all sorts of sloppy skeptics will find themselves looking silly when they mischaracterize van Lommel's interpretation of his own research.

Oh wait! Perhaps that's already happened...

http://www.skeptiko.com/237-patricia-churchland-sandbagged-by-near-death-experience/
 
Last edited:
BTW, the appeal to the MDC shows what a rookie you are. It isn't a scientific challenge. If anything, it spits in the face of good scientific protocols. A one-off demonstration isn't good science. It isn't proof of anything (proof only applies to math and alcohol). Could you demonstrate that aspirin helps to prevent heart attacks in such a way? Of course not. JREF is not a scientific organization. It's a fan club.

It's also quite effective. Prove that any of this pseudo-science is effective or real and you get a million bucks. Special bonus prize, you get to wave that in the face of people like me.

The Parapsychological Association is an example of a scientifically based organization. It is an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and endorses no ideologies or beliefs other than the value of rigorous scientific and scholarly inquiry.
2.5 hours of my life just disappeared in this, because I wanted to give you every benefit of the doubt. With that extra benefit and even squinting real hard, I couldn't find anything credible. I found people with PhD's (quite a few OB/GYN doctors, oddly enough. what's up with that?) in fields unrelated to what they claim to be researching. Lots of announcements for the beginnings of studies of which, few seem to be completed. Or, if they are completed, can't come up with anything more than a statistical blip or a result of 'inconclusive'.
I found what looks a WHOLE LOT like the kind of argumentation I associate with homeopathy, acupuncture, crystal healing and reiki healing.

The fact that the organization is associated with the AAAS is only a twig of respectability. Just finding a place where 'parapsychology' is found on the same list as 'paleontology' does not make an organization less of a joke.

edit: The 'less of a joke' thing is pretty harsh. I do not doubt that many of the researchers working in this field were sincere in their efforts to uncover truth and discover new things. Unfortunately, they just happened to choose a dead end. If there was something there, 40 years should have been enough time to produce SOMETHING, right?
 
Last edited:
Shermer made the same assertion about reproducibility. Essentially he said that "I'll believe it when I can reproduce it".

I hear this a lot from those who have bet everything on science. And I understand such thinking as that's where I was 10 years ago, until for some inexplicable reason, I decided to take a look at the actual data...

Is it really about being reproducible?
Yes.

OK- so what happens when you have a impermeable barrier which requires X electron volts to cross, and it is subjected to a population of electrons which ALL have a lower charge than X? Well,,, 99.99999... % of the time, nothing happens. But every once in a while, inexplicably one crosses the barrier. It doesn't conform to Newtonian science and it happens only maybe once in a trillion attempts. But it is the basis of semiconductor technology: electron tunneling.

This impossible action happens with very low probability but it is significant and can be reproduced in the right conditions but only at very low frequency. And now of course we have explained it with quantum theory.

Various "Psi" phenomena certainly are reproducible within limits (unfortunately in many cases at very low rates that can only be detected with statistical methods) and your suggestion to the contrary only serves to highlight the fact that you haven't taken the time to objectively look at the available data, which is voluminous.
I have taken the time to look objectively at the available data, thanks to the encouragement of the other respondents in this forum.
"Voluminous" Your logical fallacy is . . . 'Bandwagon'
Congratulations! Quoting from the 'yourlogicalfallacyis' web site: "The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity".

Wait . . . I'm sensing something, maybe I'm reading your mind. You think I'm just going along with what everyone else is thinking and this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black! But I respond with a preponderance of evidence.
Is it really about being reproducible? YES
Because that is one of the the tests for objective reality that science has shown works for uncovering real information.

All of the results of parapsychology research come down to this, nothing but a few un-reproducible statistical anomalies.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top