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.]