94. Dr. Jeffrey Long?s Near-Death Experience Research a ?Game Changer? for Science (P

[Open Mind]

Enjoyed listening.... I just hope he is not overselling his level of evidence .... 98% 'realistic' doesn't actually mean 98% accurate.

While it is natural for scientists like Jeffrey Long to want to let the public know that the evidence for NDEs, psi, etc. is better than the skeptical movement is willing to admit.... presenting figures in their more impressive form could backfire .... it is a gift to how professional skeptics work. Anything overstated becomes the focus of attack in skeptic articles and the harder to debunk information gets ignored. The casual reader of the skeptic article then gets the impression of no evidence or researcher incompetence, even if the lower level of evidence is still there after the skeptic's hatchet job.

I look forward to reading his book.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Enjoyed listening.... I just hope he is not overselling his level of evidence .... 98% 'realistic' doesn't actually mean 98% accurate.

While it is natural for scientists like Jeffrey Long to want to let the public know that the evidence for NDEs, psi, etc. is better than the skeptical movement is willing to admit.... presenting figures in their more impressive form could backfire .... it is a gift to how professional skeptics work. Anything overstated becomes the focus of attack in skeptic articles and the harder to debunk information gets ignored. The casual reader of the skeptic article then gets the impression of no evidence or researcher incompetence, even if the lower level of evidence is still there after the skeptic's hatchet job.

I look forward to reading his book.

Interesting that your point is predicated on their being an irrational skeptical community uninterested in the truth, ruthless in pushing their own agenda regardless of the facts.

Moreover, I don't think pandering to the silliness of the skeptical explanation for NDE gets us very far.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Interesting that your point is predicated on their being an irrational skeptical community uninterested in the truth, ruthless in pushing their own agenda regardless of the facts.

They simply KNOW it must be wrong - no question of really thinking about the evidence. The same mindset as we might be if a kid came along and said,

"You know not all glues are the same, I have found a great one that I can sniff for a high, and it does me no harm at all!"

It is interesting that one well known skeptic, Michael Shermer used to be a fundamentalist Christian - I guess some people hate doubt!

David

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Does anyone have a citation for this?

It's Janice Holden's chapter in The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

They simply KNOW it must be wrong - no question of really thinking about the evidence.

I don't KNOW it must be wrong, although perhaps it makes you feel better to keep repeating this. What I do know is that a bunch of stories posted on the Internet is not evidence and yet this book is being touted as the greatest thing ever, as game-changing, as dealing a kill-shot to skeptics. What's up with this? Is it actually better evidence than all the NDE studies up to now? Because the hype sure is off the charts.

Really, when I start reading this in the next couple of days, there had better be real evidence. Or that kill-shot is going to have bounced back to the shooter.

~~ Paul

[Danny_D]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Really, when I start reading this in the next couple of days, there had better be real evidence. Or that kill-shot is going to have bounced back to the shooter.

~~ Paul

Paul, I'm quite sure theres no new ground braking evidence, not the kind your looking for. I doubt such evidence even exists that would make a skeptic think twice about the real possibility of an after life. Even a personal experience would be dismissed as a hallusination in most cases.

[P_Synthesis]

Originally Posted by Danny_D

Even a personal experience would be dismissed as a hallusination in most cases.

Oh, have there been cases of that?

[Danny_D]

Originally Posted by P_Synthesis

Oh, have there been cases of that?

One that comes to mind is Susan Blackmore. When she was younger she had a OBE and is convinced that it was an hallucination induced by cannabis.

[P_Synthesis]

Yeah that's why I'm trying to get Miguel to OBE consciously. If you can self-initiate it in normal consciousness I think it changes things a little.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Interesting that your point is predicated on their being an irrational skeptical community uninterested in the truth, ruthless in pushing their own agenda regardless of the facts.

I think there is difference between a free thinking skeptic (who has doubt) and organized skepticism which seems to function like organized disbelief. A lot of confident people in a group doesn't make them right.

I think Marcello Truzzi summed it up well ....

' .. This is the main attitude of the orthodox scientific community towards anomaly claims. It is characterized by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). "Whatever is claimed is nothing but ... something else." Seemingly anomalous phenomena are denied first and sometimes investigated only second...... the debunker is not concerned with the full explanation.... the debunkers don't need them as they believe they already have them. ...' 'Marcello Truzzi

Moreover, I don't think pandering to the silliness of the skeptical explanation for NDE gets us very far.

Probably, as it seems in interview that Jeffrey Long is up for debates on the matter with others. Good.