103. Near-Death Experience Research ? Do Science Journalists Get it Wrong? (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Click here to read more ...

[paqart]

It would have been nice if your guest had answered your central question, "Do science journalists get it wrong?" My impression is that he was coasting over your questions without saying much of anything, just as one might expect from a relative who doesn't want to "make waves" within the family.

His question to you, "You wouldn't happen to be a creationist?" was revealing, for it showed how he discussed this issue with you based on association as opposed to source data. If he'd asked me, I would have said "yes" but because that is where the data leads, as opposed to a successful brainwashing job at the local church (which I didn't attend until long after coming to my present opinion regarding how the universe was made.)

The unfortunate thing about this guest is that his area of expertise is journalism, but he spoke much less about that than he spent listening to your questions and then making some nice noises without saying anything substantial. What stuck out the most to me in the interview were his mentions of his book about fear and then the question to you about Creationism. The rest of it felt like he was a friendly boy scout helping a cranky old lady across the street.

AP

[porker]

paqart, I've just read the transcript and I'm going to disagree slightly, in that I thought it was both a well argued (as generally usual) piece from Alex, but also that Mr Wise seemed both slightly supportive and in general agreement with the thesis that pop-sci and pop-psi are in complete mis-alignment (as I am afraid they should be at the moment...)

Also, I'm going to call you on the suggestion that ... the data leads us to a creationist viewpoint... Does it? (or did I misunderstand your comment?)

Edited to remove suspect "argument from authority"

[FastEddieB]

"You wouldn't happen to be a creationist?" was revealing, for it showed how he discussed this issue with you based on association as opposed to source data. If he'd asked me, I would have said "yes" but because that is where the data leads...

I refuse to be drawn into a debate on evolution/creation, but I have to know...

...in your world view, do you really think that of all the data known to science, this actually leads to creationism?

[alextsakiris]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Dr. Bruce Greyson was nice enough to answer some question I had about the CO2/NDE research:

Alex,

The authors of that recent study from Slovenia studied several physiological variables, and found two significantly differentiated those who had NDEs. However, if they had corrected their statistics for multiple simultaneous univariate tests, none of the differences would have been significant. In other words, if your criterion for significance is .05, as was true in this study, then you would expect 1 out of every 20 variables tested to be statistically significant just by chance alone. So when we test many variables at once, we include a statistical correction for that, essentially using a stricter criterion for significance than .05. The Slovenian authors did not do that. That does not invalidate their work; it just means that the odds that they achieved their findings just by chance were greater than we would usually demand for a published study.

There are more important questions about their study, however. Their main conclusion was that high carbon dioxide levels in the blood were associated with a very slightly higher incidence of NDEs. If this very slight effect means that carbon dioxide causes NDEs, then why did the majority of patients with high carbon dioxide levels still not report NDEs?

Furthermore, as the study authors themselves noted, high carbon dioxide levels are an indication of better cardiac output and perfusion, which would result in less of the usual amnesia for the cardiac arrest. In other words, high carbon dioxide is a biological marker for a better memory for the cardiac arrest. Thus, the association between high carbon dioxide levels and more NDEs may mean nothing more than that patients who remember more of their cardiac arrest also report more NDEs.

In fairness to the authors of this study, they did not write that high carbon dioxide caused NDEs, but only that they might contribute to NDEs; and they concluded that NDEs could not be explained only in terms of physiological processes and that NDEs push our knowledge of consciousness and mind-brain relations "to the edge of our understanding."

[paqart]

Originally Posted by porker

paqart, I've just read the transcript and I'm going to disagree slightly, in that I thought it was both a well argued (as generally usual) piece from Alex, but also that Mr Wise seemed both slightly supportive and in general agreement with the thesis that pop-sci and pop-psi are in complete mis-alignment (as I am afraid they should be at the moment...)

I don't think he ever answered this question that is the title of this thread, though now that I think of it, Alex may not have asked the question as directly as that in the podcast itself. Wise's generally supportive comments, from my perspective, were not actually supportive. I had the impression that he was following wherever Alex chose to lead, taking care not to upset him, but without revealing his own positions on the primary theme, Science journalism.

Also, I'm going to call you on the suggestion that ... the data leads us to a creationist viewpoint... Does it? (or did I misunderstand your comment?)

I could have been clearer about this. I do think there is plenty to recommend a Creationist position contained within various types of research, but my definition of "Creationism" or "Creationist" may differ from yours. I say that because of the following statement of yours:

I am only a humble former student of Geology and Physics and to my recollection that's somewhat far from the case.

This makes me think that you link "Creationism" with young Earth theories, which is not something that I have an opinion on. For me, what is relevant is whether the physical universe is created, not when. Also, added to the label "Creationism" are quite a few beliefs based on religious dogma that I don't necessarily buy either. What I do buy is that the universe is created by God, and I do think there is far more ample evidence of this than there is for other theories, including ones relevant and in opposition to this very topic.

Having said all this, if you look back at my post, you'll see I was speaking for myself, as opposed to making a general statement. I think it is true, and sometimes wonder why anyone could possibly think otherwise, but regardless, I would have answered "Yes, because that is where the data leads" because that is how I feel about it.

If you are curious what data, it is from two primary sources, my observations of biological systems, and my own psychic experiences. The latter would probably be less comfortable for you to discuss here, though that is the primary topic on this forum, so I'll just mention a couple of things from a very long list of things that do not square, at least in my mind, with a mechanically evolved version of events:

1) How is a baby of any species going to appear without a parent?
2) How does a parent of any species appear without having been a baby first?
3) How does any specimen of either gender of any species, particularly first examples of these, come across the instinct to procreate?
4) Speaking of procreation, how does a mechanical non-intelligent process create binary reproduction? For this to work, a male and a female have to be created separately, and both of the same species and within reasonable proximity to each other in time and space, for the next examples of that species to appear.
5) Camouflage; how does an animal acquire protective coloring relative to the visual sensory apparatus of other animals? The relativity of camouflage is very important for it to succeed, so how is it that the outer covering of a creature, or its body shape, can mimic convincingly either what something that is either vegetable or mineral, single or collective, will look like to another creatures' eyes?
6) How can an organism of any variety evolve from a non-working state to a working one, when a non-working state would prevent further progress? I don't buy the idea that it can be partly non-working btw, for example, a gorilla without arms, but working reproductive organs. To get even to that stage requires such an advanced level of complex interrelationships during the biological construction process that it would never have gotten there without built-in design.

That's what comes to mind. I'll also point out that it isn't that I am unaware of modern thinking on this subject, I just disagree with it.

AP

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by paqart

It would have been nice if your guest had answered your central question, "Do science journalists get it wrong?" My impression is that he was coasting over your questions without saying much of anything, just as one might expect from a relative who doesn't want to "make waves" within the family.

His question to you, "You wouldn't happen to be a creationist?" was revealing, for it showed how he discussed this issue with you based on association as opposed to source data. If he'd asked me, I would have said "yes" but because that is where the data leads, as opposed to a successful brainwashing job at the local church (which I didn't attend until long after coming to my present opinion regarding how the universe was made.)

The unfortunate thing about this guest is that his area of expertise is journalism, but he spoke much less about that than he spent listening to your questions and then making some nice noises without saying anything substantial. What stuck out the most to me in the interview were his mentions of his book about fear and then the question to you about Creationism. The rest of it felt like he was a friendly boy scout helping a cranky old lady across the street.

AP

Yea, I was totally stunned by the creationist thing!?

[porker]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Yea, I was totally stunned by the creationist thing!?

Alex, I've only read the transcript, but was he perhaps heading in a different direction?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by FastEddieB

I refuse to be drawn into a debate on evolution/creation, but I have to know...

...in your world view, do you really think that of all the data known to science, this actually leads to creationism?

The thing that is absurd about creationism, is that it was conceived to distort scientific evidence to obtain evidence for one particular version of one particular religion! Do we need to waste time discussing it?

David

[porker]

paqart, it occurred to me that you might conclude a YE creationism, although that wasn't the intention, hence the redaction.

I may leave it to others to comment on your examples for the moment, i'm on CET and it's either bedtime or time to see what's going on in the UK...