Physician Turned Podcaster Skeptical of NDE (Podcast)

[mcromer]

"Too many working in parapsychology fail to meet that claim."

Who? Give specific examples from their research.

[Troy]

Originally Posted by Yafi

It's not evidence - it's a book by someone who wants to sell books. If there were any real, replicable-in-a-lab results, scientists would be all over it trying it for themselves. The fact that this isn't happening tells me all I need to know and it *should* be raising red flags with you, but it won't because you swallow it all without a thought. Have you ever seen the evidence for yourself (and I don't mean reading what someone else *says* they saw in a book)? Doesn't the lack of solid evidence trigger any kind of curiosity in you about *why* there's no solid evidence?

The only thing this statement tells me is that you haven't investigated any of the evidence and do not intend to do so. We've pointed you in the direction of further resources. If you refuse to look into them that's your prerogative, but please don't be offended when we ignore your arrogant, ill-informed remarks.

BTW, the authors of IM are giving all profits accrued from book sales to the Esalen Institute, so your claim that they wrote the book solely for personal profit is false.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Really i didn't know that, that really tells you something about the kind of people they are.

[pacificwhim]

Yafi, I'm not going to attack you like some people are doing. To me that's counter to the ethics of any forum. I will say that your position that you will not read any book that you have decided a priori is not worth reading is counter to scientific thinking. No one knows what they will find in a book before they read it, just as they don't know what they will find in an experiment.

However, I have read Irreducible Mind. Cover to cover. It was a slog. This is not a "popular" book. It's 800 pages of dense, scholarly prose that is basically catalog of every theory and every experimental and well-documented anecdotal (usually reports from doctors and researchers on live patients or subjects) bit of evidence for the theory that the brain is not the sole source of the mind: medical evidence, physics, psi research, memory research, psychology, and on and on. It's not layperson speculation. I'm a journalist, not a scientist, but I'm well versed in scientific writing and I had to read some sections two or three times to fully grasp the implications of what the authors were saying, esp. in the areas related to deep psychological theory.

I would suggest that you read this book if for no other reason than to familiarize yourself with the latest science in this area. I think you'll agree that by any standard, it's a rigorous, honest piece of work. Yes, the authors have an agenda, but so does any scientist. They are hardly evangelists and are honest about the fact that their work proves nothing. Any true scientist knows that proof really doesn't exist.