192. Dr. Sam Harris on Parapsychology, Psi and the “Backwater” of Science (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Emails from Sam Harris reveal what he really thinks about parapsychology and Psi research.
Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for a discussion about his recent email correspondence with Dr. Sam Harris. During the discussion Harris’ opinions of Psi res[...]

Click here to read more ...

[alextsakiris]

Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM
To: Alex Tsakiris

Alex --


Please publish this in full:

I just listened to your podcast. Wow. I wasn't aware of who I was dealing with.

It is amazing to me that you would spin it this way. A few things you should realize:

1. The distinction between a neuroscientist and a neurosurgeon is real and important. Some neurosurgeons are also neuroscientists, of course (they have both MD's and PhD's), but this doesn't appear to be the case with Alexander. More important, he's not thinking like a neuroscientist (at all). The result is about as bad as it would be if I were handed a drill and scalpel and told to operate on a living person's brain.

2. The "science" that Alexander has bamboozled you with in his reply to my article is no more relevant to the case, or suggestive of his deep understanding of the problem, than the bit about "CT scans" was in his Newsweek piece.

3. I didn't have to read Alexander's book to be justifiably incensed by his Newsweek cover story -- I simply had to read the article. I was, above all, reacting to the fact that it was published as a cover story -- further destroying the reputation of a once important magazine. The article must stand on its own -- and Alexander published it because he thought it could. Judging from his response, he still thinks it does.

4. I'm not closed to the NDE phenomenon. As I said in my blog post, I'm not even closed to the possibility of brain-mind dualism. But extraordinary claims, as Sagan noted, require extraordinary evidence.

5. By relying on bad science in the way that you are -- and by labeling criticism of it as a symptom of "arrogance" or "atheist fundamentalism"-- you are actually doing a lot of harm to your cause. You apparently have no idea how foolish you sound in your most recent podcast. Unlike most of my fellow scientists and skeptics, I happen to be sympathetic to the aims of PSI research. But now, even I will have nothing to do with you. So, nice work. You just made the backwater of PSI even less accessible to serious people.

Sam



Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:31 PM
To: Sam Harris

Sam... I'm not exactly sure what you expect me to do with your reponse. I guess I could publish it with along with my commentary (maybe), or post it on our forum (probably)... but I really don't understand why you continue to shy away from a debate... moreover, your continued insistence that you own the only opinion that matters (i.e. there's nothing to debate) is not going to play well... I mean, whose gonna really buy that?

I will however drill into point 1 of your response. I think Alexander might have something to say about how his neuroscience qualifications stack up against yours.

Alex


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM
To: Alex Tsakiris

This isn't about credentials. Credentials are just a surrogate for what a person is likely to understand. If Alexander were making any sense, he wouldn't have to be a neuroscientist; he could be a philosopher--or a coal miner. The problem is, he's not making any sense. And that can, perhaps, be explained by the fact that he is a neurosurgeon and not a neuroscientist.

Of course mine is not the only opinion that matters. It's just that Alexander is making so many obvious errors in reasoning that his account, as published thus far, is ludicrously unscientific. Most neuroscientists in my circle thought it was beneath responding to.

The fact that you would interpret my stated reasons for not debating Alexander on your website as deceptive, and meant to conceal my fear, reveals something very unflattering about you. I may very well debate him at some point, when I have more time and his book has become a huge best seller and a huge embarrassment. But it won't be on your podcast.

Sam



Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM
To: Sam Harris

Sam... the one thing that continues to jump out at me from your emails is your lack of appreciation for NDE science. I mean, it's not like Eben Alexander is the first to report an NDE, or study the NDE literature. He's just the first neurosurgeon from Harvard Medical School to have one.

Have you even heard of folks like:

164. There is Nothing Paranormal About Near-Death Experiences, Dr. Jan Holden Disagrees
119. Dr. Pim van Lommel Transformed by Near-Death Experience Research
118. Dr. Jeffrey Long Responds to “NDEs are an Illusion”
90. EEG Expert Can’t Explain Near Death Experience Data… and, Dr. Penny Sartori Finds More Than Hallucinations in NDE Accounts
64. Near-Death Experience Research, Dr. Peter Fenwick

You need to get out of the Atheist-bubble and explore the considerable research on this amazing medical mystery.

Alex


Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM
To: Alex Tsakiris


Alex --

You are either very confused or being deliberately annoying--it is hard to tell by email. I'm familiar with the NDE literature--but all of it is irrelevant here. I'm responding to the case that Alexander has presented, and to his terribly obvious mistakes. I don't need to know anything about NDE science to know that a CT scan says nothing about brain activity. Alexander is simply not drawing reasonable scientific conclusions--and he has repeatedly made a big deal about scientific details (E. coli meningitis is rare!) that are totally irrelevant.

I'm not in an atheist bubble. I'm the one prominent atheist who has publicly argued that PSI research has been unfairly stigmatized. But the way you have treated this issue makes the stigma perfectly understandable.

Sam



Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:48 PM
To: Sam Harris

Sam... you say you're familiar with the NDE lit. how so? What have you read? Any of the researchers I cited? Have you ever cited any NDE studies in your writing? I don't think so.

Regarding relevance, even a rudimentary understand of the body of peer-reviewed NDE research should give you appreciation for the larger neurological questions surrounding NDEs ( e.g. how can experiencers who have a wide variety of conditions, and even those who experience no medical trauma, have similar hyper-lucid transformative experiences?). Dr. Alexander's account must be understood within the context of this work.

NDEs are one of the greatest medical mysteries of our time. The medical nature of the mystery is one of the reason Alexander is in a better position to speak authoritatively about what might be going on (unless you think your background trumps his in the area). It would serve you well to engage in the mystery rather than churn out more of the same atheistic party line talking points for your adoring fans.

Alex



Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM
To: Alex Tsakiris

So you are accusing me of lying -- again? Now I understand, Alex. You're actually a #$#% #$#%.

I'm done.

[alextsakiris]

Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM
From: Holden, Jan
To: Alex Tsakiris

Hi, Alex –

Thank you for your attempts to defend my stance. I like the way you worded your summaries of my stance. Here is my response; let me know if I’m not addressing the issue(s) from the Stenger interview. (And I think you already know all of this; I’m just reiterating to respond to Stenger’s comments.)

I want to begin by saying that I believe that from a purely scientific perspective, NDEs alone will never “prove” the survival of consciousness beyond physical death because such “proof” requires direct study of those who have survived physical death – and I’ve found them so far unwilling to participate in my research. The most NDE evidence can do is “narrow the gap in the leap of faith” about the survival of consciousness. Like Pim van Lommel, I believe that the weight of evidence will come from a convergence of evidence from research of many phenomena, including after-death communication and mediumship.

In my chapter in The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences, I analyzed extensive anecdotal evidence and found it overwhelmingly supportive of the accuracy of apparently non-physical veridical perception, and I described the five studies that researchers have undertaken so far to “capture” AVP in a controlled hospital environment but have failed to yield a single case. I quoted Ken Ring’s “tongue-in-cheek” question about whether researchers should just give up such controlled studies.

My conclusion is that the cumulative anecdotal evidence is quite substantial in indicating the survival of consciousness; that capturing such a case in a controlled study is fraught with challenges; and that the substantial cumulative anecdotal evidence clearly justifies continuing to try to capture such a case. So I think you said it well that I believe that the evidence is highly suggestive that consciousness survives death. On a purely personal note, as a result not only of my and others’ research but also of my own personal experiences – such as one I described in a chapter in the recently published Chicken Soup for the Soul: Messages from Heaven – I have made the leap of faith: If I had to lay odds, I would say that consciousness continues after physical death (and existed before physical life).

In presenting all the evidence in my Handbook chapter, I included evidence that did not support the survival hypothesis. Stenger appears to have focused on that evidence and drawn the conclusion that it shows that consciousness does not survive. As you said, that is his right. However, I did not intend to convey that conclusion in my chapter – nor do I believe I could be accurately represented as having conveyed it. I concluded that the matter is not resolved scientifically but that the substantial evidence supporting the survival hypothesis renders further research highly justified. Personally, because of my weighing of empirical evidence as well as my own numerous experiences, I believe that persevering in survival research will eventually yield evidence sufficient for anyone reasonably open-minded to examine it.

An upper-level administrator at my university, a highly accomplished academician, used to be in a group of scholars inquiring into paranormal phenomena. In a recent conversation, he told me that he takes a baby aspirin every day, and that the statistical support for that practice doesn’t come close to the strength of the statistical support for some paranormal phenomena. Yet he found that people with preexisting beliefs that paranormal phenomena could not possibly exist refused to accept the statistical results of extremely rigorous research on paranormal phenomena. He concluded that no evidence will be enough for people with such preexisting beliefs. I think he’s right – and that such people will persist in focusing selectively on evidence that supports their views – even as they take their daily baby aspirin.

My best to you, Alex –

Jan

Janice Holden, Ed.D., LPC-S, LMFT, NCC
Chair, Department of Counseling and Higher Education
Professor, Counseling Program

[fls]

I don't know what you intend for this site. But if you have any intention of attracting and persuading serious scientists, I think it would help to listen to what Harris has to say and consider how you appear to those scientists.

Your claim that just looking at Alexander's CV would be sufficient to establish that he knows what he is talking about with respect to neuroscience is wrong. I don't doubt that it may appear that way to someone who is unfamiliar with either field. But it shows fairly unequivocally an expertise in neurosurgery topics without coverage of neuroscience. That's not to say that he may not also be familiar with neuroscience, but he would have to demonstrate this by making statements that are sensible in light of that expertise. And as Harris points out, he does not do so in the Newsweek article. I do agree that it is possibly unfair to judge Alexander on the basis of the Newsweek article, since we are well aware of the tendency for reporters to misrepresent science.

You are misunderstanding Harris with your claim that he thinks psi and NDE research to be one and the same. He is simply referring to subjects which are grouped together on this site and others as being related in a larger picture. Since you have, in the past, heavily insulted guests for not understanding that separate subjects are related by that larger picture, to now insult Harris for making reference to that larger picture seems petty.

Parapsychology is currently relegated to the backwaters of science. This is a frequent topic of complaint on this forum, so there is no point to denigrating Harris for pointing this out. You should listen to what he says. It does not help to remove that stigma when proponents, such as yourself, who are in a position to represent the field to a broader audience, look foolish. Insulting people because you have failed to understand their claims does not help. And while the usual forum members will go along with those insults, it will give a poor impression to any serious scientists who come along looking for reasonable discussion. And they will be in a position to look past the name-calling and understand what other scientists are trying to say.

For example, you call Harris a liar, and you back this up by searching for references to various NDE researchers on his blog. Failing to find any means that you can safely assume he hasn't read any. And of course, since this is wrong (references are offered if they are relevant to a particular claim or statement, and so will be absent in that absence of any of those claims or statements), it looks to a serious scientist that you engage in either in sloppy thinking or gratuitous insults, neither of which recommends you.

Why do this?

I am sorry for being harsh. I wish I didn't have to be. As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum already, there is tremendous potential in the idea behind this site. I really wish this could be a place where serious scientists engage in discussion of these issues.

Linda

[gabriel]

Psi and NDEs are similar in so far as both are non-material phenomena. Every other point of Alex's is valid. Harris, in common with other New Atheists, uses immoderate language and blanket dismissals then squeals when anyone picks him up on them. Why does he expect such an easy ride? Once he leaves the guarded prose of academia for verbal knockabout and unsubstantiated claims he has to be ready for the same in return.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by fls

I don't know what you intend for this site. But if you have any intention of attracting and persuading serious scientists, I think it would help to listen to what Harris has to say and consider how you appear to those scientists.

Linda, I do appreciate your persistence and your willingness to engage with these topics (really). But your implacability can be a little frustrating.

All the folks I mentioned in my email to Sam are "serious scientists". The same can not be said for many of the Skeptics I've interviewed.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by gabriel

Psi and NDEs are similar in so far as both are non-material phenomena.

different journals, different players, different kinds of experiments (lab/classroom versus hospital)... I think it's pretty clear that Harris is faking-it with regard to his knowledge of this research.

[robbiehouston]

So what did you think of Ebens book Linda? As you seem ready to side with Sam on attacking Ebens credentials and lambasting Alex surely you've read the book yourself and made your own informed opinion. Or are you, like most skeptics, just parroting the usual worn out skeptic rhetori??

[gabriel]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

I think it's pretty clear that Harris is faking-it with regard to his knowledge of this research.

Absolutely. But he has the opportunity to show how wrong you are, so the ball's in his court.

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by fls

I don't know what you intend for this site. But if you have any intention of attracting and persuading serious scientists, I think it would help to listen to what Harris has to say and consider how you appear to those scientists.

<snip>

Why do this?

I am sorry for being harsh. I wish I didn't have to be. As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum already, there is tremendous potential in the idea behind this site. I really wish this could be a place where serious scientists engage in discussion of these issues.

Linda

The problem with atheists/materialists like Sam Harris is that they have made up their minds. And built a brick wall around it... They are ideologists in the first place. Therefore, asking them to engage in "serious discussions" about PSI, NDE's, OBE's etc amounts to one thing: they will only listen and seriously talk about the subject when you agree with them all the way. Discussing with people like Harris, Stenger, etc is a fruitless and thus very frustrating exercise, also because they tend to be rude and insulting when one does not agree with them. Stenger, who said of Krippner that he is "charlatan", is a case in point. Among those so-called skeptics arrogance rules. They KNOW, and every one else is stupid.
This is my (and not only mine) experience - for several years I took part in the skeptical movement in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Eventually I walked out - I could no langer stand their horribly complacent behavior.