There is no soul or after life, we're all just deluding ourselves

[robbiehouston]

Or so says Sam Harris in his latest rant. Dear GOD why are skeptics INCAPABLE of a SINGLE paper that isn't riddled with ad hominem attacks and the same old jargon?


Science on the Brink of Death : Sam Harris

[robbiehouston]

Sam's an EFFING moron..im sorry but really? He said the following:

When debating the validity of evidence and arguments, the point is never that one person’s credentials trump another’s. Credentials just offer a rough indication of what a person is likely to know—or should know. If Alexander were drawing reasonable scientific conclusions from his experience, he wouldn’t need to be a neuroscientist to be taken seriously; he could be a philosopher—or a coal miner. But he simply isn’t thinking like a scientist—and so not even a string of Nobel prizes would shield him from criticism.


A coal miner? A COAL MINER? really? Eben's credentials are far superior to Harris's and its quite amusing how just because Eben doesn't agree with him he's branded with the heretical label of "unscientific"... it would seem we've made very little progress since the time in which people thought the earth was flat... The same type mindset prevails, but this time by the "skeptics"

[Sock]

You don't have to write your headlines like they're sales pitches for the thread.

[JCearley]

Originally Posted by robbiehouston

A coal miner? A COAL MINER? really? Eben's credentials are far superior to Harris's and its quite amusing how just because Eben doesn't agree with him he's branded with the heretical label of "unscientific"... it would seem we've made very little progress since the time in which people thought the earth was flat... The same type mindset prevails, but this time by the "skeptics"

As someone in the IT industry I agree with Harris on the point that credentials do not equal skill, and are no more than a heuristic people commonly agree should mean something. I believe what he's trying to get at is that you can't say something like this:

• I'm a doctor, I had this experience, therefore the reason of the experience is X.
• But that doesn't necessarily prove X.
• He's a doctor, so of course it does.

It actually doesn't matter if someone is a philosopher or a coal miner--this is a tactic skeptics actually use pretty heavily--as long as what they say makes sense. If someone doesn't agree that Eben's scenario "proves" something, you can't satisfyingly make them agree by reminding them he's a doctor. Keep in mind that if you're going to claim athiestic mindsets as a dogma, many athiests get there from being abused by "just trust me" dogmas to begin with. You'll have to keep that in mind before trying "trust credentials, even though you probably got here by people abusing theirs" tactics.

Would you honestly write off a psi proponent, if they provided scientific evidence of success but didn't have a paper from a college certifying they went to college? This is, afterall, all a degree is. If it turned out that the proof was replicable, then that's all that should matter to a researcher.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by robbiehouston

Sam's an EFFING moron..im sorry but really? He said the following:

When debating the validity of evidence and arguments, the point is never that one person’s credentials trump another’s. Credentials just offer a rough indication of what a person is likely to know—or should know. If Alexander were drawing reasonable scientific conclusions from his experience, he wouldn’t need to be a neuroscientist to be taken seriously; he could be a philosopher—or a coal miner. But he simply isn’t thinking like a scientist—and so not even a string of Nobel prizes would shield him from criticism.


A coal miner? A COAL MINER? really? Eben's credentials are far superior to Harris's and its quite amusing how just because Eben doesn't agree with him he's branded with the heretical label of "unscientific"... it would seem we've made very little progress since the time in which people thought the earth was flat... The same type mindset prevails, but this time by the "skeptics"

How is coming to the conclusion that he was in God's presence - Scientific in any way shape or form? What is that conclusion based upon?

That is the point of Alexander not thinking like a Scientist, which makes his credentials on those types of conclusions irrelevant. I don't think his evaluation on severity of his condition falls into that category. I do think it is difficult to be objective being tied that close to the data - but his credentials are relevant there. I don't see much debate on those issues. What he concludes from the experiences, when he assumes the experiences take place, ... those things - I think it is fair to question.

[Aftrbrnr]

Actually, Harris doesn't actually specifically says "there is no soul of afterlife", and I stand by Harris being open on the subject:

Atheist Sam Harris on Death and the Afterlife | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

[Bucky]

In the first part of the article Harris addresses the case of Pam Reynold's NDE, and his point is beyond pathetic. It is perfectly ok to have doubts about any NDE case and making sure to check and double check how events progressed and thinking of possible explanations for inexplicable facts, etc...

What is ridiculous is coming up with absurdities such as that she was able to learn the details of the surgical procedure including the general appearance of the instruments to be used in the surgery... all this under general anesthesia, laying on an operating table, covered from top to bottom.

And there's more, Pam Reynolds reported that she heard the medical personnel commenting about her veins being too small... under general anesthetics, with ear plugs in her ears firing loud signals to monitor her brain activity.

The para-skeptics will tell you that the hear plugs weren't molded around her specific hearing canal! And she was eavesdropping! Again, under general anesthesia, with the earplugs banging her hears with loud beeps.

And finally armed with these two highly convincing arguments they can dismiss the whole story. Is this guy a proponent for critical thinking and rationality? How about adding intellectual honesty in the list too?!
Personally, even if I were the Pope of the Hardcore Skeptics Church, I would have the honesty to concede that this is a highly interesting case, that it certainly suggests that something profound is going on (especially because this is not an isolated case) and that personally I still think we need more evidence, or I am not entirely convinced... or anything along those lines.

If any unlikely quibble is sufficient for Mr. Harris to explain away the complexity of cases like these (Eben Alexander's included) then he's just the next PR guy of the above mentioned Skeptic's church. Nothing else, and there's really little to no interest in discussing with an apologist.

Cheers,

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Bucky

What is ridiculous is coming up with absurdities such as that she was able to learn the details of the surgical procedure including the general appearance of the instruments to be used in the surgery... all this under general anesthesia, laying on an operating table, covered from top to bottom.

Why would we assume she had to learn it then? Perhaps she already knew a bit about it before coming in for surgery. Perhaps the medical staff talked about it before she was sufficiently anesthetized. Perhaps they talked about it afterward.

And there's more, Pam Reynolds reported that she heard the medical personnel commenting about her veins being too small... under general anesthetics, with ear plugs in her ears firing loud signals to monitor her brain activity.

Check out the timeline:

Pam Reynolds case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She heard the voice before she was flatlined.

What the Pam Reynolds case tells us is that there is a lot to learn about anesthesia and how it affects people. Furthermore, there is a lot to learn about how people form memories of complex and unnatural events.

~~ Paul

[Bucky]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Why would we assume she had to learn it then? Perhaps she already knew a bit about it before coming in for surgery. Perhaps the medical staff talked about it before she was sufficiently anesthetized. Perhaps they talked about it afterward.

Because she had no idea of the tools they were going to use, in fact she was expecting something similar to a saw
If you have proof that she had previous knowledge of the instruments that surgeons where going to use then let us know. As of today I've haven't heard any of that regarding the Reynold case.

And please don't tell me she could have seen it on TV or while browsing medical books in a public library

She heard the voice before she was flatlined.

Yes, under general anesthesia, with earplugs down the hearing canal firing super loud beeps in her head, while the doctor is "removing the bone flap from the skull."
Let me imagine... the earplugs weren't in place correctly, right? And the anesthesia wasn't working at all and the the doctor that commented about her veins did it exactly in between two sound pulses

How come she heard the female voice and didn't feel anything about the guy working inside her skull? (gee I can't think of that )

cheers

[robbiehouston]

Bernardo debunks Sams silly arguments here:

Metaphysical Speculations: Sam Harris: proud and prejudiced?

and here:

Metaphysical Speculations: Sam Harris' critique of Eben Alexander