Why We Need Skeptics in the Skeptiko Forum

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Anyway - it should be enough that all that has been said by Dr Lloyd Rudy was confirmed by this assistent-surgeon.

No, it's clearly not enough. For example, did they go through the entire EKG tape to see if there truly was no heart activity?
Also, nowhere does Rudy list everything that was said to the patient after he woke up. And we don't know what the patient could hear after his heart started again. Now perhaps this information is available even though it was not discussed in the interview, so we'll have to wait for your report.

~~ Paul

 

[Alex]

I'm sure Rudy is reasonable and trustworthy. The problem is that we have no idea what was said to the patient before the story was told, nor how the story may have evolved over weeks and months.

What might be useful is compiling a list of exactly what the patient said that appears extraordinary.

~~ Paul

now that's the kinda classic Skeptical response I was looking for :) Thx I feel more grounded.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

now that's the kinda classic Skeptical response I was looking for :) Thx I feel more grounded.

Why? Do we know what was said to the patient after he woke up, or how the story evolved in the subsequent days?

If not, are you saying you simply don't think it matters?

~~ Paul

 

[Alex]

Linda! Rivas and I are people that in contrast to armchair critics like you and Paul go after the real thing , i.e. doing field work! And, besides that, always start out by TRUSTING the people we encounter.

Anyway - it should be enough that all that has been said by Dr Lloyd Rudy was confirmed by this assistent-surgeon.

And I repeat - just wait and see until our report arrives. I am not going to say more about it, because I am bound by copyright regulations.

thx for the info... completely agree... then again, you don't need me or anyone else to acknowledge the obvious.

ok, since we've been having a lot of discussion about forums and moderation I want to add that I'm on one hand kinda glad to get a little taste of this skeptical nincompoopery, but don't feel a need to stick around for any more.

 

[Alex]

Why? Do we know what was said to the patient after he woke up, or how the story evolved in the subsequent days?

If not, are you saying you simply don't think it matters?

~~ Paul

I think Rudy has a far better handle on the situation than you do.

 

[Michael]

Why? Do we know what was said to the patient after he woke up, or how the story evolved in the subsequent days?

If not, are you saying you simply don't think it matters?

~~ Paul

Really? In your conversation with Bernardo you at least worked at coming up with some real arguments. Here, sadly you're just coasting on fumes. What kind of conversation do you think might happened in the days after the operation? You mean like the doctor suggesting to the patient that he might have seen him standing in the doorway talking about the operation while he was lying there without a heart beat and without blood pressure. Yea well maybe in the land of make believe that would seem like a possibility. Seriously doesn't this strike you as showing you grasping at straws. Are you not the least bit embarrassed by these suggestions you're throwing out? You might just want to wait for the report to come out.

 

[LoneShaman]

Haha, Alex set a nincompoop trap!
Taken, hook, line and sinker! With predictable results. Well done.

 

[Liberty]

Alex you can't seem to understand that skeptics, at least this one, don't follow their hearts desires, they go wherever the truth goes. Unlike you we don't have a need for a thing to be true, we want to know if something is true.

Explain how this particular account or generally disproves atheism?

Serious question : how can you ever be the least bit confident that you have indeed ":found the truth", when the path that you use to get to the truth, involves using personal judgement and evaluative decision-making - a reasoning process that you yourself have claimed is limited to either random, or determined outcomes. . . . I ask again, How can you BE, an open-minded skeptic, if you have no free-will ?

 

[steve001]

Serious question : how can you ever be the least bit confident that you have indeed ":found the truth", when the path that you use to get to the truth, involves using personal judgement and evaluative decision-making - a reasoning process that you yourself have claimed is limited to either random, or determined outcomes. . . . I ask again, How can you BE, an open-minded skeptic, if you have no free-will ?

I think you have me mixed up with Paul. I have never voiced that particular argument that way. However I don't see how freewill matters to scientific inquiry.
Can you explain why freewill matters to it.

 

[fls]

Haha, Alex set a nincompoop trap!
Taken, hook, line and sinker! With predictable results. Well done.

A bit heavy-handed, but I felt sorry for him.

Linda

 

[Liberty]

. However I don't see how freewill matters to scientific inquiry.

I would guess that you rightly accept 'skepticism' as a healthy part of the scientific method. Here is the wikipedia definition of 'skepticism':

Skepticism . . . is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2]​

Eventually, the questioning draws near to an end, and a working judgement is made by the skeptic. At that point, he has analysed all the evidence between two competing claims, and he will make a decision based on his own interpretation of the evidence. To make this decision, he will use his 'Reason'. The definition of Reason, again from wikipedia:

Reason or "reasoning" is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. Reason, like habit or intuition, is one of the ways by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. For example, it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad. It is also closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination.[4]​

.Can you explain why freewill matters to it.

If I was wrong, and you reject the determinist/incompatibilist position (that is - you believe in a mixture of free-will and determinism) then I apologize for mis-interpreting.

 

[Haruhi]

Alex you can't seem to understand that skeptics, at least this one, don't follow their hearts desires, they go wherever the truth goes. Unlike you we don't have a need for a thing to be true, we want to know if something is true.

There are problems with that:

1. I think that I go to where the truth goes, but this is also desirable truth, there is no problem as long as the desire not perturb the evidence.

2. No one can be an being who guide to truth by purely intellectual considerations, but the search for truth there are other factors involved as intuition, emotion, having to do with matters of the heart.

3. Some pseudo-skeptics also can be accused of go where your desires lead them, not to where the evidence leads them, because they have strong will to disbelieve.

Explain how this particular account or generally disproves atheism?

Yes, I agree that this account does not disprove atheism.

 

[Steve]

Completely agree.

Linda

(Admittedly, this isn't any more informative than hitting the "like" button, but I'm allergic to those things. :))

You didn't appear to be allergic when you deleted all the 'dislikes'. Allegedly. ;)

 

[fls]

You didn't appear to be allergic when you deleted all the 'dislikes'. Allegedly. ;)

That was immunotherapy.

Linda

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Really? In your conversation with Bernardo you at least worked at coming up with some real arguments. Here, sadly you're just coasting on fumes. What kind of conversation do you think might happened in the days after the operation? You mean like the doctor suggesting to the patient that he might have seen him standing in the doorway talking about the operation while he was lying there without a heart beat and without blood pressure.

Certainly the surgeon explained in general what happened. Then perhaps a nurse might have mentioned how the surgeons were standing around discussing what else they might have done. Or the patient might have inferred it once he found out that the surgeons were still there when his heart began to recover. Also, do we know exactly what the patient said about this particular aspect of the story, before it perhaps was embellished?

Yea well maybe in the land of make believe that would seem like a possibility. Seriously doesn't this strike you as showing you grasping at straws. Are you not the least bit embarrassed by these suggestions you're throwing out? You might just want to wait for the report to come out.

What would be embarrassing would be to uncritically accept the story as proof of a real OBE.

~~ Paul

 

[fls]

Why? Do we know what was said to the patient after he woke up, or how the story evolved in the subsequent days?

If not, are you saying you simply don't think it matters?

~~ Paul

I think "doesn't matter". Isn't sarcasm pretty much the guaranteed response to mention of the unreliability of undocumented stories? If a non-proponent points out that undocumented stories aren't particular reliable or valid, wouldn't it look pretty silly to come back to them with, "Yeah? Well look at this undocumented story. In your face, Psuedoskeptics!", if reliability and validity matter?

Linda

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Haha, Alex set a nincompoop trap!
Taken, hook, line and sinker! With predictable results. Well done.

It was obvious from the opening post that this thread was a trap. No one has any interest in doing anything other than uncritically accepting this story.

"I mean, come on, who do you want to discuss this video with... someone who acknowledges the obvious implications of cases like this... i.e. that consciousness survives death and therefore atheism is an even bigger joke than the baby Jesus thing. Or would you rather discuss it with a bobo doll skeptic who's going to challenge you to prove that's really Rudy... and then tell you it's just an anecdote?"

Imagine if I did something like this in one of the other forums.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Serious question : how can you ever be the least bit confident that you have indeed ":found the truth", when the path that you use to get to the truth, involves using personal judgement and evaluative decision-making - a reasoning process that you yourself have claimed is limited to either random, or determined outcomes. . . . I ask again, How can you BE, an open-minded skeptic, if you have no free-will ?

You appear to believe that the determined outcome of reasoning isn't related to the thing being reasoned about. Why would you assume that?

What does free will have to do with accurate reasoning? That is, if you can even describe how free will works.

~~ Paul

 

[Smithy]

A brief response, because I am swamped with work and thus have little time to respond to everything

No, it's clearly not enough. For example, did they go through the entire EKG tape to see if there truly was no heart activity?

Answer: YES - there was NO heart activity for about 20 minutes.

Also, nowhere does Rudy list everything that was said to the patient after he woke up. And we don't know what the patient could hear after his heart started again. Now perhaps this information is available even though it was not discussed in the interview, so we'll have to wait for your report.
~~ Paul

Indeed - you have to wait for that report. Anyway, nothing what you suggest here comes near to what really happened.

 

[Michael]

....
What would be embarrassing would be to uncritically accept the story as proof of a real OBE.

~~ Paul

Equally as embarrassing as uncritically making up the story before it's even available to you. You should wait for the report to come out before jumping to confusions about what it is and what it isn't.