Dr. John Fischer, Another Philosopher Tries to Debunk NDEs |431|

Even more reason not to misrepresent his position in conversations with others.
Like raising false doubt about him having contended something, when it was clear that he did?

Just because one raises doubt, does not automatically convey that one is also on an ethical pathway. You implied a misrepresentation of his position through an appeal to ignorance.

The actual skeptical duty at that point was to provide a substantiating quote, not merely cast doubt.
 
Last edited:
I have said it elsewhere on Skeptiko, but here again I state my age, 62. So when I was 54, though I was open to all sorts of psi phenomena, I had yet to form the world view I now hold (thanks to this site and Bernardo Kastrup), monistic idealism. But for the first time in my life, I had a baby OBE. Still, it was a real 'out of body' experience where all I can say is, though I was always open to it, hoping for it, until you experience it... well, I never imagined it to be like I experienced.

Over the course of the next two months, I had three more and each one went further and longer (as my fear subsided).

But the fifth (and last one) didn't happen until a year later. And in this one I experienced the crazy vibration thing you hear others report.

I feel like its not a long shot that OBE and NDE share similarities or common properties.

Anyways, I guess Dr, Fischer will find out, yes?

Well, unless we have the ability to create our reality and the depth of his being desires eternal nothingness once his body vehicle expires. I am looking forward to the continuing exploration into the possibility of eternal life. A possibility I bet on.
 
He is walking a tightrope, in my best estimation.
But isn't he also right? I don't mind this level of caution, because it is a faithful rendering of the evidence. He declines to speculate, but was he asked to? From what I recall of the interview, he was funnelled into the words he used. What he might say over a cleansing ale or two might be very different - and would not, in all likelihood, have been broadcast by the video series - which seemed to me to be contrived to elicit precisely such answers.
True, the answer might be more akin to a court testimony - contrived and manipulated - but it was still true in the sense that his response was neither more no less than his evidence provided. The pity was that this seemed to be precisely the intent - so to diminish the potential for speculation. That's not a natural conversation - that's testimony in an invisible court in response to a crafted query put by a determined inquisitor.
 
But isn't he also right? I don't mind this level of caution, because it is a faithful rendering of the evidence. He declines to speculate, but was he asked to? From what I recall of the interview, he was funnelled into the words he used. What he might say over a cleansing ale or two might be very different - and would not, in all likelihood, have been broadcast by the video series - which seemed to me to be contrived to elicit precisely such answers.
True, the answer might be more akin to a court testimony - contrived and manipulated - but it was still true in the sense that his response was neither more no less than his evidence provided. The pity was that this seemed to be precisely the intent - so to diminish the potential for speculation. That's not a natural conversation - that's testimony in an invisible court in response to a crafted query put by a determined inquisitor.
I think it is a great point that the interview or producers had a certain perspective they were aiming for and so the comments themselves should be interpreted through that lens. I think it is interesting, however to extend that type of thinking to ALL situations and contexts. So, in my view, going to the bar and drinking an ale or two doesn't evaporate the existence of local goals and purpose, psychological and cultural influences, etc. It just changes them from one set of goals and influences to a different set. In the view that I have been exploring, a person is never free from their deep desires, needs, personality, culture, etc.

The next question becomes, well, what about the truth, then? What about the way things actually are in the world? In my view, that is where a person either will or will not "relax" the need to cognitively understand things and relax the need to feel like they are absolutely right in their views--and even the decision or ability to relax or not relax those needs can be seen to be driven by other needs, goals, deep psychology, cultural influences, etc.

And that is why I always try to say that I'm not suggesting this is the Absolutely Correct Way of Looking at Things. For me, it is a USEFUL way of looking at things and a MEANINGFUL way of looking at things, but I understand that there are other contrary views that are useful and meaningful in their own ways (for people who have different psychologies, desires, contexts, etc).

In the context of my own little life, it's more important for me to have a meaningful day to day existence than anything else. If I were a key government official or research grand administrator who had some responsibility for understanding questions of life after death, psi, UFOs, etc, that would mean I would have different local goals, needs, desires, etc based on the different context, and that would likely influence my interpretations. I can't say exactly HOW my views would be different, perhaps they would be the same but what I do with the views would be different.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, noob here, and I simply can't plow through all 7 pages here to check if this has been covered already, so I'll just toss it out, fwiw—links to previous coverage welcome!:

I certainly get the doubt over exactly when a mental event takes place, which I assume is the crux of the "ramping up" thing.
But I can't understand how veridical OBE experiences, like accurately reporting on OR stuff seen happening from the ceiling, in real time, don't defuse that argument, at least as far as that part of an NDE goes.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to Parnia, it seems to make little difference who is the interviewer. He is remarkably consistent in his approach. The only real differences I've seen is that sometimes he dwells much more on the medical science - this is his day job, working with real patients who are seriously ill. He covers the medical aspects when appropriate. Other than that, this or that interviewer seems to make little difference.
 
But for the first time in my life, I had a baby OBE. Still, it was a real 'out of body' experience where all I can say is, though I was always open to it, hoping for it, until you experience it... well, I never imagined it to be like I experienced.
Interesting. I often suggest to others that this is a good route to getting a better grasp of these matters. Regardless of sceptical or proponent stance, some real first-hand experience is worthwhile - otherwise everything can become very abstract.
 
When it comes to Parnia, it seems to make little difference who is the interviewer. He is remarkably consistent in his approach. The only real differences I've seen is that sometimes he dwells much more on the medical science - this is his day job, working with real patients who are seriously ill. He covers the medical aspects when appropriate. Other than that, this or that interviewer seems to make little difference.
Interesting observation. There seems to be a "Is there life after death?' series. Here is Roger Walsh, an Aussie Prof of Psychiatry, Philosophy and Anthropology at UCI - might be an interesting Skeptiko guest?
 
But I can't understand how veridical OBE experiences, like accurately reporting on OR stuff seen happening from the ceiling, in real time, don't defuse that argument, at least as far as that part of an NDE goes.
Because sceptics will always find some way to defuse any argument, however strong. Dean Radin calls this the "Dirty test tubes" argument. It goes like this:

Suppose someone posts a chemistry paper to show that A plus B react to produce C.

Normally that would be accepted as scientific evidence and only be reconsidered if a lot of people failed to reproduce the work - maybe because they wanted some C!

However, if someone REALLY REALLY wanted to object, they might start by doubting that all the glassware used for the experiment was adequately cleaned.

Perhaps the original authors would then explain that they cleaned the class-ware in chromic acid, then distilled water.

So the next objection would be that maybe the distilled water was impure.

Etc Etc.

The point is that normal science is robust against that sort of tedious 'scepticism', and the burden of proof would fall on the objector to prove that they were right by actual experimentation. It is only in areas where there is an overwhelming assumption that something cannot be true, that this sort of discussion is considered reasonable.

David
 
Yes, I like Tipler and have read him.

Tipler would be an example of a 'convergence of abductions' though I would imagine with regard to extrapolating from cosmology and physics. But despite this quibble, and that I like reading his work as well Super Q, this is a great example of this principle yes. ;;/?

All things being equal, the latter is superior to the midmost, which is superior to the former...

Conformance of panduction (this is a type and mode of inference, but is not a type of reason)​
Convergence of abductions​
Consilience of inductions​
Consensus of deductions​
Yeah, I am going to need to carefully look into this with much greater detail.

My entire point of doing so is to create useful heuristics in which to quickly judge knowledge claims. Is there any such project? In particular, looking at the history of science and where it seems to succeed or fail?
 
Yeah, I am going to need to carefully look into this with much greater detail.

My entire point of doing so is to create useful heuristics in which to quickly judge knowledge claims. Is there any such project? In particular, looking at the history of science and where it seems to succeed or fail?
I am not quite sure if there are heuristics to quickly judge knowledge claims. Other than possibly my phrase epoché vanguards gnosis - that is actually a heuristic. But it does not capture truth, rather it allows one to avoid being captured by other-than-truth.

Our 1972 Shermer/Sagan Skeptics claim to have cornered the truth-heuristic market - one can observe people using their canned shtick all the time. Teaching an entire two generations of insecure mid-level acumens how to avoid given ideas and observations.

What I used in organizations where we were tasked with discovery research - was a table of mode and type of inference - The Map of Inference. What this did, was allow me to assemble a confidence around the evidence which is presented to the pro or con - whether or not the possessing of a 'fact' really bore any gravitas at all. There are observations and then there are critical path observations. The two are not even remotely close in import.

But I would not impart to 'The Map' any form of convergent horsepower as might be attributable to a heuristic.

The heuristic if you will, is a set of philosophical principles which allow one to, not discern correct knowledge, but rather discern when someone is pushing cultivated or Nelsonian ignorance (two different things). It is more of a heuristic of discerning bad method than it is a method of discerning what is truth.

Truth may not be as discrete as we assume it to be... however, anti-truth is a very discrete object and can be identified by certain traits and sponsor habits.
 
Top