Future Interviews

#29
I would like to hear a show with Dean Randin and Chris Carter discussing the evidence for the survival of consciousness after death. Chris Carter thinks the evidence is compelling and that to deny it is pseudoscience. Dean Radin thinks the evidence for the afterlife consists of theoretical arguments, anecdotes, and case studies and that there is no evidence that memory can persist without a body.

Chris Carter:
Subversive Thinking

In my work I present the evidence that provides a prima facie case for survival [of consciousness]; demonstrate that alternative explanations, to the extent that they are testable, have been proven false; and then argue that to the extent these alternative explanations are not testable (such as elaborate fraud scenarios, or super-ESP) they are pseudo-scientific excuses for refusing to accept an otherwise straightforward inference from the evidence.

Dean Radin
While the evidence for survival is certainly intriguing, that type of survival is usually considered survival of personality. But until we find evidence that memory is not brain-centric, and that it too can persist without a body, then the question about precisely *what* survives remains unresolved.

Dean Radin:

Given the biasing nature of prior beliefs, my opinion about such matters is to maintain as close to a neutral, agnostic position as possible. This way beliefs can shift based on reasoned evidence. I personally place greater weight on evidence from credibly conducted laboratory tests than on theoretical arguments, anecdotes, or case studies.
I think it would be extremely interesting to hear Chris Carter reply to Radin's assessment of the evidence for the afterlife as a collection of theoretical arguments, anecdotes, and case studies and that there is no evidence that memory can persist without a body.

I think Radin, and other parapsychologist, are too quick to dismiss the work of researchers who use different methods of scientific analysis and do not give those researchers and their conclusions enough credit.
 
Last edited:
#30
I think Radin, and other parapsychologist, are too quick to dismiss the work of researchers who use different methods of scientific analysis and do not give those researchers and their conclusions enough credit.
Parapsychology was split off on purpose, as I recall. Rhine wanted people to study his branch of ESP instead of centering around mediumship. So, almost by definition, the field is not interested in studying survival (favoring Super ESP as the explanation of all phenomenon.)
 
#31
all good potential guests :) here's what I suggest... why don't you contact one or more of them and tell them about the show. Tell them why you think they would be a good fit for our audience. If they show interest contact me and I will arrange.
Hi Alex, that sounds like a fun suggestion as that's not the sort of thing I'd normally do:)

I will certainely try and get their email addresses and send them one email each making the "case" for it!

One question though, it's a bit difficult to "sell it", if I don't know what you'd be interviewing them about a little more specifically in each case? I may try infer the discussion would be of one sort, whereas you would actually go another. Are you able to very briefly state the general topic of discussion for each, if there would be any tailored approach etc?

Cheers.
 
#32
I would like to hear a show with Dean Randin and Chris Carter discussing the evidence for the survival of consciousness after death. Chris Carter thinks the evidence is compelling and that to deny it is pseudoscience. Dean Radin thinks the evidence for the afterlife consists of theoretical arguments, anecdotes, and case studies and that there is no evidence that memory can persist without a body.

Chris Carter:



Dean Radin



Dean Radin:



I think it would be extremely interesting to hear Chris Carter reply to Radin's assessment of the evidence for the afterlife as a collection of theoretical arguments, anecdotes, and case studies and that there is no evidence that memory can persist without a body.

I think Radin, and other parapsychologist, are too quick to dismiss the work of researchers who use different methods of scientific analysis and do not give those researchers and their conclusions enough credit.
I'm actually more inclined to agree with Dean. I do think that something survives, but it would basically be some sort of awareness with the ego, self etc. gone. It would be nothing like we are now. It feels more parsimonious to me and in a way is more comfortable oddly. I quite like the idea of the death of the ego.
 
#33
If we're suggesting trialogue podcasts, I'd go for Radin and someone like JRE Kennedy, or anyone confident in the existence of psi phenomena but critical of the current state of the field.
 
#34
I've tried... I pushed him pretty hard last time... he may still feel bruised :) pls try.

You haven't done an interview with Dr. Penny Sartori, correct? I know she is very busy right now, but she would be great to interview.
1) Yes, listening to Sam Parnia and/or Penny Satori on Skeptiko again would be great. Alex, please keep trying, at least with Satori, if Parnia refuses totally (as you say, he seems to refuse totally - and one should not be too pushy).

2) Alex, the 57th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association will be in Hilton Hotel, Concord, California, August 14-17th, 2014, lead by Dean Radin and Loyd Auerbach. Are you going to visit it (and come back with several interviews)?

BTW, Loyd Auerbach would be a good guest. He's not only a parapsychologist, but also a stage magician, so you can have a long and rich talk about relationship between paranormal research (and parapsychological community) and stage magic (and stage magicians' community). This is a deep historical topic.
 
Last edited:
#36
Jerry Coyne Vs. Dean Radin debate?
Last time Coyne visited Skeptiko, the comment section of the podcast was flooded and torn apart by his personal fanboy/troll squad. Alex had to ban comments for the podcast with him in the end - there was not a sign of debate here, just troll attack.

Well, his fanboys just followed the example of Dr. Coyne himself - he is nothing but a troll with academic credentials.
 
Last edited:
#37
Last time Coyne visited Skeptiko, the comment section of the podcast was flooded and torn apart by his personal fanboy/troll squad. Alex has to ban comments for the podcast with him in the end - there was not a sign of debate here, just troll attack.

Well, his fanboys just followed the example of Dr. Coyne himself - he is nothing but a troll with academic credentials.
I've often wondered if Coyne's demeaning and condescending attitude and that of his followers has won him over any fans?
 
#38
Parapsychology was split off on purpose, as I recall. Rhine wanted people to study his branch of ESP instead of centering around mediumship. So, almost by definition, the field is not interested in studying survival (favoring Super ESP as the explanation of all phenomenon.)
Then we'll talk about psychic research, because the question of an afterlife has to be addressed by some field.
 
#39
I'm actually more inclined to agree with Dean. I do think that something survives, but it would basically be some sort of awareness with the ego, self etc. gone. It would be nothing like we are now. It feels more parsimonious to me and in a way is more comfortable oddly. I quite like the idea of the death of the ego.
I disagree. Modern parapsychologists often do not realize the empirical evidence on the existence of a personal afterlife collected by psychic researchers is more robust than they think. Moreover, NDEs, apparitions, mediumship, etc., point to the concrete personalities remain after biological death but within a broader being.
 
#40
Dean Radin thinks the evidence for the afterlife consists of theoretical arguments, anecdotes, and case studies and that there is no evidence that memory can persist without a body.
From my reading of the quotes from Radin which you provided, nowhere does he say anything nearly so definitive as "there is no evidence that memory can persist without a body", his views seem much more open and receptive to me.

I think Radin, and other parapsychologist, are too quick to dismiss the work of researchers who use different methods of scientific analysis and do not give those researchers and their conclusions enough credit.
Well, this can apply to scientists or experts in any field, their attention is tightly focussed upon a narrow area which is their own specialisation, and not notice what else is going on. Someone said (and it might have actually been Radin himself - though I don't think he was the originator) that as we study the world, we learn more and more about less and less until eventually we know everything about nothing. :)
 
Top