malf
Member
He {Parnia} is walking a tightrope, in my best estimation.
Even more reason not to misrepresent his position in conversations with others.
He {Parnia} is walking a tightrope, in my best estimation.
Even more reason not to misrepresent his position in conversations with others.
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.He is walking a tightrope, in my best estimation.
Sam, they all come from the same country and talk the same language. Its just that we wilfully mistranslate and misinterpret because we are so used to thinking in contrived categories.I feel like its not a long shot that OBE and NDE share similarities or common properties.
But isn't he also right?
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.
Yes, he is also ethical too (following proper praxis). Not sure if there is a thing as 'right' just yet. :)But isn't he also right?
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.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 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?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.
And here's another in the same series - Stephen Braude. Prof of Philosophy at U Maryland, Baltimore County - and a parapsychologist.
Good memory Steve. I have heard him then, but forgotten - so maybe time to have him back? May 2016 was a while ago and maybe has new thoughts? The video was this year [Sept?].
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: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.
Yeah, I am going to need to carefully look into this with much greater detail.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 abductionsConsilience of inductionsConsensus of deductions
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.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?
Hi MichaelI hate to seem like a fan, but here's another one - Philip Clayton - Philosopher of Religion and Philosopher of Science. He's a Theologian.