Tag: skepticism

145. Stanley Krippner Lends Scientific Weight to Paranormal Dreams

Professor of Psychology and well-respected researcher Dr. Stanley Krippner explains how his research supports the reality of precognitive dreams. Join Skeptiko guest host and paranormal dream expert Andy Paquette for an interview with legendary psychology researcher Dr. Stanley Krippner..  During the interview Dr. Krippner discusses whether or not the evidence for paranormal dreaming is well established: Andy Paquette: You’ve been studying dreams for the most part for the majority of your career. Do you feel that the case for precognitive dreaming is proven? Dr. Stanley Krippner: No, I don’t think anything in science is proven. Science is always open-ended. There’s always a chance of revising scientific theory based on new data. Andy Paquette: Of course, that would work both ways, as well, wouldn’t it? So what you’d really be talking about is what does the currently available information indicate? Dr. Stanley Krippner: That’s right. Andy Paquette: And in your case, from what you’ve seen, what do you think the currently available information indicates? Dr. Stanley Krippner: I think you can make a strong case for precognitive dreams. Stanley Krippner's Website Play it: Download MP3 (35:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Today we’re joined by Andy Paquette, who is a former Skeptiko guest and is also the author of Dreamer: 20 Years of Psychic Dreams and How They Changed My Life. Now, Andy is joining us today because he recently attended the 2011 Study of Dreams Conference in The Netherlands, where he was also a presenter. While he was there he was nice enough to snag a couple of interviews for us and he’s here to share them with us. So Andy, welcome and tell us what you’ve been up to.

...

143. Lisa Miller’s Heaven Book Uncommitted to Afterlife, Spiritual Experiences, and Survival of Consciousness

Author and Newsweek’s religion editor Lisa Miller offers mixed messages about what lies beyond death. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Lisa Miller, religion editor at Newsweek magazine and author of, Heaven.  During the interview Ms. Miller discusses survival of consciousness: Alex Tsakiris: Do you believe that the best evidence we have suggests our consciousness survives our death? Lisa Miller: I don’t believe that’s the best evidence we have. We’re back to where we started. Alex Tsakiris: So you don’t believe consciousness survives death. Lisa Miller: I’m saying that it’s possible but I don’t know for sure. Alex Tsakiris: Well, I don’t know for sure either. And no one… Lisa Miller: Well, that’s where we all are. That’s where we all are on this stuff. We don’t know. We don’t know whether consciousness survives death. We don’t know what Heaven looks like. We don’t know whether our grandparents are there. What we have is a hope. Alex Tsakiris: That’s not where most of us are living our lives. Most of us are living our life from making some kind of conclusion from the data we have. So why is it unfair to ask you whether or not… Lisa Miller: I didn’t say it was unfair and I answered your question.  I said I think that there’s a possibility but I don’t know. I think that it’s a great hope of many people. Alex Tsakiris: Why so noncommittal? I don’t understand that. Lisa Miller: I’m not noncommittal.  I’m answering your question as best as I can. Truly I am. Alex Tsakiris: No, you’re not. You’re answering a different question. You’re answering the hope question, but you’re not answering whether you personally, based on the evidence you’ve looked at in doing this work and writing this book and being the Senior Religion Editor at Newsweek Magazine, you haven’t told me whether the evidence that you’ve taken in has persuaded you one way or another. Lisa Miller: I said just as I think about Heaven, I think that it is a possibility and that it is something to hope for. Lisa Miller's Website Play it: Download MP3 (26:21 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome award-winning journalist and senior editor for Religion.net, Newsweek Magazine, Lisa Miller. Miss Miller’s first book, Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination with the Afterlife, was published in 2010 and she joins us today here on Skeptiko. Lisa, welcome. Lisa Miller: Thank you. I’m happy to be here. Alex Tsakiris: Well, it’s great to have you. I want to jump right into this because I have to tell you, as I was reading your book and listening to some of your interviews, I couldn’t get past that you as a self-described skeptic and I don’t know if it would be fair to say a non-religious person, why you are the senior editor for religion at Newsweek. Lisa Miller: Religion has always interested me, from being a very young child. Religion talks about the human experience in a way that I think captures all of the mystery and magic and transcendence that comes with being human--inexplicable things, irrational things. When you ask people about religion you’re in a way asking them to tell you what matters most to them—what they think about their families, what they think about their children, what they think about their existence, what they think about what matters to them, what’s most meaningful. So religion for me has been a way into what I think of as the most important questions in life. Alex Tsakiris: Okay. But can we really study it from the outside? I guess I think of one of the religious scholars who always inspired me was Houston Smith, from Berkeley, and of course he went and experienced all these different religions. He experienced life and dove as deeply as he could into the religious experience. Can we really understand religion from the outside, from a journalist? I mean, I understand there are these culture war issues that we care about—why people strap bombs to their waist and blow themselves up. That culture war stuff I get. But are we really getting at the core of the religious experience from the outside? Lisa Miller: I would say I can hear some skepticism in your question, and I would strongly say that trying dispassionately to understand other people’s beliefs is one of the most productive things we can do with our time. I think that in America there are these culture war issues and we know what they are and we can name them and we can turn on MSNBC or FOX and see people screaming about them. But beyond that I think there is dramatic mistrust and fear in the worlds between believers and non-believers and also amongst different believers. So they say 11 o’clock Sunday morning is the most segregated hour of the week. What that means is, Atheists think believers are weird and creepy; believers think Atheists are weird and creepy. And not just that but Born-Again Christians, people who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, think that people who have a more abstract or intellectual idea of Jesus Christ are weird and creepy and vice versa. It goes on and on and on. What I’m trying to do in my work and in my book is to say let’s leave all of that weird and creepy stuff aside because that just makes us mistrustful of each other. Let’s talk about what it is we do believe, why we believe it, how we exercise those beliefs, and try to understand it. We don’t have to love it; we don’t have to believe it ourselves. We don’t have to buy into it. We just have to understand that in America, 90% of people say they believe in God. So let’s figure out what they mean when they say that. Alex Tsakiris: I guess that’s my point. To me, you’re not setting that all aside. You’re really making that front and center of the debate. To me, the interesting thing is what is the spiritual experience? In your book, Heaven, you talk about a visitation that you had from your Jewish grandfather before your wedding. Then you quickly kind of brush that off as well, I don’t know if that’s real or not. Do you believe there’s such a thing as a genuine spiritual experience? Do you believe the encounter you had with your grandfather was, in fact, real? Lisa Miller: I think you’re asking the wrong question. I don’t think that religious experience and transcendent experience and spiritual experience can be measured empirically. I just don’t. Otherwise, we would know for a fact what Heaven looks like and where it is and whether it exists or not and who is there. And we don’t know those things. We just simply don’t know them. So I can’t measure whether this visit I had from what seemed to be the spirit of my grandfather was real, whether it was more real than a dream… Alex Tsakiris: Why can’t you? I mean, I think that’s such a copout. We measure these things all the time. This is the whole basis of psychology. Open up Newsweek Magazine and every article on psychology asks, “Do you like this more or this? Was this experience dream-like? Was it illusionary?” These are questions we ask people scientifically all the time. Why can’t we ask you about that experience and whether you think it was real, whether you think it was a hallucination, what you think it was. Doesn’t your experience matter? Lisa Miller: Um, yes. It matters very much. And it felt real to me, as I said in the book. Do I actually believe that my grandfather came down to Earth from some other place in a physical form? No. Do I believe I saw or felt something like him in that moment? Yes. Alex Tsakiris: So why do you believe that he did not come down in some kind of physical or spiritual form that was able to interact with you? Lisa Miller: Because I don’t believe that people come back to life. I say that very clearly in my book. Alex Tsakiris: Okay. Let’s delve into that topic right there from another angle because I think, to me, that’s the other thing that’s missing in this discussion, and that’s science. If we do have any chance of sorting through this spiritual stuff and getting some distance from it, some objectivity on it, we do have to look at the tools and methods of science. In your book, Heaven, you say “Near-death experiences I view as inspired stories, not factual accounts.” I’ve got to tell you, near-death experience is something we’ve covered quite a bit on this show. We’ve had a chance to talk to many, many of the world’s leading researchers as well as skeptics. Skeptics I’d say on both sides, religious skeptics and Atheistic skeptics. But your opinion there just doesn’t really conform to the scientific evidence we have on near-death experience. It really says just the opposite, that these accounts do seem to be factual, do seem to be verifiable. I mean, that’s what the science is telling us. Lisa Miller: No. Actually, the scientists don’t completely know what these experiences are. And there are some scientists—I’m thinking particularly of a group at the University of Virginia—who study near-death experience. Alex Tsakiris: Bruce Greyson you’re thinking of, right? Lisa Miller: Yeah. Well, not him anymore but his acolytes, the people who picked up where he left off. Alex Tsakiris: Why not him anymore? He’s still an active researcher. Lisa Miller: He has people who are much more active than he. Alex Tsakiris: Okay. Go ahead. Lisa Miller:   Working in his lab. And they say, when you push them the way you’re pushing me right now, they say, “I can’t say.” And I commend you to do so. They say, “I don’t know what that was.” I know these experiences seem really real. They will say exactly what I just said. Alex Tsakiris:   No, they won’t because all you have to do is listen to a dozen of our shows where we’ve had them on from Jeff Long to Sam Parnia to Peter Fenwick. And I’ve talked to Bruce Greyson on many occasions. Haven’t had a chance to interview him. And you’re just simply not correct. Again, the point I was making was whether these accounts are factual, and the evidence comes in over and over again that these accounts are factual, verifiable. We may not be able to… Lisa Miller: Verifiable how? Excuse me. Verifiable how? Alex Tsakiris: Verifiable in the way the research I… Lisa Miller: Can you go to the place where the people said they went and corroborate their visions? Alex Tsakiris: Well, that’s what folks have done. I mean, if you look at the research… Lisa Miller: No. Alex Tsakiris: Well, I was just going to share with you some research. I don’t know if you’re aware of Dr. Penny Sartori in the UK. She’s a colleague of Peter Fenwick and Sam Parnia, two of the most well-known NDE researchers in the world. Dr. Sartori did a very simple project where she interviewed near-death experiencers that had survived cardiac arrest. She asked them to recount the resuscitation and everything that happened during it. Then she was in a medical ward, a cardiac arrest ward, and she interviewed folks who had experienced cardiac arrest, recovered from it, but had not had a near-death experience. She compared the two. This is the kind of science that folks do all the time. She found a statistically significance in the group that had a near-death experience. They really did know what happened during the resuscitation and the other group didn’t. Greyson published a similar study in his most recent book. So there is scientific evidence that verifies that the information that’s coming back is accurate, is factual. Lisa Miller: I spoke to many scientists, both before my book and since then and I have not found a scientist who can tell me that he or she knows for sure that there is another realm. All they will say is that there’s a possibility that there is another realm. Alex Tsakiris: Sure, Lisa, but I’m just telling you where the research is pointing us. This is science. No one is going to come out and say conclusively… Lisa Miller: I’m going to have to disagree with you. I’m sorry. I think the most they will say is that there’s a possibility that there’s another realm and that we need to open our minds to that possibility where some kind of consciousness exists without bodies. But that is a non-mainstream belief among scientists and there is no corroborating evidence that the visions people have when they are not conscious actually describe something that is, as you say, real. There is no evidence of that. Alex Tsakiris: Well, I just presented to you some evidence of that. I actually cited two different studies. What you’re relying on is the conclusions of these scientists which have to be guarded and have to be measured. But if you really look at the evidence as it’s presented as it’s published, it’s consistent with what I’m telling you. And I’d go on to say that really when you say this mainstream view—what we’re talking about here, and what I’m giving you is the mainstream view among near… Lisa Miller: No. It’s really not. Alex Tsakiris: Well, you can jump in there and say it’s really… Lisa Miller: Among people who study near-death experiences? Alex Tsakiris: Exactly. This is the age of specialization. Why would we expect a neuroscientist who hasn’t studied near-death experience, hasn’t studied end of life, to be an expert? Why would we go to him on what happens to people when they die? Wouldn’t we go to well-qualified people? Lisa Miller: Well, because there is a range of scientific expertise and my book is not for people who fervently believe in near-death experiences. It’s for people who are struggling with that they think about Heaven, which is a completely different thing. If people want to read the so-called science on near-death experiences, then I commend them to the experts that you just quoted to me. If people want to think about what they believe about Heaven, if they were brought up with a belief about Heaven that they aren’t sure they’re comfortable with, if they yearn to believe in Heaven but don’t know what their tradition tells them, if they have visions of Heaven but they don’t know where they come from historically, culturally, sociologically, then my book is for them. Alex Tsakiris: Okay. And you just drew out another distinction that you make in the book and that’s the difference between Heaven and the afterlife. Maybe you want to tell us a little bit about how you see that distinction and then we can talk a little bit about that. Lisa Miller: Okay. Heaven, the way we use it for popular discourse, means a lot of things that the ancients didn’t mean it to mean. It means a place in the sky where God lives; it means the place we go after we die; it means the place where our grandparents and our pets go. And it also means something about the Resurrection, although what it actually means is unclear. So in the broadest popular definition, Heaven is all of those things. We’re up there with our bodies and our grandparents, with God in the sky forever and ever. But that, I argue, is a very unserious vision of Heaven and it’s sort of perpetuated by greeting card manufacturers and sort of thin spiritual purveyors of sort of a shallow spirituality. I argue that in ancient times all of those different definitions meant something else, meant something specific, and that you could believe in one without the other. You could believe that you would live with God forever and ever but that place would not be populated with the souls of other people. Or you could believe that you would have some kind of body in Heaven but it wouldn’t necessarily be like your flesh-and-blood body. You get what I mean. We tend to lump all of this together. Afterlife is a much, much older concept than Heaven. I mean, almost every creature before Biblical times had some kind of afterlife where pre-humans buried their dead with seeds and tools and stuff that they might need in another life. So the difference between afterlife and Heaven is everybody’s always having some kind of afterlife and Heaven in this place in the sky with God and other people and your body maybe. Alex Tsakiris: Okay. But I guess that gets us back to the first topic we were talking about, these culture war issues and the way we parson and hammer out the semantics. I’m not saying that there aren’t a lot of differences that need to be explored there. Those definitions do matter and they certainly fuel this debate and they polarize us when we don’t really know what we mean when we say “Heaven” or “God.” At the same time, I have a sense that we are getting away from the real issues that drive most of us, and that’s that we don’t care about the definition of Heaven. What we care about is this continuation of consciousness that is captured in this idea of an afterlife. So are you really drawing a distinction there that matters very much to people? Lisa Miller: I think so. I mean, I think that my book forces people to grapple with all of this. What you’re talking about—the two questions that really interest me in the area that you’re talking about and the sort of the continuation of consciousness is individuality—if you continue in some way are you you in a recognizable way? And if you’re not, how do you understand the continuation of consciousness? And the other thing which is part of this conversation that I find very interesting is this question of eternity because in all ancient and medieval conversations and writings about Heaven, about afterlife, Heaven is eternal, right? It’s forever and ever and ever. In many descriptions of Heaven it’s changeless. So what does that mean to an organism that biologically is characterized by change? We change every second. We learn things; we forget things; we grow old; we fall in love; we have children; our bodies change; our memories change. What we know changes. How does that exist? Alex Tsakiris: Okay, but Lisa, now you’ve thrown me for a loop because you’re interested in continuation of consciousness. Do you believe that the best evidence we have suggests that consciousness does survive our death? Lisa Miller: I don’t believe that’s the best evidence we have. We’re back to where we started. Alex Tsakiris: So you don’t believe consciousness survives death. Lisa Miller: I’m saying that it’s possible but I don’t know for sure. Alex Tsakiris: Well, I don’t know for sure either. And no one… Lisa Miller: Well, that’s where we all are. That’s where we all are on this stuff. We don’t know. Alex Tsakiris: No. That’s… Lisa Miller: We don’t know whether consciousness survives death… Alex Tsakiris: …that’s unsatisfactory. Lisa Miller: We don’t know what Heaven looks like. We don’t know whether our grandparents are there. What we have is a hope. Alex Tsakiris: No. We have……that is not where most of us are living our life. Most of us are living our life from making some kind of conclusion from the data we have. So why is it unfair to ask you whether or not—you just said it’s the… Lisa Miller: I didn’t say it was unfair and I answered your question. Alex Tsakiris: Okay, how did you answer it? Do you believe that… Lisa Miller: I said I think that there’s a possibility but I don’t know. Alex Tsakiris: You think there’s a possibility—well, that would kind of cover all the bases, wouldn’t it? Well, what would you think the possibility is? Would you be leaning more towards the evidence that you have suggested that consciousness does survive death or would you be leaning towards the evidence we have that suggests that consciousness doesn’t survive death? Where would you weigh in? Lisa Miller: I think that it’s a great hope of many people. Alex Tsakiris: Why so noncommittal? I don’t understand that. Lisa Miller: I’m not noncommittal. I’m telling you what I believe. And I don’t think… Alex Tsakiris: But it’s indirect. It’s not answering a direct question, which is--you can choose not to… Lisa Miller: I’m answering your question as best as I can. Truly I am. Alex Tsakiris: No, you’re not. You’re answering a different question. You’re answering the hope question but you’re not answering whether you personally, based on the evidence you’ve looked at in doing this work and writing this book and being the Senior Religious Editor at Newsweek Magazine, you haven’t told me whether the evidence that you’ve taken in has persuaded you one side or another or if it’s left you… Lisa Miller: I said just as I think about Heaven, I think that it is a possibility and that it is something to hope for. Alex Tsakiris: I don’t get it. Lisa Miller: Well, you’re just going to have to move on to the next question. Alex Tsakiris: I will, I will. I’ll move on. Lisa Miller: That would be great. Alex Tsakiris: Okay. So you were saying a minute ago that you think I’m skeptical and I guess I am skeptical. And I’m skeptical in a different way than you are because I’m skeptical of the real message behind your book, because I hear this hope message and I read it in the introduction that it’s really about hope. That sounds really good. And then I watch you on media outlets like the Colbert Report and you say, “Heaven is a silly idea yet everyone…” Lisa Miller: No, that’s not what I said. Alex Tsakiris: That’s your exact quote. I’ll play it. Lisa Miller: No. I say that in our culture Heaven has become a silly idea. I do not think Heaven is a silly idea. I think it’s a very important idea. I think it’s a fundamentally important idea which is why I wrote the book. Alex Tsakiris: Okay, tell us what you mean then when you say that in our culture Heaven has become a silly idea, yet everyone says they believe in it. Lisa Miller: Right. So what I mean is when a pollster calls somebody on the telephone and says, “Do you believe in Heaven,” 81% of us say yes. But I think that if you ask them, “Okay, what do you mean by that,” I know for a fact that they’ll say something like this: “Oh, Heaven is that feeling I get when I’m walking on the beach and it’s a beautiful day and I feel the sand between my toes.” Or, “Heaven is just like this trip I took to Disneyland with my family and we had all the cotton candy we could eat.” Or here’s one you hear a lot. “Heaven is a place where you can eat as much as you want and never get fat.” Or even, “Heaven is a place where the streets are paved with gold and there are gushing fountains and trees that have a million kinds of ripe fruits.” Okay, so those are fantasies of human life that have nothing to do with some of the more important questions about Heaven like, What happens to our bodies? What happens to our individuality? Where is God in this picture? Does God exist? What does it mean to live eternally? What does it mean to see your parents again? That’s what I mean by silly and I think that our culture perpetuates these silly ideas of Heaven in jokes, in New Yorker cartoons, in movies, in popular fiction. And I think that what that does is it stimulates a lot of people to go, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, I believe that. I believe that Heaven is a place with white shag carpeting. It’s like a penthouse or apartment.” Or any number of examples. But those ideas of Heaven are shallow and they are not intellectually serious. If you study the religious tradition, the Christian tradition, the Jewish tradition, the Muslim tradition, if you study scripture, if you study narratives of Heaven, you will see that there are these questions that keep coming up over and over and over that these silly 21st Century conceptions don’t cover. Alex Tsakiris: Yeah. Well, it’s certainly an interesting book. Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination With the Afterlife. Lisa, thanks for joining us today. Lisa Miller: Thank you so much. Alex Tsakiris: Okay, take care.

...

142. Jim Marrs On Donald Rumsfeld and “What is Building 7?”

Bestselling author and investigative journalist Jim Marrs discusses how disinformation is used to shape history. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Jim Marrs, author of, Trillion Dollar Conspiracy.  During the interview Mr. Marrs discusses how disinformation is disseminated: Alex Tsakiris: It seems like we’ve developed a culture of deception.  I wanted to get your thoughts on Donald Rumsfeld who when asked to explain how the events of 9-11 could have resulted in the collapse of Building 7 responded with, “What is Building 7? I have no idea. I’ve never heard about that.” So I just wonder, have we reached a new level in this kind of culture of deception where they don’t even care about the extent to which we know they’re lying? Jim Marrs: That’s exactly right. And I’m sorry, but you can say a lot of things about Donald Rumsfeld but being a stupid person and an ignorant person just is does not even enter into the question. So you cannot tell me that Donald Rumsfeld does not know about the collapse of the Solomon Brothers Building, better known as World Trade Center Building #7, which collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon of September the 11th, 2001. And one of the three buildings that dropped into their own foundations after being hit by only two airplanes, okay? But then again this is the same Donald Rumsfeld who, back during the Reagan administration, was the head of Searle Pharmaceutical, who told his associates that he was going to push through and get the government to approve the use of Aspartame, which is a carcinogenic—a really harmful substance—that the government up until then had refused to certify through the FDA. And now there’s just a growing awareness and a growing outcry against the use of Aspartame because Aspartame, when it gets into your body, the body heat changes it basically to formaldehyde. There has been study after study showing these problems. This was all done on Donald Rumsfeld’s watch. So this guy is a constant—well, I’ll just say it, I mean, he’s a liar, okay? And I can prove it. Again that’s not a theory. Alex Tsakiris: Well, he’s a go-to-guy liar, which I wanted to explore because I think in my little world here exploring the science of consciousness I started with the notion that maybe science was different. But what I’ve come to understand is that there are these guys who are the go-to-guy liars in science as well.  Guys who you can rely on to really push forward the story and can stand in front of the public and just tell these bold-faced lies. How do you think that works? Jim Marrs: Well, that works very simply. In the case you’re talking about the technique used is to appeal to authority. Oh, well, I’m an authority. I’m a high-ranking person. I’m in the leadership so I wear a suit and tie so you have to listen to me because I’m the expert. There was a time when there were scientists, doctors, lawyers, people who were studied, had degrees and who did probably know a little bit more than the average guy on the street and were looked up to as authorities and as experts. But that time is past. Today money is the only thing that counts, unfortunately, in our society and the corporations and the organizations that have deep pockets can hire an “expert” to stand up in suit and tie and say anything they want them to say. Jim Marrs Website Play it: Download MP3 (32:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: I’m going to suggest to you that today’s guest may have more to contribute to the topics we care most about on Skeptiko than most of the scientists, researchers, and other great thinkers we’ve had an opportunity to talk to. Today, Jim Marrs is an award-winning investigative journalist, best-selling author of such books as, Rule by Secrecy, Rise of the Fourth Reich, and his latest, Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy. Jim Marrs has gone places that few dare to go and he’s done it with a tenacity and a nose for the story that we expect but rarely see from today’s journalists. Jim, it’s a great pleasure to have you on Skeptiko. Jim Marrs: Thanks a lot. I appreciate being here with you.

...

141. Steve Volk Investigates UFOs, Ghosts, Telepathy and Near-Death Experience in, Fringe-ology

Investigative journalist and author Steve Volk seeks a middle-ground between mainstream science skepticism and researchers on the paranormal fringe. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Steve Volk, author of Fringe-ology.  During the interview Mr. Volk discusses his personal experience with poltergeist phenomena: Alex Tsakiris: In your book you do a very nice job of exploring the mystery of the paranormal. But at the same time, I look at the mystery associated with your experience with a ghost in your house. That is, what happened to you when you were a kid growing up and you experienced this poltergeist phenomena. At the end of the day, in the book you come away and say, “Well, it’s a mystery.” Steve Volk: It is. Alex Tsakiris: But that’s a tricky word because it could mean two things. It could appeal to that certain group of people who say, “Okay, we don’t know if it really happened. It’s a mystery.” Or another group of people could process it and say, “Oh, it’s a mystery. We don’t know the precise confluence of paranormal things that happened to cause it.” Are we using a word that doesn’t get us to the underlying question about this mystery? Steve Volk: I think in the totality of that chapter with the fact that I explore the idea of it having been a traditional sort of ghost, along with a range of skeptical explanations from the fantasy-prone personality which is really purely a psychological one to what I consider the more exotic materialist theories like Vic Tandy’s theory of infrasound that there are these sound waves below the level of human hearing that can cause us to even have visual hallucinations, on through Persinger and the electromagnetic energy temporal lobe interaction that he’s been pursuing for a while now, there’s this range of potential explanations right? I wanted to just put them all out on the table because I think that they all have some sort of validity. I think we need to be willing to consider all these possibilities. I suppose, in that respect Alex, I might appear a little bit of a gadfly at times because I’m challenging everyone to look at all the possibilities all the way on through. Steve Volk's Website Play it: Download MP3 (44:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: We’re joined today by someone you’ve gotten to know over the last few episodes of Skeptiko as Steve Volk has been a guest host here and brought us three very informative, insightful interviews about the history of parapsychology, neuro-theology, and ghosts. Today Steve is here to talk about his new book, Fringe-ology, a book that covers all these topics and a lot more. Steve, welcome to Skeptiko. Steve Volk: Alex, thank you so much for having me.

...

140. Dr. Lakhmir Chawla Frustrates Near-Death Experience Researchers

George Washington University Medical Center Professor, Dr. Lakhmir Chawla, answers critics of his near-death experience research. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Dr. Lakhmir Chawla.  During the interview Dr. Chawla discussed whether his discovery of a surge in the brain’s electrical activity seconds before death might, or might not, be related to near-death experience: Alex Tsakiris: A moment ago you referenced the discovery of the first black swan as reminder of how science has to be prepared for unexpected discoveries.  Part of the frustration I hear from near-death experience researchers is, “hey, we keep finding all these black swans; where are the rest of you?”  They keep finding cases where patients report a near-death experience during a time when there’s no brain activity -- that’s a black swan. Then they look at your finding, which is interesting and surprising, but is quite speculative as far as being related to near-death experience and they say, “where’s the balance?” Dr. Lakhmir Chawla: I think that’s a very important point. At the end of the day, if near-death experience is going to enter a very durable research area it has to answer some of these questions.  Because right now we know that near-death experiences are very important to patients. So the stakeholders are very interested in it. So it will always have its relevant people who are very interested in it because it’s a big deal and it talks about the aspect of life when life potentially ends. What we’re suggesting in this paper is that we have an interesting finding at the time of death. It may have nothing to do with near-death experience, but the need to understand what this is or isn’t has a lot of value. Now, I’ll tell you, the other important issue is that we have patients who we allow to pass away and then we take their organs. Currently we use EKG as the metric for when they’re dead. Some people have suggested that you should wait and see if they have this spike because that may, in fact, be the border. And this has real consequences for the quality of the organs that are taken from these patients if they’re allowed to sit for even a minute or two minutes longer. So, the implications are beyond the near-death experience. Example of how Dr. Chawla's finding was reported Play it: Download MP3 (41:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome to Skeptiko  Associate Professor of Medicine at George Washington University Medical Center, Dr. Lakhmir Chawla.  Dr. Chawla, thank you so much for joining me today on Skeptiko. Dr. Lakhmir Chawla: Delighted to be here. Alex Tsakiris: So, Dr. Chawla, in 2009 you published a paper with the surprising discovery that some of your patients who were very close to death experienced a final surge in brain activity and the paper has gained quite a bit of traction, media attention, mainly because of this quote of yours: “We think that near-death experiences could be caused by a surge of electrical energy as the brain runs out of oxygen.” It‘s been a while since that paper was published.  So first I want to ask you, do you still think that what you saw has anything to do with near-death experience?

...

139. Are Ghosts Real? Guy Lyon Playfair’s Thirty-Year Investigation Yields Insights

Noted parapsychology investigator and author Guy Lyon Playfair discusses poltergeists, after-death communication and the telepathy of twins. Join Skeptiko guest host Steve Volk for an interview with Guy Lyon Playfair.  During the interview Mr. Playfair summarizes what he’s learned about the poltergeist phenomena: Steve Volk: What’s your best guess, at this stage, after all these years, on what poltergeists, or ghosts, are. Guy Playfair: The short answer is that there are two possibilities. Either they are some kind of discarnate entity – which I certainly don’t rule out – or else they are an entirely unknown force that emanates from the human mind.  How it works we simply don’t know. We can only observe its effects. I think there’s quite strong evidence that it’s some kind of so-called spirit or discarnate entity, kind of drifting blobs of exo-intelligence, if you like. But that is an extremely controversial opinion and not many people share it. Steve Volk: I do find it interesting that in some cases skeptics have started putting forth more complicated and I would say more interesting theories than the usual, the mind plays tricks, wishful thinking, creaking floorboards, leaky pipes kind of explanations. Guy Playfair: Yes, there’s another possible line of inquiry. Poltergeist outbreaks have got certain features in common with Tourette’s syndrome, where you get these sorts of jerks and muscular spasms and things and also very strange vocal sounds. A poltergeist looks rather like an extension of some super-Tourette’s where not only the muscles twitch but furniture starts twitching as well. But that’s not my idea. That was actually Michael Persinger and William Roll, who is a very experienced researcher. I think it’s an interesting line to follow up. Guy Lyon Playfair's wiki entry Play it: Download MP3 (33:00 min.) Read it: I’m Steve Volk, guest hosting for Alex Tsakiris on Skeptiko. My guest today is Guy Lyon Playfair, a journalist and translator who has been conducting paranormal research seemingly forever. His first book, The Unknown Power, a book on psychical research, was written in 1975. In the ensuing years he’s written about Uri Geller, hypnotism, telepathy among twins, reincarnation, and we’ll discuss some of those things. Today we’re going to focus out of the gate on the topic of Guy’s new book, a re-release really, of a book first published in 1980. The book is called, This House Is Haunted, and it deals with the very famous Enfield Poltergeist case. I wanted to talk to Guy because in my book, Fringe-ology, I kind of out myself, describing what I call “the family ghost,” an old ghost story I grew up with as a child. I was about six years old and have a few memories of the events my family’s described to me. In general, without getting into too much detail, there was a booming and thumping sound that came from the walls and ceiling. It seemed to respond to my parents’ movements in the house. My sisters talked about having the blankets pulled from them as they slept, their beds shaking in unison in the middle of the night, and a female apparition who walked through the room. I’m hoping Guy, in talking about the Enfield case, can give me a little insight into poltergeists, including some details from a new study which used some recordings from the Enfield case, conducted by Dr. Barrie Colvin, with whom Guy cooperated. Hopefully we will get to much else besides. Guy, thanks for being on Skeptiko. Guy Playfair: Thank you for having me.

...

133. Dr. Stuart Hameroff On Quantum Consciousness and Moving Singularity Goal Posts

Human consciousness researcher Dr. Stuart Hameroff describes how discoveries are revealing more brain complexity than artificial intelligence (AI) experts suspected. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Dr. Stuart Hameroff. Dr. Hameroff is Professor Emeritus in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology at the University of Arizona, where he also serves as the Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies. During the interview Mr. Tsakiris and Dr. Hameroff discuss whether DMT-based psychedelic experiences provide evidence that our consciousness exists outside of the brain: Alex Tsakiris: Your understanding of the quantum mechanics of the neuron really stirs up a lot of angst among the AI singularity crowd. Tell us a little bit about that controversy. Dr. Stuart Hameroff: To look at our brain as 100 billion simple switches -- to look at a neuron as a switch or gate -- it's an insult to neurons. It's just not that simple. If you study biology you realize this.  But a lot of biologists get bogged down with the details and lose the big picture. They see the information processing in the cell as a minestrone soup of chemicals when they're ignoring the solid state system in the microtubules. The bit with the AI and the singularity, there's actually a couple of points of friction here. As I said, I spent 20 years studying microtubule information processing. The AI approach would be, roughly speaking, that a neuron fires or it doesn't. It's roughly comparable to a bit, 1 or 0. It's more complicated than that but roughly speaking.  I was saying no, each neuron has roughly 10-8 tubulins switching at roughly 10-7 per second, getting 10-15 operations per second per neuron. If you multiply that by the number of neurons you get 10 to the 26th operations per second per brain. AI is looking at neurons firing or not firing, 1,000 per second, 1,000 synapses. Something like the 10 to the 15th operations per second per brain... and that's without even bringing in the quantum business. So that alone was pushing the goalpost way, way downstream into the future. Dr. Stuart Hameroff's website Play it: Download MP3 (34:00 min.) Read it: Today we welcome Dr. Stuart Hameroff to Skeptiko. Dr. Hameroff is Professor Emeritus in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology at the University of Arizona, where he also serves as the Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies. Dr. Hameroff, thank you so much for joining me today on Skeptiko. Dr. Stuart Hameroff: You're welcome, Alex. It's nice to be here.

...

132. Deborah Blum On the Taboo of Paranormal Science Reporting

Pulitzer Prize winning author Deborah Blum discusses the challenges of science reporting and the paranormal taboo. Skeptiko guest host Steve Volk welcomes Deborah Blum author of, Ghost Hunters - William James and the Hunt for Scientific Proof of Life After Death. During the interview Ms. Blum discusses her approach to covering the paranormal: Steve Volk: This is one of the hardest things. Who do we believe? Who do we trust? I want to see somehow people in the middle pick this stuff up and look at it, but that's a very, very rare occurrence. Deborah Blum: I agree. Like I said, I'm a mainstream science journalist and daughter of a chemist. But what was fascinating to me when I started working on Ghost Hunters is that I'd go and give talks at different universities. I mean literally, I was at the University of Florida and they said, 'Oh, let us tell you about our haunted laboratory.' Or I was at a meeting with a bunch of animal researchers and I was sitting next to a very respected scientist from Stanford who immediately started telling me about the telepathic experiences she'd had with a friend of hers who is a scientist at Southwestern University. I thought to myself, 'This whole world exists that really those of us in the skeptic/science community never see because people just don't tell you about it. Steve Volks's website Fringe-ology Trailer Deborah Blum - Ghost Hunters Play it: Download MP3 (58:00 min.) Read it: Welcome to Skeptiko, where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Tsakiris. On this episode, as you just heard, there's a new voice behind the interview so before we get started I thought we'd take a minute and introduce that voice, that being the voice of journalist and author, Steve Volk, who's joining me right now.

...

129. Karen Stollznow On Psychic Science and Being a Skeptic

Co-host of Point of Inquiry, discusses how Skeptics approach psychic science. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with skeptical writer and blogger Dr. Karen Stollznow. During the interview Mr. Tsakiris and Dr. Stollznow discuss to role of science in skeptical investigations: Alex Tsakiris: I do feel you, especially as an intellectual... and I know you're a linguist and not trained as a parapsychologist... but you have somewhat of an obligation to build off of the original research or the best research that we have in the field. So, Gary Schwartz does medium research. Then, Julie Beischel picks up the gauntlet and is going forward in publishing work with mediums. So you can like that or you can not like it, but it really to me seems to get to the core issue which is does this kind of anomalous cognition between a "medium" and a deceased person really exist?  So, why aren't you familiar with the research? Dr. Karen Stollznow: Well, once again, I think I've worked in so many different areas with so many different themes and topics within the paranormal and pseudo-science and often I'm writing an article that might be 1,000 words. I'm limited; I've got a word limit that I can't go over so I need to condense anything that I write and if I'm going to a psychic fair and writing about my experiences there, I don't need to necessarily reference the research of these people. If I was writing about the research of these people then that would be a different matter, obviously. I'd need to keep my finger on the pulse of everything that is being done in that industry. But if I'm looking at individuals out there on the street who are practicing this and given again, it's just one small area of what I study and research, then I'm not necessarily obliged to know what these people are doing within that context. Dr. Karen Stollznow's website Play it: Download MP3 (34:00 min.) Read it: Welcome to Skeptiko, where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Tsakiris. As you know, one of the things we like to do on Skeptiko is engage the skeptical community. If you go back through the past shows you'll see that we've had on many, many of the leading skeptical figures, skeptical writers, publishers of skeptical magazines, hosts of skeptical shows, and certainly people who have viewpoints that are different from the guests that we normally have on-the proponents, the researchers, the thinkers about psi and parapsychology.

...

125. Atheist Debates Existence of Soul with Near Death Experience Believer

Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris and atheist blogger Greta Christina square-off for a debate on near Death Experience (NDE) science. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview discussing the existence of the soul and the science of Near Death Experience. During the interview Tsakiris points out the lack of research among NDE skeptics, "And really, if we're going to play the kind of credential game, you really wouldn't want to stack Dr. Bruce Greyson, Dr. Jeff Long, Dr. Pim Van Lommel, one of the most highly regarded cardiologists in the world who's been studying near-death experience for 30 years-you wouldn't want to stack them against Keith Augustine, who really doesn't have any kind of medical credentials. So I'm talking to you about published research in these cases." Ms. Christina responds, "There is what seems to me to be extremely shaky research and there's no consensus about it in any sense-in fact, the overwhelming consensus among neurologists is that no, these people are, I'm not going to say crackpots, that's too strong a word. But these people are mistaken. They're being led down the garden path by their wishful thinking. And again, when you look at the history of thousands and thousands and thousands of years of human knowledge, where supernatural explanations consistently get replaced with natural ones and it's ultimately when the research has been really done and it's been really examined, it's never been the case that it's happened the other way around." Near the end of the debate, Ms. Christina sums up her argument "...even if I conceded everything that you've said in this whole conversation, all that it proves is that consciousness is weird and that we don't understand it. That's all that it proves. It doesn't prove anything about there being an immaterial soul that animates consciousness. It doesn't prove anything about immaterial soul surviving death." Tsakiris responds, "I don't mind hearing your opinion, but you've got to back it up. You're saying that every time somebody gives you research you go and look at it and it's debunked. Well, tell me. Tell me what's been debunked. You haven't cited any real NDE research. You cited Keith Augustine and then you want to say Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptical Magazine?" Greata's Blog Post: Why Near Death Experiences Are a Terrible Argument for the Soul Play it: Download MP3 (43:00 min.) Read it: Welcome to Skeptiko, where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Tsakiris. For a while on this show I've maintained that there really isn't a good, solid, scientific argument against near-death experience science. If you've followed this show  and you've listened to the guests that we've had on, people like Dr. Jeffrey Long, Dr. Pim Van Lommel, Dr. Peter Fenwick, Dr. Bruce Greyson (who we haven't actually interviewed but who has contributed by email), if you stack them up against the skeptics we've talked to, Dr. G. M. Woerlee, Dr. Kevin Nelson, Dr. Susan Blackmore, Dr. Steven Novella, or even Dr. Sam Parnia (who's kind of in the middle of this issue but we really have to put on the side of the skeptic) if you stack up the two arguments there's really no comparison.

...

123. Randi’s Prize Exposed in New Book by Robert McLuhan

Author Robert McLuhan examines the psychology and hidden purpose behind the modern skeptical movement pioneered by James Randi. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with the author of, Randi's Prize: What Sceptics Say About the Paranormal, Why They Are Wrong, and Why It Matters, Robert McLuhan. During the interview Mr. McLuhan discusses the possible motivation of skeptics, "...we complain an awful lot about people like James Randi who apparently subvert what seems to be a perfectly good data and rather deceptively distort perceptions... but I think we have to start thinking beyond that and start thinking about what it is exactly that these guys are trying to protect? Is it a rational thing they're doing? Perhaps I can make the point more succinctly in terms of psychokinesis, just imagine the effects of science declaring psychokinesis is real. If you really think this through you see we are in a very changed environment if we say human minds can interact with matter. That raises all sorts of very difficult implications." McLuhan continues, "If we think some people can hex other people, or interfere with the brakes when they're driving -- it doesn't even have to be true -- but if science says something like that is feasible and possible, it might happen, then what sort of situation are we in? I suspect, and I'm not sure if this is a conscious idea skeptics have... but I think what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is we have to think about the wider implications of psi endorsed and accepted by a central authority like science." Rob McLuhan Blogs at Paranormalia Play it: Download MP3 (47:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Robert McLuhan is an Oxford-trained freelance journalist who's authored Randy's Prize: What Skeptics Say About the Paranormal, Why They're Wrong, and Why it Matters. Robert, welcome to Skeptiko. Robert McLuhan: Thanks, Alex; I'm glad to be here.

...

122. Reincarnation of Apostle Paul, Nick Bunick’s Claims Scrutinized

Popular author Nick Bunick claims past-life regression provided remembrances of Jesus, but biblical scholars have doubts. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with bestselling author of, Time For Truth, Nick Bunick. During the interview Mr. Bunick discusses how a chance visit to a psychic revealed his past,  "Alex, I had no idea what he was talking about. Two thousand years ago I walked with the Master? I didn't even have a religion. I'd never read the Gospels. I did have a relationship with God; it was a spiritual relationship. But what happened to me then over the next six or seven years, I had affirmation after affirmation from other sources that indeed, my spirit and soul had manifested itself 2,000 years ago in the person we know as the Apostle Paul." But, as Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris explains during the interview, biblical scholars take exception with some of Mr. Bunick's claims, "I've tried to get a sense for biblical scholarship in general and it surprised how much we do know about the Bible. It is the most studied document in history.  Millions of man-hours have been spent scouring the earth, finding every copy we can get our hands on. Scholars have gone through and scrutinized every word and every letter.  I don't think these scholars would agree with your account. Secular scholars like Bart Ehrman and Robert Price, as well as Christian Biblical scholars don't find any support for your claim that the Bible used to support reincarnation." According to Bunick transcripts of past-life regression sessions, "gave information about the life of Paul never before known before, as well as the life of Jesus never before known. And also, it conflicted in many places with what is written in the New Testament." Nick Bunick Play it: Download MP3 (49:00 min.) Read it: Welcome to Skeptiko, where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Tsakiris, and I have to tell you that in preparing for this episode, in particular the introduction to this episode, I was really challenged. I was trying to figure out how to wrap my arms around what I wanted to say. And then I was going through the forum and I came across a video that one of our listeners had posted.

...

121. Skeptical of Skeptics, Chris Carter Tackles Near Death Experience Science

Author Chris Carter discuses how Near Death Experience Science is misunderstood and misrepresented by mainstream science. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Chris Carter, author of, Science and the Near Death Experience. During the interview Carter explains how the acceptance of paradigm changing science like near death experience and telepathy wouldn't change science as we know it, "...I do not agree with you that the acceptance-say of telepathy, or the acceptance of the near-death experience as a genuine separation of mind from body, I do not think that would challenge any aspect of science. I don't think it would change the way that neuroscientists come in and do their jobs. I think that everything would be exactly the same. They'd continue looking for the same chemicals, the same neurotransmitters, the same areas of the brain that light up. They'd still be trying to work with split brain patients and patents who have damaged brains. I don't think that anything would change. Except, yes, their conversations down at the pub on weekends would change. Absolutely. The philosophical conversations would change. But I really don't think that it would impact anything in science simply because modern neuroscience is completely neutral as to whether the brain produces the mind or whether the brain acts as a receiver/transmitter for the mind." According to Chris Carter the real dividing  point between mainstream science and the breakthroughs of near death experience science lie in conventional view that everything we experience can be reduced to just brain activity, "Materialists like to claim successes in modern science have been due to a Materialistic outlook. You've probably heard that before. But this is nonsense. The three men most responsible for the scientific revolution, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were not Materialists. One of the reasons Galileo recanted his views is because he feared the Church would excommunicate him. Newton spent the last half of his life writing on theology. I mean, Materialism is an ancient philosophy that basically asserts that everything has a material cause. Therefore, the brain produces the mind. This dates back at least to Democritus in ancient Greece. It was thought to gain support from the physics of Isaac Newton, although Newton himself did not agree. Newton himself instead followed the Dualism of Renee Descartes. It was really the 18th century philosophers such as Diderot and Voltaire who spread the doctrines of Materialism and Mechanism. They did this in order to combat the religious fundamentalism and superstition, and the persecution that were common in their time." Chris Carter Play it: Download MP3 (39:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Welcome to Skeptiko, where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Tsakiris. Before we get to today's interview with Chris Carter, I want to take a minute and tell you about something that happened to me this week. One of the benefits of doing Skeptiko and having it achieve the little bit of success that it has is that I now get books sent to me on a regular basis. Little surprises in the mail. A new book. A new movie to review.

...

120. Dr. James Fetzer Separates JFK Assassination Science From Fiction

Scholar and author Dr. James Fetzer discuses how his research into the JFK assassination and 9/11 attacks has allowed him to sort out the real evidence. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with one of the world's leading authorities on the JFK assassination, Jim Fetzer. During the interview Dr. Fetzer explains why it's still hard for many Americans to accept the mountains of research contradicting the official story about the JFK assassination, "we place so much confidence in the government that we want to believe it's there to nurture and protect us from our enemies, that any indication, even if it turns out to the powerful evidence, that this core belief might be false is too threatening to acknowledge. So a lot of Americans find it easier to adopt an ostrich policy and just bury their heads in the sand and ignore discussions and demonstrations such as the books that I publish that prove to the contrary." While the show is a departure from topics usually covered on Skeptiko, according to host Alex Tsakiris it has many similarities, "Skeptiko has focused on the science of human consciousness... Psi, near-death experience, parapsychology. But Dr. Fetzer's work is relevant to Skeptiko because the process he's gone through in terms of sorting through a lot of scientific evidence on very controversial topics is exactly what we've been talking about on the last 100+ episodes of Skeptiko." Dr. Fetzer, who has authored three books and dozens of papers on JFK assassination science, also discusses how his career teaching philosophy of science and critical thinking courses at the University of Minnesota provides him a unique perspective on competing theories regarding the JFK case, "I recognize that in science the convergence of opinion only obtains when you're looking at the same range of hypotheses, using the same body of evidence, and using the same rules of reasoning. I know a great deal about these cases because I've investigated the full range of hypotheses, looked at all of the evidence, as much as is available, and sorted it out in terms of the authentic and the falsified and fabricated. I know the rules of reasoning because that's been my professional obligation as a philosopher of science. So I'm in a position to analyze these things in a way that most others simply are not." Dr. James Fetzer Assassination Science Website Play it: Download MP3 (65:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Tsakiris. Well, this show is going to be quite a departure-or at least it's going to seem like quite a departure-from the topics we normally cover on Skeptiko. Today we're going to talk about the JFK assassination. Yeah, we're going to talk about the JFK assassination with one of the leading scholar/researchers on the topic, who also happens to be someone who's taught critical thinking and scientific analysis for 35 years and is a very highly regarded philosopher/scholar on a number of topics.

...

116. Dr. Sam Parnia Claims Near Death Experience Probably an Illusion

Interview with NDE researcher and AWARE Project leader explores limits of experiments on near-death experience. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with the NDE expert and author of, What Happens When We Die?, Dr. Sam Parnia.  During the interview Dr. Parnia is asked why he suspects NDE is an "illusion", and a "trick of the mind".  When pressed, Dr Parnia stated, "...It may well be. You're pushing and I'm giving you honest answers. I don't know. If I knew the answers then I don't think I would have engaged and spent 12 years of my life and so much of my medical reputation to try to do this. Because to appreciate people like me, I risk a lot by doing this sort of experiment. So I'm interested in the answers and I don't know. Like I said, if I was to base everything on the knowledge that I have currently of neuroscience, then the easiest explanation is that this is probably an illusion." While Dr. Parnia's position regarding the validity of the NDE phenomena stands in contrast to most other near death experience researchers he continues to push forward.  His AWARE Project asks cardiac arrest patients who experience a NDE to recall hidden pictures placed above their bed.  This methodology has been criticized by NDE experts who give it little chance of yielding positive results. Dr. Parnia responds, "I don't know if be successful or not. That's an important point to make. As I said, I don't have a particular stance. It's possible that these experiences are simply illusionary and it's possible that they're real. Science hasn't got the answers yet. So we have to go fair-minded. Right now what we have is a setup that can at least, we hope, objectively determine an answer to the question." Dr. Sam Parnia Bio Video lecture at Goldsmiths in London Is Dr. Sam Parnia’s AWARE Study of Near Death Experience Doomed to Fail? Play it: Download MP3 (38:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: We're joined today by the author of What Happens When We Die? He's a leading expert on NDE research. He's best known as the lead investigator of the AWARE Project. Dr. Sam Parnia is a Fellow in pulmonary care at Cornell University and he's a doctor. I mean, in addition to being a researcher, he's also there in the ICU saving lives. Dr. Parnia, thanks so much for joining me today on Skeptiko.

...

114. Near-Death Experience Skeptic Dr. Susan Blackmore Responds to Critics

Interview with author and consciousness expert Dr. Susan Blackmore explains why Skeptics and atheists cling to her opinions on NDE science. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for and interview with oft quoted near-death experience skeptic, Dr. Susan Blackmore. During the interview Dr. Blackmore acknowledges that dispute her reputation among near-death experience doubters, she has not remained current in the field, "It's absolutely true; I haven't written about this subject for a long time and I haven't kept up with all the literature, either." Blackmore continues, "... I gave up all of this stuff so many years ago...if you are a researcher in the field it behooves you to read as much as you can of the best work because otherwise you can't be a researcher in the field. I'm not a researcher in the field. I have not been for a long time." Dr. Blackmore also responds to criticisms of her interpretation of Buddhist teachings. In her book, Dying to Live, Blackmore stated, "... in Buddhism these experiences are not meant to be taken literally". This statement has been criticized by Buddhists scholars. During the Skeptiko interview Blackmore responds to those criticism, "Well, I'm not a Buddhist scholar. I don't read Sanskrit or original language. I'm not a scholar of Buddhism in that sense. But I have been training in Zen for 30 years now. I've also trained to some extent, much and much less in Tibetan practices. Most of what I wrote there is based on that long practice." Check out Dr. Susan Blackmore's Website A Critique of Susan Blackmore's Dying Brain Hypothesis by Greg Stone Play it: Download MP3 (53:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome back Dr. Susan Blackmore. She's a writer, lecturer; in fact, you may have seen her excellent presentation at the TED conference a couple years ago, which is quite an honor itself. She's also a visiting professor in psychology at the University of Plymouth. Dr. Blackmore, welcome back to Skeptiko. Dr. Susan Blackmore: Thank you very much.

...

113. Atheist Ophelia Benson Admires the Pre-Deathbed Denouncement of Christopher Hitchens

Interview with author Ophelia Benson explores how a scientific understanding of life after death might impact an atheistic worldview. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for and interview with the author of, "Does God Hate Woman?", and "Why Truth Matters", Ophelia Benson.  During the interview Ms. Benson expresses  her admiration for being an atheist to the very end, "...Christopher Hitchens, as we all know, is admirably insisting that he's not going to change his opinions about the nature of the world and about whether or not there's a God just because he's mortally ill. And if there are any rumors that he's done a deathbed conversion, he wants it to be on the record right now that that's not what he considers the real Christopher Hitchens." When pressed as to whether one could decide to not have a deathbed conversation prior to having such a conversion Ms Benson replied, "I know, it's sort of tricky in a way, but on the other hand, I kind of think we all do have a right to do that. If you've been a lifelong atheist and are continuing to be an atheist, I think you have a right to say, 'Well, okay, if at the last minute I mumble something, I want to go on the record right now saying I repudiate that in advance.' It's ours, so I think we get to do that." Ms. Benson also discusses how advances in near death experience science and other research that suggesting a continuation of consciousness might impact the "new atheist" worldview. Check out Ophelia Benson's Website: Butterflies and Wheels Play it: Download MP3 (30:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Welcome to Skeptiko, where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Tsakiris, and on this episode of Skeptiko I have an interview with Ophelia Benson, author, Atheist, and editor of the very popular and very well done Butterflies and Wheels website. Now, this interview didn't really go the way that I planned, but when I was editing it I realized that maybe it really made the point I was trying to make after all, and that's just to demonstrate how this new science of consciousness that we've been exploring so much on this show in terms of near-death experience, medium communication, and psi phenomena, how that new science is making its way into the marketplace of ideas. So how a public intellectual like Ophelia Benson is processing this. And in that respect I think the interview is quite revealing. So listen in to my interview with Ophelia Benson:

...

110. Christian Atheist, Dr. Robert Price, Champions Fairness In Argument Against Bible Accounts

Interview with Dr. Robert Price reveals why biblical scholar, and former Baptist minister, turned  away from Christianity. With battle lines in the culture war over science and religion firmly entrenched some Biblical scholars are still hashing out the Bible facts with logic, reason and historical scholarship. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for and interview with noted biblical scholar and Christian-doubter Dr. Robert Price. Dr. Price is a noted theologian and writer who well known for his debates with Christian apologists (those who defend the faith on intellectual grounds). While Price doesn’t take a stand on the possibility that miracles and paranormal events like those described in the Bible can happen, he’s firmly against the position most Christian theologians take, “they argue again and again that if miracles are possible theoretically, then legends are impossible, which doesn't follow… there approach is that if we can say miracles might have happened then there should be no problem in accepting all the ones the Bible mentions and none of the ones in any other scriptures. Wait a minute. What you're really saying is you just want us to believe what the Bible says, period. You're not really suggesting any new method of inquiry.” While Price is skeptical of traditional Christian theology he remains opens good arguments, “fairness in argument and getting all the evidence together and trying to address it, that was crucial to me because even as a college sophomore, junior, Apologist, I was reading all this inter-Varsity stuff and such. I wanted to witness and I did witness to people about my faith and tried to defend it. But I felt like I have to be honest about this. I'm only going to present it if I find it convincing. And to do that I'm going to have to put my faith on the side for the moment… then when I was getting into my master's program at Gordon-Conwell Seminary I realized this has been misrepresented. These arguments are just bad.” Dr. Robert Price Play it: Download MP3 (90:00 min.) Read it (abridged transcript... more good stuff in the audio version): Alex Tsakiris: Welcome to Skeptiko, where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Tsakiris. On today's show I have an interview with Dr. Robert Price, who despite having two Ph.D.s in Biblical Studies, describes himself as a Christian Atheist.

...

109. Is Dr. Sam Parnia’s AWARE Study of Near Death Experience Doomed to Fail?

Cornell University Professor and NDE researcher seeks to verify out of body experience after clinical death. What will you see when you die? According to near death experience researcher Dr. Sam Parnia you may see a carefully hidden image placed several inches below the ceiling of your hospital room. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for the opening round of a dialog with well known near death experience researcher Dr. Sam Parnia. Dr. Parnia has made worldwide headlines with his novel approach to proving whether out of body experiences of cardiac arrest patients demonstrate proof of an afterlife, or whether such reports are merely a, “trick of the mind”. Dr. Parnia’s group is using visual targets placed near the ceiling of the patient’s hospital room in an attempt to objectively establish whether near death experiencers can see what others can't. According to Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris the study is unlikely to produce positive results, “I’ve spoken with a lot of near death experience researchers. They’re telling me Parnia’s methods go against what we’ve learned about NDEs”. Tsakiris continued, “near death experiencers have been know to bring back some remarkable, verifiable information about what happens after clinical death, but there’s little to suggest they will see and remember Dr. Parnia targets.” Tsakiris also questions whether Dr. Parnia’s skepticism about near death experiences has led him to create an experiment that’s designed to fail, “it’s a subtle thing, Dr. Parnia public statements about his skepticism of the near death experience doesn’t mean he’s intentionally trying to debunk the survival of consciousness hypothesis… but it does make you wonder.” Watch Dr. Parnia's video lecture Play it: Download MP3 (17:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Welcome to Skeptiko, where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host, Alex Tsakiris, and on this episode of Skeptiko, I'm going to be opening up a dialogue with Dr. Sam Parnia. Now, the unusual thing about that is that Dr. Parnia isn't here and he isn't going to be joining me for an interview. In fact, what I'm doing is preparing some questions that I'm going to transcribe and then send to Dr. Parnia in hopes of getting a response from him. So let me explain a little bit about what's going on. Dr. Parnia, as many of you are aware, is a well-known near-death experience researcher, a guy who splits his time between the UK and New York's Cornell University, where he's a Fellow there in pulmonary care. What Dr. Parnia is really best known for is the Aware Study, a very novel, interesting way of looking at near-death experiences that's received quite a bit of media buzz, primarily because of the way the experiment is done. What Dr. Parnia and his group have devised is a way of putting targets-that is, pictures inside the room of someone who may experience cardiac arrest. They may experience clinical death. Up above their bed, very close to the ceiling, is a target that they can't see unless they're way up in the ceiling looking down, okay? So the idea is that near-death experiencers routinely report that they're out of their body, that they're having this out-of-body experience and Dr. Parnia and his group said, "Hey, let's devise an experiment so objectively see whether they can report information that only they could see." In other words, when somebody comes into the hospital, let's put them in a room. If they have cardiac arrest, let's go and talk to them and see if they saw our target that was placed above their bed that only they could see. If a lot of them see it, then this survival of consciousness thing must be real. If they don't see it, then it's not. So that's the Aware Study, and it's generated quite a bit of buzz, quite a bit of interest, and as the man behind the Aware Study, there's been a lot of speculation about exactly what Dr. Parnia's angle is on this research. I mean, is he a true believer who's looking to establish another line of evidence for the afterlife? Or is he a die-hard skeptic or materialist looking for a novel way to debunk all of this NDE nonsense? Well, those questions have certainly been stirring around in my mind for a while, but it really wasn't until a few months ago when a Skeptiko listener sent me a link to a video lecture that Dr. Parnia had given that the ball really got rolling in terms of inviting him on Skeptiko and trying to open up this dialogue. So the link that was posted in the Skeptiko forums is from a lecture that Dr. Parnia gave to a skeptical group in the UK, hosted by Dr. Chris French. As many of you know, Dr. Chris French is a very well-known, outspoken UK skeptic who's been on the Skeptiko show before. I think twice, actually. So let me play you the first of a couple of audio clips from the video lecture that Dr. Parnia gave and then I'll pick up and continue on with this story and what's happened so far. And we'll get into my questions for Dr. Parnia. Here is the first clip: "If, when you turn off the switch i.e., you turn off the brain, you don't get any blood flow into it. If people truly have consciousness, they really are able to see things as they claim they can do, then you have to accept that maybe Plato and others may have been correct. So far, we don't know. We've set up a study for the Awareness Study and we're trying to investigate it. And I think the key thing that we can do objectively is to use some kind of hidden target..." So that will give you a little feel for the tone of the lecture. Very reasonable, balanced sounding stuff. So I watched the lecture. I immediately had a bunch of questions. I emailed Dr. Parnia and requested an interview. He quickly got back to me and said, "I'd be delighted to talk to you, however, due to a number of commitments that I have right now, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to watch a lecture I recently gave at a skeptical organization, hosted by Chris French, blah, blah, blah." And he also added this: "I'm not so focused on cases where people have had near-death experiences in non-specific medical conditions. This tends to be most of the cases that people discuss and therefore leads to a lot of discussion, debate, etc." Now, of course, there's really nothing wrong with this statement. I mean, he's a doctor. He's interested in controlled medical conditions as they relate to NDE. Fine, fine, fine. But if you've been along on the Skeptiko thing long enough, you know it's not always that easy. Sometimes these seemingly innocent-sounding statements are really a coded message for a lot more. Like in this case, as Dr. Parnia is saying, "Hey, I'm a doctor working in the critical care unit of a hospital and I've decided to look at NDEs in that setting, period." Is he saying that? Or is he saying all this other NDE research you hear about is a bunch of crap because it's not done by a doctor working in a critical care unit and it should all be disregarded? Now, I'm not saying that's what he's saying, but I'd like to ask him if that's what he's saying, because you could read it that way. So part of this whole process of opening up a dialogue is to try and figure some of these things out. So with some of those questions stirring up in the back of my mind and some other questions that I have from watching his video, I fired off an email and tried to arrange an interview. And in the email, of course I tried to explain that I had seen the video, that it had generated quite a bit of discussion among our forum and I pointed him to that, and I also outlined a couple of questions that I'd like to ask, including some specifics about his research methodology. And that's when the tone of the emails started to shift a little bit. Now, I don't know if it was because of the specific questions that I asked or if it was because he finally took a look at the Skeptiko website and realized we're not quite as pro-skeptic as he might have thought. But whatever the reason, Dr. Parnia went from quick email responses and "If you have any questions, get back to me. I'll organize a time to speak," to long delays in our correspondence and "Could you please send me a list of specific questions and I'll respond by email. You can then post them on your site." Well, I still pushed for the phone interview. I suggested, "Hey, we can wait a month or two, whatever it takes. We'll work around your schedule." But he was pretty insistent on the email format and eventually even, you know, dished me off to his secretary to send the questions to-which is fine, he's a busy guy and I know he's got a lot going on. So in an attempt to honor that request, I am transcribing this podcast right now and going to send it to Dr. Parnia's secretary, and hopefully we can get some written responses to some of the questions I have, and some of the questions that Skeptiko listeners raised on our forum. So here goes-my questions to Dr. Parnia regarding his Aware near-death experience research project: Question 1, and why not start with a biggie? Isn't this experiment doomed to fail? Okay, let me flesh that out a little bit. At this point, I've read dozens of NDE cases and I'm sure Dr. Parnia has read many, many more than I have. But I've skimmed through at least 100 and I see all sorts of reasons why someone might have a near-death experience and an out-of-body experience and not be able to see these targets that he's placing in this experiment. So let me play you another short clip from Dr. Parnia's lecture and then I'll tell you more about what I mean: "And so if we get say 500 people who all supposedly die and come back and all that sort of stuff, and they call claim they saw Dr. Smith and they have all these incredible stories and they can describe what was happening, and we can demonstrate that it was happening when they're going through cardiac arrest and the brain is shut down, then supposedly, if they really are out of body, they should see that picture." Wow. I'm going to have to break that down for you and play you bits and pieces of it because there are so many interesting points to pull out of there. But let me start with the first part. I just think his numbers are way off. So he starts off by saying, "If we get 500 people who die and come back and all that sort of stuff..." which first of all, his tone seems rather dismissive, but take that out for a minute and focus on the number. Let's say he gets 500 people that come back and say they've had a near-death experience and they recall their resuscitation process. I don't know how he's going to get 500 people to do that. I mean, the average hit rate in these clinical trials in terms of number of people who have cardiac arrest compared to the number of people who recall their near-death experience is 1 in 10 to 1 in 8. So let's take 1 in 8 and say his 500 people now represent 4,000 patients that are going to experience cardiac arrest. Well, that's way more than the number that he hopes to get in his study. I think his study was 1,500. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. I mean, his big problem is, and I'm sure he knows this-I just don't know why he's not bringing it up-is that your typical NDE experience would never report this kind of information, this kind of target information. First, there's a bunch of near-death experiences where the person doesn't really recall the resuscitation at all. They recall other parts of the event very clearly, maybe the trauma, the being of light, the judgment, but they don't recall the resuscitation. A bigger and more obvious problem is people who do recall the resuscitation but the position that they're in in this out-of-body state, which all sounds very weird but it's really all we have to go with, but their position doesn't allow them to see the targets that Dr. Parnia has set up. And you know, in preparing for this, to give you an example, I went to the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation website and I searched through and I very quickly found some cases that will give you a little bit of a sense for what I'm talking about. Here are just a few. This is Barbara, a near-death experiencer who says: "I had been sitting up in the corner of the room, outside my body for some time. I was at the ceiling in the corner, watching and listening because my body wasn't comfortable to be in." Okay, so the important thing is, she's in the corner by the ceiling. Would she be able to see the target? I don't know. I don't think so. Here's Nicki: "I turned to the other side of the bed and stepped out of my body. I began to walk around the room, trying to talk to my living family members but they could not hear me." Okay, clearly she's not in a position to see the target. Now, I'm not saying that anything else about her near-death experience is valid or anything like that, I'm just saying that in the way that Dr. Parnia has set up the study to measure it, she has no chance of seeing the target. And here's the last one I'll share with you, from Arnie: "During my surgery, I found myself up in the corner of the operating room ceiling where I could look down from overhead on my surgery. I couldn't see the operating team and equipment surrounding the table because a large, overhead lamp blocked much of my view." Okay, now there's a couple of really interesting points here. One is how high is he? Is he just above the lamp? Is he all the way up to the ceiling? Is he in that two or three inch space that Dr. Parnia hopes that he'll be in to see the target? I don't know. But the other interesting thing, and the point that we have to take into account, is from Ernie's account here his vision during resuscitation seems to be much like our vision during waking life. He has a perspective. He's seeing it from an angle. There are certain things in his way and he can't see through them. Well, this is very problematic for Dr. Parnia because it means if that patient's out-of-body experience isn't positioned exactly precisely where it needs to be, they're not going to have any chance of seeing the target. And lastly, of course, I have to add there's the matter of focus. I mean, would we expect NDErs to look at and remember these "targets?" I mean, obviously they're very important to Dr. Parnia and his group, but are they important to the patient? The person who's dead and floating outside of their body? And that, of course, challenges the last little snippet from the clip I just played you. Let me play it for you again here real quick: "...if they really are out of body, they should see that picture." So he seems to be asserting very matter-of-factly that these patients should see his target and the question I'd have is for all the reasons that I just mentioned, why does he think that's so? Why is he so sure that these patients should see the target? And I guess that leads into another question of what's the history here? What's the history of this research? Are we building off of preliminary studies where under maybe less tightly controlled conditions they've had targets up on the ceiling and people have seen them? I'm not aware of that research. Maybe it's out there. That would seem like a logical stepping-stone. Or, are there a lot of accounts of people being able to see the pictures on the wall and tell those in their accounts? Again, I don't see a lot of that in the cases that I've read but maybe he knows better than I do. And while we're on the topic of talking about history and design of the experiment, you know what kept going in the back of my mind and I kept expecting to hear it is why aren't we doing something like Dr. Penny Sartori did? It seems to me her approach was much more naturalistic in that she said, "Okay, here are these accounts that we're getting from people who've had cardiac arrest and had a near-death experience. Let's take their accounts as they come in and let's compare them with the control group that didn't have a near-death experience and let's see which one is most realistic." Maybe Dr. Parnia can do that with the data that he has. So a question I'd have is does he plan to do that? It seems like a follow-up or replication of Dr. Sartori's work would be very appropriate, very illuminating. But having said all that, and having raised all those questions, I have to tell you that I'm not particularly optimistic that we're going to get an answer to those questions. And the reason I say that is from the next clip that I want to play you from Dr. Parnia's lecture. This is the one that really grabbed my attention. It's about 47 minutes into the lecture, so it's almost at the end. Let me play you this clip: "If, on the other hand, it's just an illusion, it's a trick of the mind, which it may well be and I suspect it will turn out to be, then we would expect no one to be able to see those pictures." If NDEs are just an illusion, a trick of the mind, which it may well be, and I suspect it will turn out to be. Of course, this is just his opinion. Open-minded researcher willing to look at the data, follow it wherever it leads. But consider for a minute the implications of what he's saying. He's suggesting that the Aware Study that he's done, which as I've pointed out doesn't have any chance of succeeding, should be the final decider. It should trump the 20 years of prior NDE research that's been done. It should put a nail in the coffin to all this NDE research. Am I overstating what he's stating? I don't know. Let's see if he'll answer the question. But the more I listen and read about what Dr. Parnia says, the more I see a debunking exercise. Another setup. A setup to fail. And of course, there are a lot of other good things that can come out of the Awareness Study. He's looking at a lot of important issues as they relate to the dying process. What's going on in the brain during this process? But all of that will be forgotten and buried from the headline if he proceeds with this study, which is doomed to produce the kind of low hit rate that will certainly support his "suspicion." Later on in his video lecture he says it will be an interesting situation if only one or two people see the target. I'd be amazed if one or two people see the target. But again, I could be way off. That's why we have to sit back at this point and hope that Dr. Parnia responds to some of these questions or hope that he finds 30 minutes to come onto Skeptiko and talk to us and tell us what's really going on regarding these issues. That invitation, of course, is always open to Dr. Parnia. But until then, I need to send this podcast off to transcription and forward it on to Dr. Parnia's secretary. And that's what I plan to do. Well, that's going to do it for this episode of Skeptiko. If you'd like a link to the video lecture I've been referring to, please visit the Skeptiko website. It's at www.skeptiko.com. You'll also find a link to all of our previous shows and an email and Facebook link to me, a link to our forums, and a bunch of other good stuff. So check that out. Stay with us. I have a couple of interesting interviews coming up. I'm going to play some interviews that I did a long time ago that are really fascinating, fascinating interviews relating to the Christian perspective on the near-death experience. One is from a very well-known Atheist who I really enjoyed dialoguing with. The other is from a very well-known Christian Apologist who I also greatly admire and enjoyed speaking with. I didn't agree with either one of them, but I sure enjoyed talking to them. And that's the pleasure of doing Skeptiko. Anyway, that's it for this time. Take care and bye for now. oined today by Professor Michael Marsh, a highly regarded academic biomedical researcher and physician who was formerly a Professor of Medicine at Oxford, and then later in his career returned to Oxford to complete a PhD in theology. Now, his doctoral thesis was on near-death experience and out-of-body experience, and that's also the subject of his recently published book titled, Out-Of-Body Experience and Near-Death Experiences: Brain-State Phenomena or Glimpses of Immortality?

...

108. Christian Theologian Claims Near Death Experience Not Communication With Divine

Oxford Professor of Medicine, and theologian, Michael Marsh finds much he doesn’t like about near-death experience claims of spirit communication. Many within the mainstream medical community have reservations about near death expereincers who claim to experience an afterlife, but many are surprised to hear the same doubts from Christian theologians. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Professor Michael Marsh, a former Professor of Medicine, at Oxford who returned to Oxford to complete PhD in Theology. Dr. Marsh, who recently authored, Out-Of-Body Experience and Near-Death Experiences: Brain-State Phenomena or Glimpses of Immortality?, rejects claims made by near-death experiencers. When asked if those who claim to encounter Jesus during their near-death experience are communicating with Christ Dr. Marsh responded with and emphatic, “no!” Marsh also offers his opinion on how near death experiences compare to biblical accounts of an afterlife, "I don't think there's much that compares with our ideas of resurrection or theology. We talked a little bit about spirituality, and I don't think that the sort of disclosures that we have… the inconsistencies of the pictures of so-called heaven, and the pictures of so-called Jesus and all the rest of it are consistent. You might expect them to be consistent if people really had been to heaven and seen Jesus or been in the presence of God.” Read Dr. Marsh's book Play it: Download MP3 (37:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: We're joined today by Professor Michael Marsh, a highly regarded academic biomedical researcher and physician who was formerly a Professor of Medicine at Oxford, and then later in his career returned to Oxford to complete a PhD in theology. Now, his doctoral thesis was on near-death experience and out-of-body experience, and that's also the subject of his recently published book titled, Out-Of-Body Experience and Near-Death Experiences: Brain-State Phenomena or Glimpses of Immortality? Dr. Marsh, thank you for joining me today on Skeptiko.

...

107. Massimo Pigliucci on How to Tell Science From Bunk

City University of New York Professor skeptical of near-death experience, likens NDE researchers to astrologers. There's pseudoscience, bunk, scientific nonsense, and then there's real science… at least according to Dr. Massimo Pigliucci author of, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Professor Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. During the hour-long interview Dr. Pigliucci rejects claims of near-death experience science.  When asked to explain why so many NDE researchers have concluded otherwise Dr. Pigliucci stated, " that's like saying the vast majority of astrologers are in agreement with the fact that astrology works." Pigliucci also offers his opinion on how non-scientists should choose sides on controversial science issues like climate change, "I am about to go to the Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas, which is organized by the James Randi Foundation, and I fully expect to upset several people there because my presentation will be about how skeptics are not scientists and therefore, they shouldn't really pass judgment on issues for which the scientific community has reached a consensus. For instance, let me give you an example. Several skeptics, including James Randi, are skeptical of the notion of climate change and global warming. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not their place. They're not climate scientists; they know nothing about climate science. And frankly, they don't have the expertise to pass judgment." Download MP3 Play It: Read It: Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome someone who—let me get this straight—has three PhDs, is that right? Dr. Massimo Pigliucci: That's correct. Alex Tsakiris: So Dr. Massimo Pigliucci is a Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York. He's a well-known thinker and writer in the skeptical community, and he's also the author of  several books, including his latest that we're going to talk about today entitled, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk. Dr. Pigliucci, welcome to Skeptiko. Dr. Massimo Pigliucci: It's a pleasure to be here.

...

106. Psychic Medium Experiment Not Enough to Convince Skeptics

Righteous Indignation Skeptics not persuaded by psychic medium experiment, find fault with controls and results. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for discussion with Michael Marshall, Trystan Swale Gavin Schofield of the Righteous Indignation Podcast. During the hour-long discussion the group discusses a variety of topics including psychic medium communication experiments like the ones carried out by Dr. Julie Bieschel of the Windbridge Institute, and human consciousness experiments like those from the Global Consciousness Project headed by Dr. Roger Nelson. Although the panel remains divided on the conclusions that can be drawn from this research, they found common ground on the need for dialog among skeptics and believers. "Everyone hates the phrase 'skeptics versus believers', but that’s where the lines of debate are usually drawn… the key to generating any understanding between these groups is to keep the dialog going and resist the urge to shut down and stop listening", Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris stated. Listen to Alex's appearance on the Rightous Indignation Podcast Play it: Download MP3 (80:32 min.)

...

103. Near-Death Experience Research — Do Science Journalists Get it Wrong?

Interview with science journalist Jeff Wise examines the accuracy of news reports on near-death experience research. Recent headlines on ABCnews.com, NationalGeographic.com, and RichardDawkins.net trumpeted a recent scientific study suggesting near-death experiences are caused by carbon dioxide in the blood. This stands in contrast to the opinion of near-death experience experts, and even the study's authors, but they news reports persist. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with science journalist and author of 'Extreme Fear', Jeff Wise. During the 30-minute interview Mr. Wise explains why and how he and other science journalists reported on this recent near-death experience study. And whether science journalism, according to Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris, "is driven by a code… an invisible hand that drives them away from anything that might be labeled 'spiritual', and simultaneously lowers their guard against weak research that confirms their pre-existing beliefs." Mr Wise replied, "That's not what it feels like from my perspective… we're interested in things that make sense in the context of everything else that we know, but that's novel. So things that are boring, that we see every day we're not interested in. Things that completely don't make any sense or we have to completely deconstruct our entire worldview in order to incorporate them, those things also aren't interesting… I think that's really the problem. If you're trying to propose a theory or a view of a phenomenon that is radically at odds with how, let's say mainstream science views the operation of the world…" Jeff Wise's Blog Dr. Joni Johnston -- The Human Equation Dr. Bruce Greyson's email regarding CO2/NDE study Play it: Download MP3 (34:15 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: We're joined today by Jeff Wise, a journalist, science writer for such publications as Popular Mechanics, the New York Times Magazine, Popular Science, and many others. He's also the author of Extreme Fear: The Science of Your Mind in Danger. Jeff, thank you for joining me today on Skeptiko. Jeff Wise: My pleasure.

...

102. Dr. Peter Bancel Assists Goldsmiths, University of London With Global Consciousness Project

Interviews with Tamas Borbely of Goldsmiths College and Dr. Peter Bancel of the Global Consciousness Project reveal common ground on revolutionary research. The notion of a collective global consciousness is accepted truth within many cultures, but scoffed at by modern scientists. That may change. Once skeptical researchers investigating the 10-year Global Consciousness Project are finding solid data to support the conclusion that we're all connected. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris an interview with Tamas Boberly of Goldsmiths College at the University of London, and Dr. Peter Bancel of the Global Consciousness Project. During the 50-minute interview Mr. Boberly recaps his analysis of the work done so far, "I've been reading the papers that Dr. Nelson and others produced on the Global Consciousness Project and it is my impression that they have a very, very solid methodology and a very good grasp of the statistics that are used... and if you look at the results, obviously the results they report are astronomical. They are very, very convincing. I think the only criticism, which is perhaps even unjust, could come in the form of claiming that because of the lack of a clear-cut definition for these events, perhaps not all, the negative results are reported. And like I said, I'm not suggesting that this is the case. But defining the events in advance would be an excellent way of silencing critics, because otherwise, having looked at the database that they have compiled in the past decade or more, it is certainly very convincing." Dr. Peter Bancel describes his involvement with the project, "I came into the project after it had been going for a couple of years and even at that point the cumulative effect of these events that Roger Nelson had been looking at had considerable significance. So one of the first things I set out to do was to see if I could find something methodological or otherwise wrong in how the project was set up. I was asking myself if there was anything fatal, and there wasn't at all." Play it: Download MP3 (50:20 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: We're joined today by Tamas Borbely, who is a research assistant at Goldsmiths College at the University of London. Tamas is one of the researchers that Chris French has tasked with looking into the Global Consciousness Project and doing a little bit of collaborative work and making an attempt to see if any of that research makes sense or needs further analysis. So with kind of a stumbling introduction, Tamas, welcome to Skeptiko. Tamas Borbely: Hello, Alex.

...

101. Near-Death Experience Skeptics Running Out of Excuses

Series of interviews with leading near-death experience skeptics show no plausible medical explanation for afterlife experiences. The idea of an afterlife doesn't sit well with the science-minded.  Our mind is our brain and when we die we die they claim.  But as conventional medical explanations for near-death experiences fall flat, and NDE research progresses, tradition-minded scientists are facing the impossible notion that the afterlife may be real. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for his second interview with near-death experience skeptic and author of Mortal Minds, Dr, G.M. Woerlee. During the 30-minute interview Dr. Woerlee continues his assertion that near-death experiences have normal medical explanations.  When presented with the case of a young woman who suffered a severe a gunshot wound and was pronounced clinically dead by her doctor only to be miraculously revived after two unsuccessful rounds of defibrillation Dr. Woerlee concluded, "No, she was not dead... if she was dead the doctors would not have resuscitated her. She would have remained dead." As to her amazing near-death experience during which she left her body and was able to look down on medical stuff during their frantic attempt to revive her, Woerlee offered this explanation, "...she hears the conversations. She feels the sensations. And she also is a woman who also has seen films and she knows how these things go. She hears the conversations, why? Because she is awake. That does not surprise me." Dr. Woerlee's claims contradict the accounts of medical staff on the scene.  They indicated she was clinically dead, "what we call sheet-faced", and under heavy anesthesia making it medically impossible for her to have a consciousness memory of the experience. Read Kieth Wood's critique of Dr. Woerlee's claims Play it: Download MP3 (33:20 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome back Dr. G.M. Woerlee, an anesthesiologist in the Netherlands and a NDE skeptic and the author of several books, including Mortal Minds: The Biology of Near-Death Experiences. Dr. Woerlee, welcome back to Skeptiko. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: Thank you very much. I'm glad to be here. Alex Tsakiris: It's good to have you back. As I mentioned during our last visit, I think it's good and it's really useful to have this give-and-take, back-and-forth over a couple of sessions because it really takes a couple of rounds to dialogue on these issues properly. Here's where I'd like to start today. As many Skeptiko listeners will know, of course, we've had this series of discussions on near-death experiences. We've talked to a number of NDE researchers as well as qualified skeptics like yourself. The last time around, you presented the evidence for your claims regarding the possibility that near-death experiences can be explained by normal processes that are understood by physicians like yourself. Since then, we've heard from Dr. Jeffrey Long, and we've also heard from some other folks who posted on the website. They have some push-backs and doubts about your claims. The principle claim that you make against the NDE researchers is that they've ignored the fact that these patients who have this horrendous brush with death, that they're receiving CPR. They're receiving chest compressions. Someone's coming around and pounding on their chest and that's pumping blood into their brain and this flow of blood is causing them to regain consciousness. Kind of a NDE by CPR theory, if you will. And here's the quote from your actual website. You say, "And then Jeffrey Long proceeds to make the same unbelievable assumption, as just about every other doctor publishing studies on near-death experience during cardiac arrest. He forgets to tell us that all those who survived cardiac arrest underwent cardiac massage." So that's where I really want to start digging into that statement: "...all those all those who survived cardiac arrest underwent cardiac massage." As I think we touched on before, but which has become even more clear since then, that's not really accurate. In fact, it's not really even that close. One of the papers I sent you was from Keith Wood, a Skeptiko listener.  What he pointed out, and I thought this was interesting the way he did it, he went into the Pim von Lommel study that you cited on your site. In that, he states that 81% of the patients he looked at suffered cardiac arrest, it was in the hospital, and within two minutes they were resuscitated. As we know, that means they were most likely resuscitated by defibrillator. So it's reasonable to assume that most of those people weren't administered cardiac massage. Further, he points out that only 21% of the patients who were outside of the hospital received CPR before they got to the hospital. So let me stop there and see if we can nail this down. Do you still maintain that all those who survived cardiac arrest in these NDE studies all underwent cardiac massage? Dr. G.M. Woerlee: No. But then I'll just go on about this critique and I believe you're referring to that article by Keith Wood which you posted on another part of your site as a 12 page long PDF. Actually, Keith Wood does a very good analysis. He actually has read the articles he cites, which is very good. He also points out very correctly something that was an oversight of mine, that 81% of the people who in the Lommel report in his article were actually people resuscitated in coronary care units. Now, then we go on further because he is quite correct in many of these aspects. He also referred to his sister, who is a qualified coronary care, intensive care nurse and who does primary resuscitation in these units. The big problem is this: that most people who are resuscitated from a cardiac arrest are actually not in a coronary care unit or an intensive care unit. Most of them are outside such a place. What happens is that when you must always make a very big distinction between people who are resuscitated in coronary care/intensive care versus people who are resuscitated elsewhere in the hospital, and people resuscitated on the street or at home. You look at the mortality of the different resuscitations and you see immediately what the difference is. A person in a coronary care unit or an intensive care unit is already attached to an ECG monitor with a central bank of monitors which are continually observed by the nurses and doctors present at the time, who are on duty. They see an arrhythmia which needs treatment and they immediately jump upon the patient and if it's necessary, defibrillate. If that does not work, then what they do is start cardiac massage. They have to think about what to do next or start the defibrillator for another go. In other words, some of these people do receive cardiac massage because in such situations, if you do not do any cardiac massage these people are severely brain-damaged. Alex Tsakiris: Right. And I don't think we'd really see much of a disagreement between you and any of the NDE researchers on that description of what's going on. What I want to hone in on, because in your article I do have to say you make quite a bit of a fuss about this point, and this point that you're now backing off of, which is great. Everyone should be allowed to back off and say, "Hey, I didn't mean all when I said all." But that is what you said. You said, "Here's the big missing link in this argument is that all those who survived cardiac arrest underwent cardiac massage, underwent chest compressions." Now we're saying, "No." I don't know, but it seems to me from the Pin von Lommel study and also Dr. Long's research, all of his is published on the website. I went in there and searched for the accounts, just roughly estimating how many people received chest compressions as opposed to the paddles and the shock treatment. It's maybe 50-50. So where does that really leave us in your argument if only half the people are associated with people who had heart massage? Dr. G.M. Woerlee: There are a number of factors here. In fact, I still maintain that most of them would have received the cardiac massage for the very simple reason that you lose consciousness within 4 to around 30 seconds after a real ventricular fibrillation begins, or asystole, in other words, no heartbeat at all, begins. So what happens is that within that time people lose consciousness. It is not a matter of minutes for something like that if you do lose consciousness. It's sustained for minutes, continually, but is not a ventricular fibrillation but a ventricular brachycardia. Why is that? Because that can sustain circulation for some time. Real ventricular fibrillation does not. In other words, what you actually have is a very selective group of patients who do report their story. And that actually coincides with that article of Wood in the sense that the only people who give a coherent near-death experience story are those who have been well-resuscitated. In other words, resuscitated on time and adequately. Alex Tsakiris: No, that's not true. That doesn't conform. Here's the other thing I wanted to do before we get too far in. Let me read you an account so we're talking about the same thing, because sometimes when we talk in abstract terms and certainly when you get into medical terms, which you're extremely well-versed on and you obviously have a lot of expertise in that, but I don't. And I don't think a lot of listeners do. I think we get away from the actual data that we're talking about. This data in this case are the survey results from all these people who Long talked about. So let me throw this on the table. It's going to touch on a couple of points that we're going to talk about, including resuscitation and including anesthesia and including the accuracy and the details that someone provides. If I can, let me read this into the record here. It will take a minute or two, but I think it will be interesting. This is from a girl named Kimberly who was shot during an attempted rape, horribly enough. Here's her account: "I had never once lost consciousness or went into shock, which amazed everyone. I can still remember everything in perfect detail. As the helicopter landed, I did feel sleepy. They told me not to go to sleep and began running with me down a long hallway in the hospital. I remember counting the lights on the ceiling as they whizzed by to stay awake. They took me into the operating room and began to prepare me for surgery. The last thing I remember was them putting a mask over my face and telling me to count backwards from ten. The last number I remember was eight." That should sound familiar to you. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: Yeah, well. That business of counting to ten is ridiculous, but anyway. Alex Tsakiris: That's how they did it in Houston, Texas back then. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: More like television. Okay. Keep going. Alex Tsakiris: "Then I felt like I was walking backwards with my eyes closed. Then I felt like I bumped into a wall with my back. I opened my eyes to a very bright, although strangely not blinding, white, misty light that covered everything. Slowly, the mist started to move away and I saw myself lying on the operating table." So she's having an out-of-body experience. "It looked like I was many, many stories high and looking down on myself. I saw them working on me. I noticed that I heard, not with my ears but more like with my spirit, something like singing voices or speaking, but I couldn't make out the words. It was all around me. At this point, I turned around and saw what was the tunnel. I started toward the tunnel in a motion. It seemed like as soon as I entered the tunnel I was on the other side that quick. I noticed the same bright light and mistiness of the surroundings. I also noticed that I wasn't alone. There seemed to be a dozen people standing in a horseshoe formation which I was standing in the center of. I could not recognize anyone because I saw no features. They were more like shadows. Then I was told 'No' by a voice. The strange thing was that it was neither male nor female, but held an enormous amount of authority. Then, with my stubbornness that I carry to this day, I asked, 'Why can't I come home?' I was told, 'You cannot come home yet.' I continued to try and go forward and it kept telling me, 'No, not yet. It's not your time.' Then I felt completely compelled to turn back and look at the tunnel. That's when I was transported back through out the other side of it." Now that's rather long, but here's the part that I think is really going to be important for our discussion. "I looked down and that's when I saw them bringing a paddle machine over to my body." So she's going to be defibrillated. "I saw the doctor grab the paddles, say something to the person standing next to him. Then they turned some knobs. The doctor put them on my chest and hit me once with the shock. I saw my body jump, but I felt nothing. Then I saw the doctor say something to them again. They moved the knobs again and hit me a second time. Nothing. Then I saw..." Okay, so again, an out-of-body experience. "Then I saw the doctor put the paddles back together for a moment as if saying a prayer and then said something to the person again. This person shook their head in disagreement, but went ahead with the doctor's insistence and moved the knobs again. Then he hit me a third time and I awoke in the ICU. My parents were told by the doctor that I had died. I was what they call 'sheet-faced' and they took a chance by hitting me with the paddles a third time. He admitted (this is the doctor) to not being a religious man, but he felt that he was being told not to quit so he didn't." So the particularly relevant part of this story that I wanted to talk about, and this is not a unique story. This isn't like one account. Again, he collected all this data from 1,000 people and he analyzed it in a number of different ways. But it clearly shows someone who, if you read the whole account - which I didn't bother doing - she never received heart massage because she was losing blood really badly and that's why they thought she was going to die. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: Well, if we talk about this specific case, what you actually have is a woman who is shot, brought into the hospital losing blood rapidly, had to undergo surgery for that because either - I'm not sure where she was shot - but in any case, usually there is some blood loss and they do an exploratory laparotomy or fluorocotomy, open up the chest or open up the abdomen to see where the blood loss is and to repair any damage that might be there. Now the thing is, this experience of walking backwards with her eyes closed and this white light - there is no real difficulty with that. These are the appropriate sensitive experiences of falling asleep sometimes. Usually there's black, but some people can experience white because with open eyes they see operating theatre lamps. That's not a big problem. She sees also her out-of-body experience. Now, actually, out-of-body experiences do occur during anesthesia. There have been a reasonable number described also in the scientific literature. Usually that is basically due to the - how do you call it - I'd say proprioceptive effect, but that doesn't mean anything to your listeners. Proprioception is the sense of knowing where your body is and which way your body parts are. Now the problem with anesthetic drugs, and you see it when you speak to patients, is that some of them have very strange effects -- if they're awake, that is. And also, the effects of anesthetic drugs tested with awake people, they lose their sense of body position. Sometimes due to stimulation they can get muscle special movement sensory stimulation whereby out-of-body experiences can occur. There is a particular drug which actually induces a lot of these out-of-body experiences. This is actually not so difficult to explain. What you then have is after a near-death experience is some people, even under anesthesia, during induction and especially during traumatic moments like this, there have been one or two cases reported even in scientific literature of ecstatic experiences. So this does not surprise me. The other problem is with this woman, she has lost a lot of blood so the anesthetic is, of course, very light. All anesthetic drugs depress the heart; they depress the circulation. So what the anesthetists do when the blood pressure falls away is administer drugs to increase the blood pressure and improve the heart action. But when that fails, they're light on the anesthesia. This is commonly what happens with multi-traumas. In fact, the incidents of awareness during anesthesia for multi-traumas are up to around 43% in some series. So I'm not surprised this woman had a form of awareness which she interpreted together with the effects of the anesthetic drugs as this and the out-of-body experience. Yeah, that can happen because of the proprioceptive changes. As for this tunnel, there are many different explanations for tunnel experiences. I have one Dr. Blackmore proposed also a very good reasonable explanation for that in her book in 1991. As for these visionary experiences of meeting people at the other side and them saying, "It is not your time," this is a fairly typical American transcendental experience. Alex Tsakiris: But Dr. Woerlee, what we're dealing with here, what I think most people would focus on, especially in the context of our conversation is this woman died. Her doctor has reported that she died. They hit her with the paddles three times. And just like in all the other discussions we've had, she's viewing this from above and she's seeing everything happening. There isn't a good medical explanation for how you could see them preparing and defibrillating your body while you're dead. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: The thing is that she hears the conversations. She feels the sensations. And she also is a woman who also has seen films and she knows how these things go. She hears the conversations, why? Because she is awake. That does not surprise me. Alex Tsakiris: But she's dead. That's why they're defibrillating her. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: No, she is not dead. Why do you say she is dead? Alex Tsakiris: Because the doctor says that she had died when she comes back and that he hit her with the defibrillator three times because she wasn't responding the first two times. That's what I read into this account. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: What I read is this: they started resuscitation. The defibrillator is not standard in an operating theatre. It just isn't present. That always has to be hauled from a central place in the operating theatre complex. So until such a defibrillator arrives, they do apply cardiac massage. Second, at the same time, the anesthetist lightens the anesthetic. That means he stops administering any anesthetic gases and any other drugs he may be administering. So the anesthesia lightens. This is the reason why there is such a high incidence of awareness among people undergoing operations for multi-trauma. That means a severe injury. Therefore, accordingly, this woman was just awake, admittedly under anesthesia according to many people, but this was not so because the anesthesia was lightened. But even if she was under anesthesia, she would have still had the effect of muscle relaxant drugs. Muscle relaxant drugs, when they are administered to awake people in concentrations high enough to cause them to be totally paralyzed so they cannot breathe or move or do anything, they do cause loss of body image in many people. That is, together with any residual effects of any anesthetic drugs, that people also cannot move. This has also been experimentally determined. Other things, residual effects of low concentrations of any of the anesthetic gases, they can cause transcendental experiences. This is also known. For instance, laughing gas is a well-known one. Now, as to whether she can hear and see and build up a mental image, she is awake, true, affected by the effect of anesthetic drugs, but awake enough to observe with her ears and senses. She does not report any cardiac massage for the very simple reason she was not awake at that time. But she would have certainly had it. I cannot even imagine that that would not have been done. She would not have been awake during that time and have observed it. Alex Tsakiris: I guess this is where we get to the point where we just have to kind of back off and leave it to people to decide, because to me that just sounds like a rather fantastic interpretation of this particular case in particular, and the overall data in general. And that's where statistics can be useful. We've talked plenty about statistics, the chances that someone would be aware... Dr. G.M. Woerlee: One thing on this particular case: Alex Tsakiris: Certainly. I understand what you're saying, but that gets into a definition of what dead is. Certainly from the description here where they're hitting her the first time, nothing's happening. They're adjusting the knobs. I don't know what adjusting the knobs means... Dr. G.M. Woerlee: They're increasing the charge of the capacitor in the... Alex Tsakiris: That's what I figured. So obviously she's not responding from this and she's for all intents and purposes what most of us would call dead, but... Dr. G.M. Woerlee: She had no heartbeat but she was not dead. Alex Tsakiris: Okay, so she had no heartbeat and yet she's observing all of this from above her body. So again, I think we just get to the point where we just have to step back and say what you're continuing to claim is that the statistics, even though they're unbelievably lop-sided against your claim -in this case, let's look at the statistics. What are the chances that someone has anesthesia-awareness? One in 1,000. What are the chances that that person wouldn't have any of the effects that they normally see under anesthesia-awareness...? Dr. G.M. Woerlee: No, no. On the statistics I can also mention something. During anesthesia in American, in the USA, around 40 million operations take place every year. That is according to the anesthesia quality studies. If you have 1 in 1,000 or 2 in 1,000 they are statistics which are actually cited in modern studies of awareness. I can even give you the references if you like. That means that per year in the United States alone, there are 40,000 to 80,000 people who have an experience of awareness during anesthesia. Alex Tsakiris: Yes, but in this sample what we're talking about, and again, I think we're just going to drown people in a bunch of statistics that don't really mean a lot because in this case, Dr. Long look at 1,000 cases. He looked at about 200 cardiac arrests. If we were to talk to some cardiologist, some surgeon and say, "What are the chances?" Forget the anesthesia for a minute. "What are the chances that someone during a heart attack had a very lucid, very real memory of their heart failure and their resuscitation?" They would put those odds at very, very high, 1 in 1,000, 1 in 10,000. And yet you're suggesting that of all the people that he looked at, the chances that they had this just lined up perfectly to fit this data. I just don't think many people are going to find that very believable. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: I think basically what you're looking at saying is this: to begin with, you should never ask a surgeon about this type of thing because surgeons just don't know. There's a joke about surgeons. How do you ask them to commit suicide? To jump from their ego to their IQ. That's something else. The big problem is that with 40,000 to 80,000 people per year have an awareness under surgery. Dr. Long has collected in all these years with his excellent database of patients who have awareness under anesthesia together with a near-death experience, and they do occur under anesthesia. There's a very good one in a scientific article a few years ago of a young boy. But that means that he has collected over 20 years only 23 cases of awareness or a near-death experience during general anesthesia and a near-death experience as defined by the Near-Death Experience Index of Bruce Grayson, which is actually a good index. That is over 20 years. In other words, 20 years by 40,000 people. In other words, you have a potential base of around 800,000, maybe more patients out of which to choose. And 23 of which actually registered their experience with Dr. Long. In other words, you're speaking about a statistical probability. Alex Tsakiris: I don't want to go there because I don't think you can really do the calculations that way. That wasn't the population that he was drawing from. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: No, he has spontaneous cases. These people registered their cases or their experiences with him. That is out of a potential many hundreds of thousands of people who have awareness. Alex Tsakiris: The other way of looking at this in a way that I think is more of a fair way of looking at it is to say that let's look at the cardiac arrest patients he looked at. There are 200 of them. We know from the Pim von Lommel study and many other near-death experience research studies that let's say 10% to 15% of people who have cardiac arrest have some sort of near-death experience. So just extrapolating out what we can say is this is a population of about 2,000 that he looked at. So he looked at 200. That represents about 2,000 patients. Then the chances that in that 2,000 any of the things that you're talking about would occur are just astronomically high - that they'd occur as frequently as they do. His stats, again 76% of these people report that it's a realer than real experience. The accuracy rate over 90%. It just doesn't add up. And then when we read this particular case, I was listening to your explanation for it. I don't know. I think at this point we just have to leave it up to the listeners. If listeners accept your explanation of Kimberly's case, the woman who was shot, then I guess they just have to go with it. For me, it satisfies me to the extent that I'm very glad that you came on and were able to offer your specific response to a case that represents a lot of cases in the database. I think that clarifies things. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: Actually, it is an interesting case. But then we talk about cardiac arrests. Now the only people our people talked to and whose experiences we know of, are the ones who survived cardiac arrest. As I said, that's around 40% of people - 40%, 45% of people in coronary care units, and around 20% of people in the general hospital ward. And only 7% in some situations to 2% of people who are resuscitated at home or on the street. In other words, there are a lot more people who actually die than survive. Then out of those survivors, many are brain-damaged. In other words, they cannot tell any story at all. In fact, this article of Keith Wood said they suffer all the effects of brain damage due to oxygen starvation as a result of cardiac arrest. The ones who are very efficiently resuscitated, they tell a coherent story, a good story and many of them have even undergone a near-death experience. ...damage and the ones that can tell a very good story are those who suffer some effects of severe oxygen starvation and they are confused, uncertain. So in other words, what we're speaking about here is a very select small group of patients out of the many, many thousands who have been resuscitated. Alex Tsakiris: I think you've done a great job of summing up your case and your points. Are there any other points that we haven't touched on that you'd like to add before we wrap things up? Dr. G.M. Woerlee: I was reading that article by Keith Wood. It was actually a good thing. He's missed a number of points and I'd like to compliment him on his work for reading and doing a careful analysis of the papers he did. The only problem is that he did miss out on the concept of averages with cerebral blood flows, etc. But for the rest I think that as you say, basically what we would have here is differences of opinion as regards many things. Dr. Long mentioned at the end of his last conversation with you that I tend to look at only one aspect, basically that I have an aspect of cardiac massage and cerebral blood flow. Another critic that you once interviewed, a certain Dr. Nelson, looks at REM intrusion and he mentions I did not mention this. That is because this was not brought up in the discussion at the time. As I say, I believe neither of these experiences are a common product of many different causes. As I say, oxygen starvation is one. Awareness during anesthesia is another. Fear and other anxiety states, another. And you could go on and on. In other words, there is no one single explanation for the cause of the near-death experience. The final result is what we all know as the near-death experience. That's my last word on the matter. Alex Tsakiris: I think that's a good wrap-up and explanation of why there are so many explanations. Dr. Woerlee, again, thanks for coming back on and we'll get this out so that we can keep the dialogue going. Dr. G.M. Woerlee: Thank you very much.

...

99. Dr. Jeffrey Long Takes On Critics of, Evidence of the Afterlife

Near-Death experience researcher Dr. Long offers a point-by-point response to skeptics of his New York Time best seller, Evidence of the Afterlife. When near-death experience researcher Dr. Jeffery Long decided to publish his 10-year study of NDEs he knew there would be controversy, and critics.  His conclusion, that consciousness survives bodily death and moves to an afterlife, is unsettling to many within a medical community built on death being absolute and final.  But rather than shy away from critics, Dr. Long has engaged them. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an in-depth interview with near-death experience researcher, Dr, Jeffrey Long. During the 45-minute interview Dr. Long offers a point-by-point response to skeptics of his New York Time best seller, Evidence of the Afterlife. In response to the criticisms of former Skeptiko guest Dr. G.M. Woerlee, Dr. Long said, "I think one of the biggest defenses from people that don't believe in an afterlife, and this was brought out in your interview with Dr. Woerlee, is this barrier where they won't hear it. They won't respond to it. It's just not something they care to address, which is somewhat surprising. I think all scholarly discussion of really any topic requires an open-minded dialogue about the evidence. It really starts with evidence." Regarding speculation that NDEs result from regaining consciousness during CPR chest compressions, Dr. Long said, "When you talk to the patients who have actually survived CPR one thing that is very, very obvious is that the substantial majority of them are confused or amnesic when they're recovered. If you read even a few near-death experiences, you immediately realize essentially none of them talk about episodes of confusion when they just don't understand what's going on. You really don't see that at all. In fact, our research found that 76% of people having a near-death experience said their level of consciousness and alertness during the NDE was actually greater than their earthly, everyday life.  So, you have to come away with the conclusion that even if there's blood flow to the brain induced by CPR, it's not correlated with the level of consciousness and alertness reported during near-death experiences." Dr. Long continues, "But also, in addition, the substantial majority of people that have a near-death experience associated with cardiac arrest are actually seeing their physical body well prior to the time that CPR is initiated. Once CPR is initiated, you don't see any alteration in the flow of the near-death experience, suggesting that blood flow to the brain isn't affecting the content in any way." Dr. Long also discusses the nature of NDE skepticism, "The other issue I've seen with skeptics is they often have their pet theory. Their theory of how the world works, how things work, and it's very, very difficult to dislodge them from their pet theory, even with overwhelming evidence." In the end Dr. Jeffery Long believes in his evidence, "I have confidence in the substantial majority of people. When they hear evidence, and it's presented in a straightforward way, they're smart enough to understand what's real evidence and what's evasiveness." Jeffrey Long, M.D., is a near death experience researcher and physician (radiation oncology). His book, 'Evidence of the Afterlife' (HarperCollins), was published in 2009. From Dr. Long's website: Does Near-Death Experience (NDE) Evidence Prove an Afterlife? Consider the Evidence, and Determine YOUR Answer! Play it: Download MP3 (43:03 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: We're joined today by Dr. Jeffrey Long, a practicing physician, he's a radiation oncologist, and a near-death experience researcher. His book, Evidence of the Afterlife, is the most comprehensive study of NDEs ever published and it's been a huge success. Dr. Long, welcome back to Skeptiko.

...