(2018-04-24, 07:12 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have a dog in this fight as I'm not super familiar with Eben and I am, as others have stated, wary of folks commercializing things like this.
That said, the article didn't seem to indicate he was serially incompetent. Seems like he was an active, even highly active, practicing neurosurgeon for an extended period of time and had, what, a 2-3 malpractice suits? Is that considering serial in the neurosurgical realm? Where were the interviews with the patients who survived grave odds due to Alexander's innovative use of "stereotactic radiosurgery"?
I guess I think it would be, literally, impossible to find anyone who could emerge unscathed from a talented investigative journalist.
Does the article prove his a "serial" liar and made up the entire series of events? That doesn't seem fair. Does the article give one pause to consider the character of the author? Yeah, I guess so. That said, it didn't seem to delve much into a positive character witnesses but went long on negative character witnesses. Was that the journalist's agenda? Who knows.
His wiki page says he had to settle 5 malpractice suits in Virginia in 10 years. That may be routine for the US I guess..?
(2018-04-24, 06:26 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Because he said so.
I’d never read the esquire piece before last night. I’d just accepted it was a poor ‘hit job’ because that’s what everyone said.
It certainly doesn’t read like a ‘hit job’. It is well written and meticulously researched. He appeared to be screwing up professionally on a serial basis. There is plenty in that article that has never been even slightly addressed by Alexander, including inconsistencies around his reporting of his experience and treatment.
I would urge everyone to read it carefully. Try and read it as if it was about Michael Shermer, if that helps 
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/in...e-prophet/
I've read that article before, Malf and it's a snide hatchet job with not much fact in it. Some of it is fair. Most of it is not. Iands addressed all the points, it's up on their website.
As I understand it, Alexander's account was not altered by artistic license. Which bits do you mean ?
(2018-04-24, 07:29 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]This.
Speaking for myself and not for proponents in general, I have to be careful not to have double standards. Take Trump, for example. His supporters seem to accept everything he does with a shrug. "So what - he's an ordinary guy not a politician". Well, not good enough. Not good for an ordinary guy to lie constantly and infinitely worse for a president to do so. Not good for an ordinary guy to treat women like his personal sex toys and infinitely worse for the leader of a nation. So it is not good for an ordinary guy to be caught out making mistakes and then trying to cover them up and it is much worse for a doctor. That speaks to his character: it doesn't mean that he is a serial offender or that nothing he says can be trusted but it raises suspicion and we should proceed with caution. As Malf says, apply the same standards as we would for Michael Shermer (who, by the way, appears to have his own skeletons in the cupboard).
To answer Tim's point about the veracity of his story because it comes from a neurosurgeon: the point I was making earlier was that this is precisely what makes his book commercially viable. Would he have hit the headlines and been invited on to TV shows had he been that ordinary guy? An ordinary guy who rides butterflies? No - the ordinary guy would have been ignored, even by many proponents. Again, from a personal point of view, I don't think the butterfly ride is so outrageous - some subjective experiences seem weird - but such an experience is an outlier in the canon of NDE accounts: not even close to typical. So I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying that the veracity of the NDE phenomenon has grown due to a certain consistency and Alexander's account is not really consistent with most.
His story deserves an unbiased hearing but, from the start, there have been warning bells ringing in my mind about Eben Alexander. Would it matter if he were exposed as a fraud? Well, yes - it would matter to the thousands of people who have told their stories in the face of a barrage of scepticism. It matters to those of us who want to give those people a fair hearing.
Apart from making lots of money out of it, Dave (which I don't care for) how should Alexander have brought this to the attention of the world ?
Edit : The case was so remarkable, we needed to hear about it. I know a bit more than most only because I contacted Alexander in 2009 I think it was and he very kindly wrote me the details and explained why his case was so interesting. He's not a friend of mine, nor even an acquaintance but he was kind and approachable. I sent him some books as a thank you.
I'm fed up with (not you or Obiwan) people attacking him to be honest.
(2018-04-24, 08:15 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Apart from making lots of money out of it, Dave (which I don't particularly care for) how should Alexander have brought this to the attention of the world ?
I'm not saying he should have kept quiet. I'm saying that the whole approach was commercial from the get-go. This wasn't a Pam Reynolds type event where the story got out and attention grew around an amazing experience, this was a commercially exploited media event. I take your point that a doctor in his position should tell of such an experience but there are factors which don't sit right with me: the overt commercialism from the outset and the history of dishonesty. Look what the sceptics did with Lloyd Rudy - someone who just quietly told his story without accompanying sensationalism and fanfare. Yet his credibility was picked apart ruthlessly. Alexander, by contrast, seems to have seen $$ signs attached to his experience and that makes me suspicious of embellishments and/or outright lies.
I have the same misgivings about the way publishers in America (sorry Americans, but this just bugs me) insist on putting a religious spin on NDE phenomena. Like including Heaven in the title - not just Alexander's book but several others too. It is a direct and unabashed punt for the Christian dollar: a massive market in the USA.
Look what happened with the bogus claim (and commercially successful book/film) surrounding "The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven". Google it. Look at the way the mainstream media have latched on to that as an example of the way the gullible public are hoodwinked by sincere seeming charlatans. We have to be extra careful about taking this stuff at face value - for the sake of the genuine.
(2018-04-24, 08:11 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I've read that article before, Malf and it's a snide hatchet job with not much fact in it. Some of it is fair. Most of it is not. Iands addressed all the points, it's up on their website.
As I understand it, Alexander's account was not altered by artistic license. Which bits do you mean ?
Read the comments from the doctor that treated him.
I only read the full article for the first time last night and it doesn’t read like a hatchet job to me. However, I’m consciously, and constantly, trying to fight my bias in this case; I just don’t like the look of him
(2018-04-24, 08:54 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying he should have kept quiet. I'm saying that the whole approach was commercial from the get-go. This wasn't a Pam Reynolds type event where the story got out and attention grew around an amazing experience, this was a commercially exploited media event. I take your point that a doctor in his position should tell of such an experience but there are factors which don't sit right with me: the overt commercialism from the outset and the history of dishonesty. Look what the sceptics did with Lloyd Rudy - someone who just quietly told his story without accompanying sensationalism and fanfare. Yet his credibility was picked apart ruthlessly. Alexander, by contrast, seems to have seen $$ signs attached to his experience and that makes me suspicious of embellishments and/or outright lies.
I have the same misgivings about the way publishers in America (sorry Americans, but this just bugs me) insist on putting a religious spin on NDE phenomena. Like including Heaven in the title - not just Alexander's book but several others too. It is a direct and unabashed punt for the Christian dollar: a massive market in the USA.
Look what happened with the bogus claim (and commercially successful book/film) surrounding "The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven". Google it. Look at the way the mainstream media have latched on to that as an example of the way the gullible public are hoodwinked by sincere seeming charlatans. We have to be extra careful about taking this stuff at face value - for the sake of the genuine.
As I've said, I don't like the commercialism. The title of the book was
not and never was, his idea. That was the publisher's, who of course want (ed) to make money. Alexander wanted to 'title' the book "N of 1" meaning his illness was unique... (1 in 10 million) but not totally unique, I guess.
The publisher's would have none of this (apparently)
What should he have done ? Not published his story ? Why ? Just so that the pseudo-sceptics can go on telling us that the brain produces consciousness ? *We are not in possession of all the facts about the case. And I'm not "buying" the
Alexander is dishonest and untrustworthy story." Sorry.
(2018-04-24, 09:03 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Read the comments from the doctor that treated him.
I only read the full article for the first time last night and it doesn’t read like a hatchet job to me. However, I’m consciously, and constantly, trying to fight my bias in this case; I just don’t like the look of him
Well that is amusing, Malf in both ways.
(2018-04-24, 08:15 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Apart from making lots of money out of it, Dave (which I don't care for) how should Alexander have brought this to the attention of the world ?
Interesting for me tim. I'd like to think that if I had experienced what he did, as a neurosurgeon, I might have thought carefully how to bring this to the world's attention. A brief scan of literature would have painted a pretty clear picture for him that mainstream science and journalism see NDE's as woo. I'd further like to think I would have been so affected by the events that the notion of enhanced material wealth beyond that of a neurosurgeon would have been of much less importance that convincing people of the new truth I had found.
Finally, I like to think I would have donated all material wealth generated from my story telling to others, to charities, to the greater good. Keeping it would have felt to me like leaving my story open to the types of "attacks" like you see the article to be.
(2018-04-24, 08:15 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Edit : The case was so remarkable, we needed to hear about it. I know a bit more than most only because I contacted Alexander in 2009 I think it was and he very kindly wrote me the details and explained why his case was so interesting. He's not a friend of mine, nor even an acquaintance but he was kind and approachable. I sent him some books as a thank you.
I'm fed up with (not you or Obiwan) people attacking him to be honest.
Clearly tim, you are biased favorably towards Eben if for no other reason than his kindness to you in fielding your inquiry and interacting. Nothing wrong about that at all. But you have to see that your interactions with him differentiate you from all of us who've had none. Right?
(2018-04-24, 07:34 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]His wiki page says he had to settle 5 malpractice suits in Virginia in 10 years. That may be routine for the US I guess..?
Good question and I have no idea. Quick google search:
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practic...uit-survey
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doc...4e37033d00
The second article would put Eben in pretty (negatively) rare light. However, its hard to tell if his specialty (neurosurgery) is being fairly compared as it seems to overindex compared to non-surgeons and even most surgical specialties.
Who knows?
(2018-04-24, 09:37 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting for me tim. I'd like to think that if I had experienced what he did, as a neurosurgeon, I might have thought carefully how to bring this to the world's attention. A brief scan of literature would have painted a pretty clear picture for him that mainstream science and journalism see NDE's as woo. I'd further like to think I would have been so affected by the events that the notion of enhanced material wealth beyond that of a neurosurgeon would have been of much less importance that convincing people of the new truth I had found.
Finally, I like to think I would have donated all material wealth generated from my story telling to others, to charities, to the greater good. Keeping it would have felt to me like leaving my story open to the types of "attacks" like you see the article to be.
Clearly tim, you are biased favorably towards Eben if for no other reason than his kindness to you in fielding your inquiry and interacting. Nothing wrong about that at all. But you have to see that your interactions with him differentiate you from all of us who've had none. Right?
Firstly, I don't think I am biased. I agree with part of the first part of your post. We don't know how much he has or hasn't given away to charity. I would sincerely hope he has been generous with his royalties but why should he have to reveal that ?
If he has donated to charities and he hasn't told us, that's the ideal.
If he hasn't... but is to donate and he tells us about it, what benefit is that to his character ? Singing his own praises ? What amount should he give away ? 10% 20% 50% all of it ?
What kind of newspaper cynical hatchet job would follow that, I wonder. Breaking news Proof of heaven neurosurgeon ONLY gives one measly million of his 5 million fortune !
There's no easy solution, I'm afraid.