I personally just find the thing bizarre.
How few are interested in the story itself. Most focus is on the story of the story of the story. Is everyone a storyteller, a dreamer of dreams? What of the facts, the foundation behind all this entertainment? Do the foundations count as little as the clouds? So it would seem --- to some.
(2018-04-24, 09:42 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]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?
Why don't you take a look at the IANDS article on this. Better still, Why not contact Alexander yourself ? You can include (Kamarling on this case), Max, Malf, Linda, Paul and everyone else on here that has a problem.
Do it ! Talk is easy. Armchair sceptics (not necessarily you) piss me off. Sorry, but that's how I feel about it.
(2018-04-24, 09:29 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]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 on possession of all the facts about the case. And I'm not "buying" the Alexander is dishonest and untrustworthy story." Sorry.
No Tim, you are not reading my responses. You are deciding for me what is true and what is not. I did not say that Alexander chose the title - I said the publishers. I also said that the fact that he has been dishonest doesn't mean that he is always dishonest. If you are going to whitewash everyone who agrees with your worldview you are open to the same criticism as the psudo-sceptics you criticise. All I am saying is that he could have been less concerned with selling a book and more concerned with opening an honest debate. The book could have come later. Others have taken that approach - interviews, articles, research then a book. If you want to diffuse pseudo-scepticism, don't play into their hands.
(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..?
I wouldn't say that 5 in 10 years is routine per se, but the US is heavy on med mal suits. They are far from uncommon, and good doctors can get hit with them with relative frequency.
I would not say him having med mal suits, even that number, mean that he's a bad neurosurgeon or that he doesn't know what he's doing - especially in a field as loaded with grey area as neurosurgery.
(2018-04-25, 03:53 AM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't say that 5 in 10 years is routine per se, but the US is heavy on med mal suits. They are far from uncommon, and good doctors can get hit with them with relative frequency.
I would not say him having med mal suits, even that number, mean that he's a bad neurosurgeon or that he doesn't know what he's doing - especially in a field as loaded with grey area as neurosurgery.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the criticism that he tried to cover up his mistakes, not that he made mistakes? Or am I misremembering? I did read the Esquire article at the time and thought it was a hit piece even though my overall impression of Alexander was somewhat poor. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia either - we all know that parapsychology does not get fair treatment on those pages. So perhaps Tim can clarify the issue further since he has been in direct contact?
(2018-04-25, 01:31 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]No Tim, you are not reading my responses. You are deciding for me what is true and what is not. I did not say that Alexander chose the title - I said the publishers. I also said that the fact that he has been dishonest doesn't mean that he is always dishonest. If you are going to whitewash everyone who agrees with your worldview you are open to the same criticism as the psudo-sceptics you criticise. All I am saying is that he could have been less concerned with selling a book and more concerned with opening an honest debate. The book could have come later. Others have taken that approach - interviews, articles, research then a book. If you want to diffuse pseudo-scepticism, don't play into their hands.
Dave said >No Tim, you are not reading my responses.
No I have read your responses
Dave said. >You are deciding for me what is true and what is not.
Really ? How does that work ? It's impossible for me to decide for you. And of course you don't expect me to agree with you, necessarily, as I don't expect you to agree with me, necessarily.
Dave said >I also said that the fact that he has been dishonest doesn't mean that he is always dishonest.
Okay but you're assuming the accusations against him are accurate and Alexander plus IANDS have refuted that.
https://iands.org/ndes/more-info/ndes-in...facts.html
They don't mention the woman who sadly was left with paralysis in her face (if that information is correct of course) after Alexander operated on her. Unfortunately, brain surgery (so we are told) is so fraught with difficulties that unintentional damage is a fairly common occurrence. Dr Allan Hamilton who is considered to be one of the finest neurosurgeons in the world, operated on a friend of his to remove a tumour and accidently removed the man's abilty to speak. Henry Marsh, the Well known English neurosurgeon talks about this problem.
Henry Marsh >
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style...75001.html
All doctors have failures; the problem with brain surgery is that failure is often very terrible and very spectacular The very nature of medicine is that things go wrong – and when an operation goes badly, the patient doesn't necessarily die; they can be left horribly disabled, and you have to confront and see that patient often for weeks after on the walk rounds, which is a peculiar torment. Doctors should be honest about the fact that what we do is often very imprecise. It's not a business, it's not a consumer process.
Dave said >
If you are going to whitewash everyone who agrees with your worldview you are open to the same criticism as the psudo-sceptics you criticise.
I don't understand that remark. Are you saying that because I haven't accepted your interpretation of Alexander (that he was basically dishonest and money orientated ) then I'm deliberately overlooking the facts ?
There's two sides to most things (not everything) and I don't think Luke Dietrich is a particularly fine example of integrity.
I don't have to side with him just because you have. You make your decision and I'll make mine.
Dave said >All I am saying is that he could have been less concerned with selling a book and more concerned with opening an honest debate.
I tend to agree with that but we have to bear in mind his circumstances and we don't and can't know them. The book could have flopped...should he have set out to half-heartedly publish it ? How do you go about that ? The media would have come looking for him, the science guardians would have hounded him. He is a notable academic and an accomplished public speaker and he wanted to get this out to the world (in his own words)
Dave said >
If you want to diffuse pseudo-scepticism, don't play into their hands
And the same sage advice to you
(2018-04-24, 09:51 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Firstly, I don't think I am biased.
Of course you don't. None of us see our biases particularly well. I think its probably one of the most difficult things on which to be self aware. Its not a criticism, just our shared human condition.
Objectively though, you should allow for the presence of some bias as you have a relationship with the subject. Sure, its a very surface level relationship (a few emails) but that's more than enough for anyone to develop a certain fondness, deserved or otherwise, for someone else.
As for the rest of your post regarding his charitable donations (or lack there of), I was simply pointing out what I hoped I would do in his situation. History is littered with charlatans promising insight into the beyond who were in it only the buck. Eben knows that. Hell, everyone knows that.
I'd like to think that if it were me, I would have not wanted folks to even be discussing this potential conflict of interest in a thread like this. I'd much rather have them, as Typoz alluded, be focused on the events themselves.
Again, no right or wrong here. Just my feelings on the subject.
(2018-04-25, 12:51 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Of course you don't. None of us see our biases particularly well. I think its probably one of the most difficult things on which to be self aware. Its not a criticism, just our shared human condition.
Objectively though, you should allow for the presence of some bias as you have a relationship with the subject. Sure, its a very surface level relationship (a few emails) but that's more than enough for anyone to develop a certain fondness, deserved or otherwise, for someone else.
As for the rest of your post regarding his charitable donations (or lack there of), I was simply pointing out what I hoped I would do in his situation. History is littered with charlatans promising insight into the beyond who were in it only the buck. Eben knows that. Hell, everyone knows that.
I'd like to think that if it were me, I would have not wanted folks to even be discussing this potential conflict of interest in a thread like this. I'd much rather have them, as Typoz alluded, be focused on the events themselves.
Again, no right or wrong here. Just my feelings on the subject.
Okay, Silence you want me to admit to being biased. But I feel that I've tried to be pretty objective. I always stick to the facts about anything but if you can find something I've written on here that demonstrates bias, feel free to post it.
Take your time, I'll wait for you to produce it.
Edit : I suppose it's fair to say that I have accepted NDE's as an insight into another existence. That was based on evidence though. Does it mean I'm now biased to accept any old NDE ? No, absolutely not.
Sorry Tim, I'm not waiting for you to admit to being biased. I'm simply stated I believe you are likely to have some bias. That's just my perspective. I have no way to prove it nor do I think its a negative. I think I'd be biased if I'd communicated positive with Eben.
I'm also not saying that your position on the guy is wrong. Again, I don't know if what he experienced is legitimate.
I am saying I dislike the commercial aspect of his experience. You don't have to agree with me on this point, but its a mark in the negative column for me. Folks may not like the analogy, but I imagine how people (let alone history) would have treated Jesus or Buddha if they'd "commercialized" their insight.