(2018-04-27, 05:59 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, but that's just a hand wave. There are myriads of examples of Americans doing altruistic work for little to no commercial gain.
The lack of correlation between commercial enterprise and altruism almost seems to make the absence of one, evidence for the presence of the other.
Of course I am being hyperbolic there, but there is some directional truth in this sentiment for me. Doesn't mean I don't believe him, but makes it a bit harder to grant the benefit of the doubt.
Which parts are "commercial enterprise" which are not also done by prominent figures on the sceptic side? Are they also considered beyond the pale as a result?
British neurosurgeon Henry Marsh wrote a best selling book, "Do no harm." Of course, because he doesn't believe in any "heaven"
tosh (he regards such notions as absurd) and is a materialist atheist, he is excused any criticism.
Marsh can be both self-effacing and boastful, sometimes in the same sentence. At one point he talks of "disconcertingly large" royalty cheques that are now coming in from American book sales like he might be embarrassed of this fact, which clearly he isn't. Or that somehow he feels he doesn't deserve the acclaim, which I don't believe for one second. He snickers, "Bearing in mind I've had psychotherapy in the past."
https://www.esquire.com/uk/life/fitness-...rosurgeon/
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/m...rsh-review
His opinion carries great weight with the guardians of rationality, he is revered and respected even though he's spent time in a psychiatric institution. That's not a criticism, of course that can happen to anyone and it's nothing to be ashamed of. The point I'm making is that if Alexander had admitted to that, it would
never have been allowed to drop. Marsh has also admitted to accidently maiming some of his patients.
You'd probably have to classify Marsh not as a pessimist but certainly an unblinking realist. A long career of staring intently at brains — and specifically the effect of frontal-lobe damage to an individual's moral and social nature — has disavowed him of any hope for life after death or an immortal soul. This, sorry to say, is it: "Dead is dead," he concludes.
Marsh is allowed to get away with making ridiculous statements like this one above. What did he actually expect to see when he opened up their skulls ? The "soul"
nestled inside...maybe like a little bird housed in one of the temporal lobes ? What a load of nonsense!
Alexander on the contrary, is ridiculed for saying the opposite even though he's had an experience which showed him otherwise.
I'm stil looking into Alexander's mishaps BTW but it seems to me that there definitely are double standards.
(2018-04-27, 06:14 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]Which parts are "commercial enterprise" which are not also done by prominent figures on the sceptic side? Are they also considered beyond the pale as a result?
I don't get the questions, sorry. Did I somehow position this as proponent versus sceptic? Any commercial enterprise, in my view, creates the potential for conflicts of interest in areas such as these. Whether its a "proponent" (e.g., Alexander) or his/her sceptics (author of the OP's article).
Not many will have seen this 2013 Alexander interview with a Dutch journalist who like all Dutch, are able to speak very good English (credit due) Worth a look for those interested. At 14.40 he deals with some relevant points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YfuYYJv-Vk&t=40s
(2018-04-27, 06:14 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]Which parts are "commercial enterprise" which are not also done by prominent figures on the sceptic side? Are they also considered beyond the pale as a result?
The issue I have with Alexander when it comes to commercial exploitation is not that he wrote a book and made money - lots of very respectable and admired people do that - it is that money seemed to be his first and foremost motivation. While I'm personally uncomfortable with commercialisation in general, I have a particularly strong suspicion when there is a rush to publish a best seller and rake in the cash.
Secondly, and I'm hoping that Tim can clear this up for us, his professional "mistakes" appear to have involved attempts at a cover-up and that most certainly compounds the suspicion and speaks to character. I really dislike ad homs and try to avoid them so I'll be as happy as anyone if Tim or Smithy can reassure us that it was all a big misunderstanding. However, as Malf pointed out, we should apply the same discretion from whichever side of the argument we stand. I remember, after having a long rant about Richard Wiseman some time ago, someone told me that he is a really nice guy when you meet him. Maybe he is but his bias is obvious and so are his motives for attempting to debunk every shred of evidence for the paranormal.
It makes little difference to the weight of NDE evidence whether Alexander is a charlatan or not. Many people find themselves in careers that don’t suit them and look for an opportunity to change. It appears that he had a couple of unsuccessful prior attempts. Good luck to him.
He probably can’t help his supercilious appearance either :)
(2018-04-27, 07:43 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]It makes little difference to the weight of NDE evidence whether Alexander is a charlatan or not. Many people find themselves in careers that don’t suit them and look for an opportunity to change. It appears that he had a couple of unsuccessful prior attempts. Good luck to him.
He probably can’t help his supercilious appearance either 
I don't think he does look supercilious, personally. What's wrong with his looks ? What do you look like, Malf ?
Edit: Bow tie=pompous tw#t ? That it ?
(2018-04-27, 07:30 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]The issue I have with Alexander when it comes to commercial exploitation is not that he wrote a book and made money - lots of very respectable and admired people do that - it is that money seemed to be his first and foremost motivation. While I'm personally uncomfortable with commercialisation in general, I have a particularly strong suspicion when there is a rush to publish a best seller and rake in the cash.
Secondly, and I'm hoping that Tim can clear this up for us, his professional "mistakes" appear to have involved attempts at a cover-up and that most certainly compounds the suspicion and speaks to character. I really dislike ad homs and try to avoid them so I'll be as happy as anyone if Tim or Smithy can reassure us that it was all a big misunderstanding. However, as Malf pointed out, we should apply the same discretion from whichever side of the argument we stand. I remember, after having a long rant about Richard Wiseman some time ago, someone told me that he is a really nice guy when you meet him. Maybe he is but his bias is obvious and so are his motives for attempting to debunk every shred of evidence for the paranormal.
I doubt if I will be able to clear it up for you, Dave but I am trying.
He’s having a great time. He’s certainly gone “all in”.
(2018-04-27, 08:35 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]He’s having a great time. He’s certainly gone “all in”.
Good shot, Malf
I don't know if Alexander knew
who she was or not. You "Mayfair" better with your attempted character assassination
if you can produce a video with him saying something immoral.
Personally, I wouldn't have wasted any precious time
talking to her about existentialism. get the picture
Just kidding