It is difficult, when trying to assess the truth of experiences which are literally out of this world, how to allow for subjectivity. The butterfly trip did appear to be more Magical Mystery Tour than sober NDE fare but perhaps that's how Alexander's mind works. Some people describe the thrill of being able to fly while other accounts don't mention it. Some have horrific experiences while others are so happy they fight against the need to return.
My feeling is that subjectivity is far more important than objectivity once we abandon the severe restrictions of this life. We seem to find ourselves in an environment suited to our demeanour at the time of passing. It is conditioned by our beliefs and expectations. I too find Alexander's account so "out there" that it is hard for me to take seriously but who am I to judge? Sci might be right and I don't think I'd be too surprised if there was some embellishment in Eben's account. On the other hand, why would he make up something so fantastical if he merely wants to be taken seriously?
(2017-09-17, 06:59 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]You don't think it's a bit expected that a guy who had honesty problems on his past surgical work would lead to suspicion about his NDE?
I've noted the Esquire piece itself is a hit piece, but I think it's fair doubts remain. Similarly when a medium commits fraud I think it's hard to follow Braude that the instances where fraud isn't detected should be accepted.
"Hit pieces" and innuendo often are found out to be what they actually are: half truths and outright fabrications that don't stand up to scrutiny. But they often have the desired effect by leaving people with a sense of uncertainly where there once was none.
I think you could point to any of us and find times when were were not our best. It seems like a standard tactic throughout the years, in politics or business or whatever, to find those things and publicize them to cast doubt on the person.
It is up to each of us to assign meaning relevance to the information.
This sort of thing is the reason I have avoided hanging my hat on any one example as "proof", because ANY example of ANYTHING can be refuted on some grounds or another. This underscores the value and really the whole basis of the scientific method: repeatability and cross checking. But of course, this is the Achilles heal of the sorts of events we discuss: they don't lend themselves well to this sort of methodology.
(2017-09-17, 08:00 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]I said it might turn out that way.
I can make a separate thread about why Alexander shouldn't be the face of the NDE proponent movement if people want, I don't want to ruin discussion of the new book which others who read it probably want to talk about.
Sorry Sciborg-
but hearing something like "something may come out", feels to me like MacCarthy (hopefully people are familiar with the Sen. MacArthy trials in the US, which accused dozens of people of being communists) in the 1950s saying a person "may" be a communist. It is an implied assertion, without enough evidence to support in fact, and in court would probably qualify as liable, which I am not accusing you of BTW. The same happens all the time in modern politics but I will avoid names and specifics... It's attack by innuendo.
I'm just saying: if I were old enough in the 50's to be repelled by such things, I would have been, and this smacks of the same thing, only now I am old enough to realize I am repelled.
Saying you have doubt of Alexander's credibility is reasonable, suggesting that something "may come out" isn't. IMO.
(2017-09-18, 10:26 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think that there is ever a situation in which a genuine medium would need to use fraud?
"would need to"? No. Of course not, Why would they
need to?
They might
want to, because they are not having a "good night" and the "power isn't with them", so to speak. And rather than deal with that fact, I could imagine someone faking something to keep paying customers happy.
It is the same motivation that underlies why sports figures often cheat by taking performance enhancing drugs. To get an edge. To do better than they would otherwise.
And it is done in business: take for example the VW scandal a couple years ago. They wanted to sell more cars, cheaper, and took a shortcut to do so.
Yes of course I can see why some could be motivated to do this. But no, they wouldn't
need to.
(2017-09-17, 11:59 PM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]I think that you may be mixing my comment with Sci's? All of my posts before that one were about Bernardo.
You're right sorry. Not sure how that happened.
(2017-09-18, 10:26 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think that there is ever a situation in which a genuine medium would need to use fraud?
I think it may depend on what one means by fraud. There are instances where it is said that the controlling agency caused the medium to carry out actions which on the face it were fraud but the medium was not in control of themselves. Would that be fraud?
(2017-09-18, 11:27 AM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]I think it may depend on what one means by fraud. There are instances where it is said that the controlling agency caused the medium to carry out actions which on the face it were fraud but the medium was not in control of themselves. Would that be fraud?
Such as?
That's sounds odd. Sort of like: "don't blame me, the voice in my head made me do it". I don't buy this. Fakery is fakery.
Or perhaps your example will elucidate.
(2017-09-18, 10:32 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry Sciborg-
but hearing something like "something may come out", feels to me like MacCarthy (hopefully people are familiar with the Sen. MacArthy trials in the US, which accused dozens of people of being communists) in the 1950s saying a person "may" be a communist. It is an implied assertion, without enough evidence to support in fact, and in court would probably qualify as liable, which I am not accusing you of BTW. The same happens all the time in modern politics but I will avoid names and specifics... It's attack by innuendo.
I'm just saying: if I were old enough in the 50's to be repelled by such things, I would have been, and this smacks of the same thing, only now I am old enough to realize I am repelled.
Saying you have doubt of Alexander's credibility is reasonable, suggesting that something "may come out" isn't. IMO.
There is a bit more to what Sci is saying. It appears that the author was the subject of a disciplinary hearing for dishonesty. I am not sure how relevant it is but IMHO it would go to credibility. Personally, i think there is so little evidential content in the experience, it doesn't make much difference for me.
Alexander, III, Eben, MD 0101-239440 Lynchburg, VA
03/23/09
Reprimand, $3500 monetary penalty, based on two patient cases of performing surgery on the wrong surgical site; and in one of the cases, failure to disclose same to the patient, and altering the original operative report to obscure the fact of the wrong site surgery.
(http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/new...rief69.pdf)
(2017-09-18, 11:34 AM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]There is a bit more to what Sci is saying. It appears that the author was the subject of a disciplinary hearing for dishonesty. I am not sure how relevant it is but IMHO it would go to credibility. Personally, i think there is so little evidential content in the experience, it doesn't make much difference for me.
Alexander, III, Eben, MD 0101-239440 Lynchburg, VA
03/23/09
Reprimand, $3500 monetary penalty, based on two patient cases of performing surgery on the wrong surgical site; and in one of the cases, failure to disclose same to the patient, and altering the original operative report to obscure the fact of the wrong site surgery.
(http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/new...rief69.pdf)
Thanks for detail. But this, as I said in a prev post, an example of a person who made a mistake, and was trying to hide/mitigate that fact. Using this standard, I doubt there is anyone here with the credibility to say anything about anything.
Saying that this history makes you unsure whether to trust this person? Fine.
Saying that something might come out? Not fine. (again- my opinion only).