(2017-09-18, 02:19 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Still not sure what happened in this particular example, that is fraudulent. The medium's body moved? Not exactly a fraudulent thing I would say.
Anyway let me give you a different example:
Recently I saw a physical medium at a seance. He was tightly bound at the wrists and gagged.
During the seance the curtains were opened and we saw the medium's body with what was reported to be ectoplasm emanating from his face. He was manipulating it with, as far as I can tell (the light was VERY LOW), his hands. the mass of material was quite large.
Well, if he was bound, how was he using his hands unless he freed himself from his bindings? We can assume he did free himself but the (again) assumption, is that spirit de-materialized the bindings and later at the end of the seance, we had to cut those bindings off his (bound again) wrists.
Fraud? Well, only if you feel that the medium freed himself somehow. OTOH- if spirit unbound him, performed these things and re-bound him, perhaps not.
I didn't think the example I gave was fraudulent. Sorry I thought you were asking how it could be that a medium
might seem to cheat and yet not be cheating. If I need to add to it let me know.
On your experience:
I think it depends on where one's degree of acceptance lies. That said, I have never read of any materialisation medium
manipulating ectoplasm themselves. The observers usually describe the medium as inert and playing no part in it as far as I recall.
There do seem to be reports of mediums being freed from bonds and then re-secured (sometimes, clothing removed and returned back to front and suchlike). Is it possible? I think that's down to your judgement if you don't have definitive proof. How confident can you be that the restraints could not be escaped by normal means?
If I read you correctly you believe the medium's hands were free - I can't imagine why that would be necessary. What did you mean by manipulating it?
There have been some very elaborate restraints applied to mediums in the past, whole body bound by sitters not known to the medium including threads which would snap if there was interference.
(2017-09-18, 02:28 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]As a professional person myself, if I was found to have acted dishonesty (as he did - to protect his own reputation, or avoid the consequences) I'd expect to be disciplined by my registered body and to have that queried whenever I went to a client, if I disclosed it. I am a member of a couple of voluntary organisations and I know for a fact that a professional dishonesty finding would see me kicked out.
That's interesting, Obiwan. Do the voluntary organisations have higher standards than your professional status then ? Note that Alexander wasn't kicked out !
Haha that's a good point. Yes they do. I would be able to work but not do certain of my voluntary work.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's like he removed the wrong kidney and then told the patient that all went well :
It's just that in a trusted position, where people rely one's word, that kind of action isn't an error, it's deliberate avoidance of the consequences, however little the outcome affected anyone. I am not making a judgement of the man himself but he has shown that he is prepared to mislead people to protect himself (a natural human response but not one that is tolerated in professions like medicine or law) - and it was discovered. He hasn't committed a criminal offence.
(2017-09-18, 02:38 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]Haha that's a good point. Yes they do. I would be able to work but not do certain of my voluntary work.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's like he removed the wrong kidney and then told the patient that all went well :
It's just that in a trusted position, where people rely one's word, that kind of action isn't an error, it's deliberate avoidance of the consequences, however little the outcome affected anyone. I am not making a judgement of the man himself but he has shown that he is prepared to mislead people to protect himself (a natural human response but not one that is tolerated in professions like medicine or law) - and it was discovered. He hasn't committed a criminal offence.
"I am not making a judgement of the man himself"
Okay but you did originally say he wasn't of good character. Just a point about protecting himself. He could have protected himself from all this criticism by keeping his NDE to himself. Naturally, the sceptics on here would probably wave the money card here but to be objective he didn't know for sure he was going to make a lot of money out of it. He published and was damned and that's not self protecting.
One of the reasons I defend Alexander is because I'm personally quite confident about his character. I've "spoken" to one of his best friends and confidantes who has the highest regards for him.
(2017-09-18, 03:04 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ] "I am not making a judgement of the man himself"
Okay but you did originally say he wasn't of good character. Just a point about protecting himself. He could have protected himself from all this criticism by keeping his NDE to himself. Naturally, the sceptics on here would probably wave the money card here but to be objective he didn't know for sure he was going to make a lot of money out of it. He published and was damned and that's not self protecting.
One of the reasons I defend Alexander is because I'm personally quite confident about his character. I've "spoken" to one of his best friends and confidantes who has the highest regards for him.
That's a fact really. If a person has lied, been discovered or admitted it and then been disciplined for it they are not of good character (lot's of things can make a person not of good character - for example in english law any criminal conviction makes a person 'not of good character', however trivial it is - I actually view what he did as serious tbh - but not even slightly relevant to his NDE). What that means in practice depends on who it was and under what circumstances. This happened 8 years ago if I calculate it correctly, I am sure he learned from the experience and isn't the same person he was then - I hope I'm not either.
As far as the NDE is concerned I am with you. He'd have to be insane to publicise something like this given his position if he'd made it up. I don't think he made it up. Did he gild it? - Who knows? It was a personal subjective experience and I don't know him. You'd have to ask people who know him well. The difficulty with speaking to his friends is of course a) they're his friends and are unlikely to share a negative opinion with a stranger and b) who are his friends that we can trust
their judgement? (I am not really suggesting his friends are telling the truth, I just don't know).
If given he is being truthful about the experience, he could still be wrong couldn't he? There isn't much corroboration other than the sister - which i didn't find particularly moving - but that's just me.
I don't see what's the big deal... So he seems to have had a lapse of integrity in one or two surgeries among 4000? That doesn't make him a fraudulent person on the whole nor does it change the way I view his story one bit.
We don't take anyone 100% at their word (if we're reasonable) because we know we can all have the capacity to deceive or self-deceive or just be mistaken. The ideal form of skepticism, IMO, is to hold onto conclusions very lightly - neither become married to pet ideas nor reject all others.
What is important is that he was knocked off his horse so to speak by an experience that changed his whole worldview which seems to have happened while significant portions of his brain were incapacitated. The experience helped Dr. Alexander develop a new philosophy on life which improved his own life and his own relationships with family.
It is a beautiful compelling story even if we take it with a grain of salt. It is actually the story that led me to Skeptiko several years ago, and it has the potential to help others find escape from nihilistic materialism and religious dogma.
(2017-09-18, 03:23 PM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see what's the big deal... So he seems to have had a lapse of integrity in one or two surgeries among 4000? That doesn't make him a fraudulent person on the whole nor does it change the way I view his story one bit.
We don't take anyone 100% at their word (if we're reasonable) because we know we can all have the capacity to deceive or self-deceive or just be mistaken. The ideal form of skepticism, IMO, is to hold onto conclusions very lightly - neither become married to pet ideas nor reject all others.
What is important is that he was knocked off his horse so to speak by an experience that changed his whole worldview which seems to have happened while significant portions of his brain were incapacitated. The experience helped Dr. Alexander develop a new philosophy on life which improved his own life and his own relationships with family.
It is a beautiful compelling story even if we take it with a grain of salt. It is actually the story that led me to Skeptiko several years ago, and it has the potential to help others find escape from nihilistic materialism and religious dogma.
I agree. This originally developed from a remark by another poster suggesting 'something would come out' that undermined what Eben Alexander was saying. I asked what. Don't think I got an answer (apologies if I missed it). I brought this up to see if this was what the poster was alluding to as I cannot recall reading anything else that might be used to suggest Eben Alexander was some sort of fantasist or not entirely honest. Perhaps I should have let sleeping dogs lie (or to quote someone else 'let lying dogs sleep'.
It's interesting how the same thing can affect people completely differently. Other than the fact that Eben Alexander is a medic and therefore in a better position than most to comment on his experience, I found the content pretty underwhelming compared to many NDE reports. I do think he was reporting his recollection of it as accurately as he could though.
(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.
But there is documentation on Mr. Alexander's dishonesty and cover up in the medical field. That's more than innuendo.
There are other doctors who've been convinced by studying NDEs, there are NDErs who've had amazing experiences that include veridical components and there are people who post NDE had miraculous recoveries.
I think it's bad strategy from a marketing standpoint for anyone to make too much of Mr. Alexander, both for the lack of interesting veridicial components in his NDE and his past documented dishonesty. Some people - not necessarily those on Psience Quest - seem to want to appeal to his medical expertise while simultaneously avoiding the criticisms he received in that field.
I'm happy that he has made more people aware of NDEs, the work in Irreducible Mind, and the Hard Problem of Consciousness but if he genuinely cares about the movement and not just making a buck he should do more to push the luminaries in the NDE movement who don't have the questionable reputation he does.
I don't believe anything I'm saying is beyond what you'd hear discussed in a marketing team looking for a spokesperson. Similarly Brian Dunning going to prison for scamming people should make the skeptic movement wary of promoting him as well.
I have to say tim I really admire your tenacity with this subject in general.
(2017-09-18, 03:15 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]That's a fact really. If a person has lied, been discovered or admitted it and then been disciplined for it they are not of good character (lot's of things can make a person not of good character - for example in english law any criminal conviction makes a person 'not of good character', however trivial it is - I actually view what he did as serious tbh - but not even slightly relevant to his NDE). What that means in practice depends on who it was and under what circumstances. This happened 8 years ago if I calculate it correctly, I am sure he learned from the experience and isn't the same person he was then - I hope I'm not either.
As far as the NDE is concerned I am with you. He'd have to be insane to publicise something like this given his position if he'd made it up. I don't think he made it up. Did he gild it? - Who knows? It was a personal subjective experience and I don't know him. You'd have to ask people who know him well. The difficulty with speaking to his friends is of course a) they're his friends and are unlikely to share a negative opinion with a stranger and b) who are his friends that we can trust their judgement? (I am not really suggesting his friends are telling the truth, I just don't know).
If given he is being truthful about the experience, he could still be wrong couldn't he? There isn't much corroboration other than the sister - which i didn't find particularly moving - but that's just me.
Obiwan, I don't want to fall out with you about this but you've basically contradicted yourself again. So, you
are saying it's a fact that
he is not of good character. It's not a statement I can accept personally and I don't think it's justified.