After listening to it on the net, not on the Skeptiko forum, I think Alex missed an opportunity. He didn't seem to have his wits about him when Shermer came at him with his usual crap.
Shermer :
No one saw the targets (in the Aware study) ..not one, why not ? if people can really float out of their bodies ? Why not ? (summary)
Alex : long pause ,,,bit stumped.
What Alex (he surely knows) should have said is that no one had an out of body experience in an area with a board fitted (research area). End of Shermer's point.
Shermer :
C'mon man, if heaven is real, why is it always reported differently ? It's because it's not heaven of course (summary from memory)
Alex : Well we can't say that.....(summary)
What he should have said is that 10 different people visiting a foreign country may report 10 different characteristics, so what ?
Shermer :
How can the mind that is produced by neurons leave them behind and float around a room ? That's impossible, c'mon, Alex tell me how ? (summary)
Alex : Something like "I don't think we need to go there ....."
What Alex should have said was. We have no idea what consciousness is or how the interaction of chemicals and electricity can produce the mind, our sense of self, our thoughts etc. Furthermore, this is what the patients report and we have hundreds of veridical OBE's that support the reality of this. Are you going to tell these people that they're all deluded ?
Here, Shermer would probably have then appealed to the trusty old "Aliens and Big Foot," red herrings. He's not a sceptic at all, he's a closed minded showman.
I thought Alex started off well, though.
(2018-05-03, 07:43 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/dr...-379.4147/
I thought the interview was quite entertaining. Alex seemed in a good mood too.
Ugh. Alex really shows how little he understands the practice of science. And neither of them are well read with respect to the research. I don’t understand why Shermer thinks he’s knowledgeable on the subject, but whatever.
What’s interesting to me is that nobody talks about the (unseen) targets in Penny Sartori’s study. Maybe that should be my litmus test as to whether or not somebody is actually well-informed with respect to the research.
Linda
(2018-05-03, 09:39 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Ugh. Alex really shows how little he understands the practice of science. And neither of them are well read with respect to the research. I don’t understand why Shermer thinks he’s knowledgeable on the subject, but whatever.
Linda
Alex pulled his favourite trick of conflating some of his guests’ personal conjectures with the actual findings of their studies... is that what you are referring to? I thought Shermer made some fair points (and concessions). I messaged him to see if he’ll join the show thread. I very much doubt he will.
(2018-05-03, 09:51 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Alex pulled his favourite trick of conflating some of his guests’ personal conjectures with the actual findings of their studies... is that what you are referring to? I thought Shermer made some fair points (and concessions). I messaged him to see if he’ll join the show thread. I very much doubt he will.
That’s partly it. I think he sincerely believes that someone’s conjecture is scientifically sacrosanct if it has been “peer-reviewed” and it is on his side. But he seems to have no clue about expertise or scientific criticism or validity, nevermind evidence.
I don’t know why I even brought this up. There’s nothing new here.
I guess Shermer was even less useful than I thought he might be, and much of what he said (or his approach) I disagree with.
(2018-05-03, 09:39 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Ugh. Alex really shows how little he understands the practice of science. And neither of them are well read with respect to the research. I don’t understand why Shermer thinks he’s knowledgeable on the subject, but whatever.
What’s interesting to me is that nobody talks about the (unseen) targets in Penny Sartori’s study. Maybe that should be my litmus test as to whether or not somebody is actually well-informed with respect to the research.
Linda
"
What’s interesting to me is that nobody talks about the (unseen) targets in Penny Sartori’s study."
I'm very happy to talk about it, Madam. There was only one patient (10) in Penny's study who had an opportunity to possibly see her (Penny's) target which was a bright pink/red luminescent card on top of the monitor (or some machine) at the back of his bed.
The patient said
he didn't twist his head back that way. He did however describe the scene perfectly when he was comatose.
Kinda surprised and disappointed that Alex didn't seem to have some basic rebuttals to some of things Shermer said, or at least doesn't seem to in that excerpt.
I mean the guy has interviewed theologians, parapsychologists, philosophers, practitioners from across the spectrum ...he's had Sheldrake on *how many* times...
(2018-05-04, 07:45 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Kinda surprised and disappointed that Alex didn't seem to have some basic rebuttals to some of things Shermer said, or at least doesn't seem to in that excerpt.
I mean the guy has interviewed theologians, parapsychologists, philosophers, practitioners from across the spectrum ...he's had Sheldrake on *how many* times...
Yes. The usual special pleadings weren’t flowing as smoothly as usual
(2018-05-04, 08:49 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. The usual special pleadings weren’t flowing as smoothly as usual
Oh I thought Shermer did a good job pushing the usual excuses of the materialist faith?
This exchange of wit might seem to suggest that there is an equivalence between the two positions represented by the protagonists.
However, that is largely not the case. If one might reduce things to their simplest at the level of a caricature, in general, the view loosely represented by Tsakiris is supported by evidence, while that represented by Shermer is represented by a fingers in ears "not listening, not listening" stance.
Frankly I haven't listened to this latest episode. Whether or not it lived up to its billing is irrelevant. The idea of sending two champions to do battle in order to determine a winner is a Mediaeval concept, perhaps useful in the days of knights in shining armour, whether entering a jousting tournament or full-scale bloody warfare. Nowadays we need not be concerned with such antics in seeking what is true.
(2018-05-05, 06:03 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]This exchange of wit might seem to suggest that there is an equivalence between the two positions represented by the protagonists.
Yep, I think that that's what those of us who have critiqued it are concerned about.