Keith Augustine interview

 @ the Mods.

This is a science forum where facts are surely preferred to hearsay and speculation. I don't think Max's comments should be allowed to stand, personally without being called out. I don't want to make a massive deal out of this but if someone is saying something that plainly isn't correct, isn't it fair game to call bullshit ?

I'm not a mod but I'm not in favour of mods deciding what is or isn't bullshit. It isn't the mods job to call out BS, it is ours, and I think you did a pretty good job of making your point, Tim. I agree with you but further, I think all this nit-picking in the Pam Reynolds case is skeptical hand-waving. It smacks of desperation to me. Taken as complete experience, Pam Reynolds is still a good case study.

The skeptical line of attack seems to be to isolate one reported experience that is held in high regard by proponents and introduce doubt so that people like Max will say "it's still not settled enough for me". That's a win for the skeptics in their book. It amounts to dismissal and the case goes on their list of the debunked. If they can claim that the "best case" has been debunked - as Augustine wants to claim - then they go on to claim that the whole NDE field and, further, all evidence for the afterlife is fantasy. Now that is frustrating!