Debate: That veridical NDEs are a myth [split: A splendid video about evolution]

[Laird]

As Smaw has already pointed out, Penny Sartori's hit can most likely be explained by prompting the interviewees so she could get something to confirm her a priori written conclusion.

In this thread we haven't counted it as a hit if by "hit" you mean correctly describing the target. According to the quotes supplied by Linda in the thread Will linked to, the patient described the colour and roughly got it right only on the third interview, and yes, after prompting (but not as to which colour), while in the first interview he'd said he didn't even look.

We've counted it though as a veridical NDE simply because the patient described - without prompting - other details correctly. See the interview excerpts (including questions) in Penny's paper A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing. None of the questions are leading with respect to the veridical details.

In this thread we haven't counted it as a hit if by "hit" you mean correctly describing the target. According to the quotes supplied by Linda in the thread Will linked to, the patient described the colour and roughly got it right only on the third interview, and yes, after prompting (but not as to which colour), while in the first interview he'd said he didn't even look.

We've counted it though as a veridical NDE simply because the patient described - without prompting - other details correctly. See the interview excerpts (including questions) in Penny's paper A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing. None of the questions are leading with respect to the veridical details.

Idk if i'm posting in the right thread but what do you think about the cases in the book "The Self Does Not Die" by Rivas et al. , do you happen to know how they are verified? Or how the investigation process takes place? I wanna buy the book but i don't really want to make false hopes . Thanks in advance.

[Laird]

Idk if i'm posting in the right thread but what do you think about the cases in the book "The Self Does Not Die" by Rivas et al. , do you happen to know how they are verified? Or how the investigation process takes place? I wanna buy the book but i don't really want to make false hopes . Thanks in advance.

To be honest, I have only dipped into the odd case in the book, not read it in full. Based on what I've read, the cases and verification standard will satisfy a skeptical but open-minded person; the average die-hard pseudo-skeptic will never be satisfied anyway with evidence based on that which (s)he derisively - and unscientifically - dismisses as (merely) anecdotal.

If you want a sense of the sort of investigative process the authors undertake, before deciding whether or not to buy the book, you can check out for free a transcript of the interview that Titus Rivas undertook with the nurse who reported the "denture man" case discussed in this thread:

English Transation of Transcript of Interview with TG about the “Man with the Dentures”

[Laird]

Hello again and thank you! I think i built the question the wrong way , by that i meant , what is the process of them investigating a case? Do they go and take interviews of the people mentioned in each case? Or atleast the doctors and people who were operating on them?

Yes, they directly interview as many of the primary people involved as possible. They also if I recall correctly seek out primary documentation, such as medical records, where available.

Yes, they directly interview as many of the primary people involved as possible. They also if I recall correctly seek out primary documentation, such as medical records, where available.

Probably not true. According to this book review https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B...geNumber=1 the cases are

Their collection of NDE reports is certainly extensive, but due to poor documentation they cannot be considered as anything more than a collection of “wonder stories” due to lack of detail, poor documentation, and absent serious scientific analysis.

I fully expects the cases to be of the same low quality as Denture man and Jeffery Long’s catalog.

[Laird]

Probably not true. According to this book review https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B...geNumber=1

It's worth pointing out that that review was apparently written by Gerald Woerlee, a vociferous skeptic, who is criticised in the book itself, so he's not exactly an unbiased reviewer.

In any case, I'd need to read the book in full to more reliably assess its standard of research and documentation. It might be that some of the cases are less well researched and documented than the couple of more prominent ones that I've dipped into.

I fully expects the cases to be of the same low quality as Denture man and Jeffery Long’s catalog.

In other words, you haven't read it yourself, which raises the question as to what this earlier claim of yours was based on:

Most of the 112 "spectacular" cases in Rivas and Smit's gospel of NDE fairy tales are decades old.

It's worth pointing out that that review was apparently written by Gerald Woerlee, a vociferous skeptic, who is criticised in the book itself, so he's not exactly an unbiased reviewer.

I think it’s quite a stretch to identify “Gerry” as “Gerald Woerlee”.

This is a another quote from a reviewer who identifies himself as John:

Interesting. But the only thing that frustrated me about the book are the people in most of the stories that remained anonymous. Some of the tellers, most of the nde'ers, and most of the people who could corroborate the stories. Real names of all involved are frequently missing. So I will always have doubts about the veracity of some of the situations. I would say most of the stories are not verified because the documentation is so poor. Very disappointed.

Do you also think he is Gerald Woerlee? Or perhaps Keith Augustine?

Also is this case below an example of what you categorize as “seeking out primary documentation such as medical records?”

Another example is Case 3.8, which is cited to the Comments section of a telegraph article, written by a reader known only as "Andy" because that's how he signed his comment. In what way is this researched or convincing?

[Laird]

I think it’s quite a stretch to identify “Gerry” as “Gerald Woerlee”.

"Gerry" writes in his review: "I am flattered to note that my extensive and detailed analyses of the NDE phenomenon, the Sam Parnia AWARE study, the Pam Reynolds experience, the denture-man NDE, as well as more analyses , as well as reviews of Pim van Lommel and Jeffrey Long are given due note".

In The Self Does Not Die (page numbers from the second edition, Kindle version), Gerald Woerlee's analysis of the Pam Reynolds experience is given due note on page 116; of the denture-man NDE on pages 83 through 85; etc. In general, a search for "Woerlee" in the book returns 225 results.

I get the importance of skepticism and not jumping to conclusions, but this really doesn't seem like all that long of a bow to stretch.

This is a another quote from a reviewer

Yes yes, I read the other reviews; hence my caveat that I'd need to read the book in full to reliably assess its standard of research and documentation for myself. Based on what I've read so far though, and the esteem in which it is widely held, it seems to generally be solid.

Also is this case below an example of what you categorize as “seeking out primary documentation such as medical records?”

No. That one's admittedly far less rigorous.

SBU posted something in this thread about submitting a fake NDE to Dr. Jeff Long’s site , and then I come across this headline for this “NDE”:

NDE due to episode of unconsciousness caused by severe diarrhea 

https://www.nderf.org/experience.html?ENTRYNUM=33162

Can we stop taking this seriously now ?

This is just one of many like this and what they qualify as NDE’s. 

Then when other so called “respected” Dr’s like Parnia Seem to devolve from critical thinking to the claims from his latest book… 

I wanna believe more than the next guy. But I find myself continuing to make excuses and shuffle my thoughts to justify the latest b.s. like this cuz i “want to believe.”

No trouble seeing , what I feel is the Absurdity in other things like big foot or lochness monster or people like Sylvia Browne but when it comes to uap ‘s and nde ‘s .. I want to believe , so I justify ..  but come on.

Should I believe in a flat earth at this point to? How it’s starting to feel … combined with some of the latest research on NDE’s, cardiac arrest, surges of activity , eeg still Being present , etc etc etc