Doesn't this piss you off?

In my opinion it's just a typically biased, badly constructed piece, presenting incorrect information and a bit of additional bullshit from Churchland who as a 'neuroscientist', demonstrates her masterful ability to make a diagnosis about this phenomenon by proposing "neural funny business".

I seem to remember that Patricia Churchland did her credibility no favours when she was interviewed by Alex on Skeptiko, displaying a total lack of familiarity with any of the NDE research thus reducing her professional opinion to mere uninformed and biased speculation.

I seem to remember that Patricia Churchland did her credibility no favours when she was interviewed by Alex on Skeptiko, displaying a total lack of familiarity with any of the NDE research thus reducing her professional opinion to mere uninformed and biased speculation.

Yes, that was a real eye opener. I suspect Churchland (and her husband) have invested quite a bit of energy imploring people to accept that they are really nothing more than biological robots (No separate consciousness, no soul--dirty word in academia)

Yes, that was a real eye opener. I suspect Churchland (and her husband) have invested quite a bit of energy imploring people to accept that they are really nothing more than biological robots (No separate consciousness, no soul--dirty word in academia)

By the way, Tim, have you (or has anyone) read the Leslie Kean book on survival? I've just got around to listening to her Skeptiko interview and Amazon has the book on my recommended for me list, so I'd be interested in any opinions.

By the way, Tim, have you (or has anyone) read the Leslie Kean book on survival? I've just got around to listening to her Skeptiko interview and Amazon has the book on my recommended for me list, so I'd be interested in any opinions.

Yes, I have the book, Dave, a very good analysis of 'the paranormal' with lots of interesting case(s) reports plus some of the chapters are by the researchers themselves.

Yes, I have the book, Dave, a very good analysis of 'the paranormal' with lots of interesting case(s) reports plus some of the chapters are by the researchers themselves.

Ok, so I did a bit of google searching and, wouldn't ya know it, I came across yet another example of the kind of article that this thread is all about. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/boo...e35826381/

This time the technique is what I call "set-em-up to knock-em-down" - something that the BBC Horizon team perfected when dealing with "fringe" science topics. The conceit is to spend some time - perhaps the first half of the article (or Horizon programme) portraying the subject in a reasonable, even positive, light only to spend the remainder demolishing that credibility. In this case we have the author of the article starting with positive comments (the set-up) such as:

The stakes are high: Kean writes that a "greater understanding of the nature of consciousness and its possible survival beyond bodily death could have far-reaching, enlightening effects on humanity."

And she does a great job. There's a lot of compelling data in this book.

And further ...

By the end of the book, Kean's evidence seems overwhelming. If you take her seriously, you'll believe what she has to say. And she does a great job of seeming objective. She quotes scientists she claims are respectable, writes in laconic prose and addresses potential objections with generosity.

But then comes the knock-down (note that these are selected, not necessarily contiguous, quotes):

The only problem is that if you know even a little about the field of parapsychology – the study of psychic powers, basically – you'll know that Kean is deeply credulous. The whole book rests on her acceptance of supernatural powers of the mind. 

...

Well, not really. The field of parapsychology has produced some interesting research, but it has also been riddled with controversy, poor experimental design and fraud.

And I'm genuinely sorry about this, because being an adherent of mainstream science is way less fun.

This is effectively demonstrated by Into the Gray Zone, the model of how pop science involving sensational subjects should be done. The book documents neuroscientist Adrian Owen's remarkable research into a weird phenomenon: People in vegetative states occasionally exhibit signs of consciousness.

Owen is a good scientist, so he doesn't exaggerate his findings or weave them into a grand metaphysical web, as Kean does. 

Ultimately, Kean's book provides a fascinating glimpse behind the veil of consciousness – and a reassuring message: Our souls persist, there's evidence of the afterlife and there is essentially nothing to fear from death – except perhaps brief final pain. Owen's book, meanwhile, provides an interesting brush against the limits of our lived experience, but doesn't offer anything hugely uplifting. It's a shame that only one of these books is credible.

I don't know where to start with what is wrong with this article but I could start by saying that a) Kean does not present her work as a scientific study but as a journalistic enterprise. As for science, she does not do lab work, she reports the work of other scientists. And b) it is outrageous to claim that Kean exaggerates her findings without providing evidence that she does so.

I haven’t read the book but I am wondering if Kean goes from simply reporting research and tries to propose what it all means? I’ve seen some very clever people go from the former to the latter and sound a bit crazy.

I haven’t read the book but I am wondering if Kean goes from simply reporting research and tries to propose what it all means? I’ve seen some very clever people go from the former to the latter and sound a bit crazy.

I haven't read the book either but I have listened to a couple of interviews with Lean and she sounds pretty level-headed and reluctant to draw conclusions about meaning other than the evidence pointing to a probability that survival should be taken seriously.

I seem to remember that Patricia Churchland did her credibility no favours when she was interviewed by Alex on Skeptiko, displaying a total lack of familiarity with any of the NDE research thus reducing her professional opinion to mere uninformed and biased speculation.

Don't forget Churchland actually quotes Pim Van Lommel as supporting her speculation when he has actually written several pages debunking her entire platform (https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/von...sponse.htm), coincidentally just two pages after the selection the psychology book from earlier was referencing.

Ok, so I did a bit of google searching and, wouldn't ya know it, I came across yet another example of the kind of article that this thread is all about. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/boo...e35826381/

This time the technique is what I call "set-em-up to knock-em-down" - something that the BBC Horizon team perfected when dealing with "fringe" science topics. The conceit is to spend some time - perhaps the first half of the article (or Horizon programme) portraying the subject in a reasonable, even positive, light only to spend the remainder demolishing that credibility. In this case we have the author of the article starting with positive comments (the set-up) such as:

But then comes the knock-down (note that these are selected, not necessarily contiguous, quotes):

I don't know where to start with what is wrong with this article but I could start by saying that a) Kean does not present her work as a scientific study but as a journalistic enterprise. As for science, she does not do lab work, she reports the work of other scientists. And b) it is outrageous to claim that Kean exaggerates her findings without providing evidence that she does so.

I don't know if  Chapin is a man or a woman but I guess it doesn't matter too much. I think the article is just an object in lauding what he/she believes is good science under the pretence of being objective. This person isn't objective, though.

The only problem is that if you know even a little about the field of parapsychology – the study of psychic powers, basically – you'll know that Kean is deeply credulous.

But Leslie Keen isn't credulous, she can't be as an effective investigative journalist, surely ?

 The field of parapsychology has produced some interesting research, but it has also been riddled with controversy, poor experimental design and fraud.

(As we know on here) The experimental designs are arguably of a higher standard than those used by mainstream psychologists. 

She (Kean) quotes scientists she claims are respectable,

Cardiologist Pim Van Lommel's  study of cardiac arrest patients was published in the Lancet which is the well respected gold standard of medical science journals. Peter Fenwick's credentials are highly respectable. Jim Tucker is a working psychiatrist and meticulous in his work and statements to name just three. 

As such, the book loses a bit of its magic. While Kean provides some apparently solid evidence for her propositions, she also provides a lot of applesauce, which makes it hard to believe her

What exactly does Chapin mean by apple sauce ? Does she mean that Kean has added sentiment to perk up/sweeten the accounts ? I don't remember any of that. She certainly reported that she witnessed shaking a materialised hand. What is Kean supposed to do, not report  that incident (amongst many others) because that can't happen ? I find such stuff hard to believe but it seems to happen anyway. 

The readings she received from two mental mediums (for instance) were remarkable, nothing but precise facts. No cold reading or fishing, just point after point of precise information. A friend of mine had a reading with the second medium that Kean consulted and received another very accurate report over the phone. Nothing vague or ambiguous such as, "He wants you to know that he's better now !" First names, correct illnesses, precise dates etc. It was so accurate that both of us suspected that she had somehow utilised the internet during the call. I don't realistically know how she could possibly have done that but when a stranger tells you the names and details of two of your most treasured relations (just for starters) it kind of unsettles you.  

I don't know why Chapin has matched the two books up for comparison. Owen's work (whilst obviously very valuable) is 'run of the mill' by comparison. Nonetheless, it's presented as remarkable.

The book documents neuroscientist Adrian Owen's remarkable research into a weird phenomenon: People in vegetative states occasionally exhibit signs of consciousness.

Thing is, it isn't that remarkable. The machine (FMRI scanner) is clearly remarkable in it's technology but all it is doing is showing up areas of blood flow in the brain in response to verbal stimuli, which isn't remarkable and it's not new. Stephen Laureys has been working with this technology on comatose patients for years as have many others.    
     

I haven’t read the book but I am wondering if Kean goes from simply reporting research and tries to propose what it all means? I’ve seen some very clever people go from the former to the latter and sound a bit crazy.

She is quite measured overall, Obiwan but I know what you mean.