Dr Eben Alexander's new book

No Tim, you are not reading my responses. You are deciding for me what is true and what is not. I did not say that Alexander chose the title - I said the publishers. I also said that the fact that he has been dishonest doesn't mean that he is always dishonest. If you are going to whitewash everyone who agrees with your worldview you are open to the same criticism as the psudo-sceptics you criticise.  All I am saying is that he could have been less concerned with selling a book and more concerned with opening an honest debate. The book could have come later. Others have taken that approach - interviews, articles, research then a book. If you want to diffuse pseudo-scepticism, don't play into their hands.

Dave said >No Tim, you are not reading my responses.

No I have read your responses

Dave said. >You are deciding for me what is true and what is not.

Really ? How does that work ? It's impossible for me to decide for you. And of course you don't expect me to agree with you, necessarily, as I don't expect you to agree with me, necessarily.

Dave said >I also said that the fact that he has been dishonest doesn't mean that he is always dishonest.

Okay but you're assuming the accusations against him are accurate and Alexander plus IANDS have refuted that.

https://iands.org/ndes/more-info/ndes-in...facts.html

They don't mention the woman who sadly was left with paralysis in her face (if that information is correct of course) after Alexander operated on her. Unfortunately, brain surgery (so we are told) is so fraught with difficulties that unintentional damage is a fairly common occurrence. Dr Allan Hamilton who is considered to be one of the finest neurosurgeons in the world, operated on a friend of his to remove a tumour and accidently removed the man's abilty to speak. Henry Marsh, the Well known English neurosurgeon talks about this problem.

Henry Marsh > https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style...75001.html

All doctors have failures; the problem with brain surgery is that failure is often very terrible and very spectacular The very nature of medicine is that things go wrong – and when an operation goes badly, the patient doesn't necessarily die; they can be left horribly disabled, and you have to confront and see that patient often for weeks after on the walk rounds, which is a peculiar torment. Doctors should be honest about the fact that what we do is often very imprecise. It's not a business, it's not a consumer process.

Dave said > If you are going to whitewash everyone who agrees with your worldview you are open to the same criticism as the psudo-sceptics you criticise.

I don't understand that remark. Are you saying that because I haven't accepted your interpretation of Alexander (that he was basically dishonest and money orientated ) then I'm deliberately overlooking the facts ? 

There's two sides to most things (not everything) and I don't think Luke Dietrich is a particularly fine example of integrity.
I don't have to side with him just because you have. You make your decision and I'll make mine.

Dave said >All I am saying is that he could have been less concerned with selling a book and more concerned with opening an honest debate.

I tend to agree with that but we have to bear in mind his circumstances and we don't and can't know them. The book could have flopped...should he have set out to half-heartedly publish it ? How do you go about that ? The media would have come looking for him, the science guardians would have hounded him. He is a notable academic and an accomplished public speaker and he wanted to get this out to the world (in his own words) 

Dave said >If you want to diffuse pseudo-scepticism, don't play into their hands

And the same sage advice to you

Firstly, I don't think I am biased.

Of course you don't.  None of us see our biases particularly well.  I think its probably one of the most difficult things on which to be self aware.  Its not a criticism, just our shared human condition.

Objectively though, you should allow for the presence of some bias as you have a relationship with the subject. Sure, its a very surface level relationship (a few emails) but that's more than enough for anyone to develop a certain fondness, deserved or otherwise, for someone else.

As for the rest of your post regarding his charitable donations (or lack there of), I was simply pointing out what I hoped I would do in his situation.  History is littered with charlatans promising insight into the beyond who were in it only the buck.  Eben knows that.  Hell, everyone knows that.

I'd like to think that if it were me, I would have not wanted folks to even be discussing this potential conflict of interest in a thread like this.  I'd much rather have them, as Typoz alluded, be focused on the events themselves.

Again, no right or wrong here.  Just my feelings on the subject.

Of course you don't.  None of us see our biases particularly well.  I think its probably one of the most difficult things on which to be self aware.  Its not a criticism, just our shared human condition.

Objectively though, you should allow for the presence of some bias as you have a relationship with the subject. Sure, its a very surface level relationship (a few emails) but that's more than enough for anyone to develop a certain fondness, deserved or otherwise, for someone else.

As for the rest of your post regarding his charitable donations (or lack there of), I was simply pointing out what I hoped I would do in his situation.  History is littered with charlatans promising insight into the beyond who were in it only the buck.  Eben knows that.  Hell, everyone knows that.

I'd like to think that if it were me, I would have not wanted folks to even be discussing this potential conflict of interest in a thread like this.  I'd much rather have them, as Typoz alluded, be focused on the events themselves.

Again, no right or wrong here.  Just my feelings on the subject.

Okay, Silence you want me to admit to being biased. But I feel that I've tried to be pretty objective. I always stick to the facts about anything but if you can find something I've written on here that demonstrates bias, feel free to post it.

Take your time, I'll wait for you to produce it.

Edit : I suppose it's fair to say that I have accepted NDE's as an insight into another existence. That was based on evidence though. Does it mean I'm now biased to accept any old NDE ? No, absolutely not.

Sorry Tim, I'm not waiting for you to admit to being biased.  I'm simply stated I believe you are likely to have some bias.  That's just my perspective.  I have no way to prove it nor do I think its a negative.  I think I'd be biased if I'd communicated positive with Eben.

I'm also not saying that your position on the guy is wrong.  Again, I don't know if what he experienced is legitimate.

I am saying I dislike the commercial aspect of his experience.  You don't have to agree with me on this point, but its a mark in the negative column for me.  Folks may not like the analogy, but I imagine how people (let alone history) would have treated Jesus or Buddha if they'd "commercialized" their insight.

Sorry Tim, I'm not waiting for you to admit to being biased.  I'm simply stated I believe you are likely to have some bias.  That's just my perspective.  I have no way to prove it nor do I think its a negative.  I think I'd be biased if I'd communicated positive with Eben.

I'm also not saying that your position on the guy is wrong.  Again, I don't know if what he experienced is legitimate.

I am saying I dislike the commercial aspect of his experience.  You don't have to agree with me on this point, but its a mark in the negative column for me.  Folks may not like the analogy, but I imagine how people (let alone history) would have treated Jesus or Buddha if they'd "commercialized" their insight.

Okay, no worries. When I wrote to him it was before all the media circus began. I didn't know he was going to do all that, I'd just seen a video of him or something on line which alluded to some experience he'd had and I sought out a contact address and email so that I could ask him about it. That's all there is to it.

He didn't have to reply to me, I didn't think he would. And I doubt if he would even remember our exchanges  (he wasn't famous at all then) 

I have never sought to contact him again nor would I do after all the kerfuffle that's gone on. And anyway, I don't have the credentials to start mixing it with neurosurgeons. I'd rather hang out with my friends in the pub. 

I don't like the commercialism either. What I do know is that he had an expanded conscious experience when his brain wasn't working. He believes that (obviously) but he also says he knows it because of his training and expertise in the subject.

The sceptics don't like it because it threatens their world view and they desperately do not want to abandon that.

Dave said >No Tim, you are not reading my responses.

No I have read your responses

Dave said. >You are deciding for me what is true and what is not.

Really ? How does that work ? It's impossible for me to decide for you. And of course you don't expect me to agree with you, necessarily, as I don't expect you to agree with me, necessarily.

Dave said >I also said that the fact that he has been dishonest doesn't mean that he is always dishonest.

Okay but you're assuming the accusations against him are accurate and Alexander plus IANDS have refuted that.

https://iands.org/ndes/more-info/ndes-in...facts.html

They don't mention the woman who sadly was left with paralysis in her face (if that information is correct of course) after Alexander operated on her. Unfortunately, brain surgery (so we are told) is so fraught with difficulties that unintentional damage is a fairly common occurrence. Dr Allan Hamilton who is considered to be one of the finest neurosurgeons in the world, operated on a friend of his to remove a tumour and accidently removed the man's abilty to speak. Henry Marsh, the Well known English neurosurgeon talks about this problem.

Henry Marsh > https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style...75001.html

All doctors have failures; the problem with brain surgery is that failure is often very terrible and very spectacular The very nature of medicine is that things go wrong – and when an operation goes badly, the patient doesn't necessarily die; they can be left horribly disabled, and you have to confront and see that patient often for weeks after on the walk rounds, which is a peculiar torment. Doctors should be honest about the fact that what we do is often very imprecise. It's not a business, it's not a consumer process.

Dave said > If you are going to whitewash everyone who agrees with your worldview you are open to the same criticism as the psudo-sceptics you criticise.

I don't understand that remark. Are you saying that because I haven't accepted your interpretation of Alexander (that he was basically dishonest and money orientated ) then I'm deliberately overlooking the facts ? 

There's two sides to most things (not everything) and I don't think Luke Dietrich is a particularly fine example of integrity.
I don't have to side with him just because you have. You make your decision and I'll make mine.

Dave said >All I am saying is that he could have been less concerned with selling a book and more concerned with opening an honest debate.

I tend to agree with that but we have to bear in mind his circumstances and we don't and can't know them. The book could have flopped...should he have set out to half-heartedly publish it ? How do you go about that ? The media would have come looking for him, the science guardians would have hounded him. He is a notable academic and an accomplished public speaker and he wanted to get this out to the world (in his own words) 

Dave said >If you want to diffuse pseudo-scepticism, don't play into their hands

And the same sage advice to you

Tim, I really don't know what the debate is about here. It boils down to simple impressions and these impressions are shared among many, including proponents. The basis of the doubt about Alexander has to do with two uncontested factors: that he rushed to commercialise his experience and that he has a history of dishonesty. I have asked you to clarify the latter in a previous post - perhaps you missed it. You said you agree about the commercialism aspect yet you negate that by comments like "what else was he supposed to do?" Well, I answered that too. It's just an impression of the man, Tim. We are all allowed that so it doesn't amount to an attack on you that we disagree on Alexander. Many of the stories you post are excellent examples of what I consider to be good evidence,

The bolded text is the problem part for me about what you say here... and the latter sentence applies to yourself just as much as it applies to anybody else.

Of course it's the problem part for you, Max ! You don't like the implications because of your theory. The part of the brain that makes us human wasn't working in Alexander's case. But you'll say it must have happened when his brain was coming back on line and therefore it was working. But he provided the time lines to make his point.

You weren't there (neither was I), you're not an expert, (neither am I). But you feel you know better than him.

Tim, I really don't know what the debate is about here. It boils down to simple impressions and these impressions are shared among many, including proponents. The basis of the doubt about Alexander has to do with two uncontested factors: that he rushed to commercialise his experience and that he has a history of dishonesty. I have asked you to clarify the latter in a previous post - perhaps you missed it. You said you agree about the commercialism aspect yet you negate that by comments like "what else was he supposed to do?" Well, I answered that too. It's just an impression of the man, Tim. We are all allowed that so it doesn't amount to an attack on you that we disagree on Alexander. Many of the stories you post are excellent examples of what I consider to be good evidence,

Dave, I'll reply properly to this when I have a bit more time.