Is Theoretical Physics Wasting Our Best Living Minds On Nonsense?

I often get the impression that the BBC's idea of objectivity is to try to work out what the "centre ground" opinion is, and then push that. Rather than acknowledging that different people have different opinions.

The BBC has a history of aligning with the scientific orthodoxy. I used to enjoy their Horizon programmes until it dawned on me that many were merely hit pieces to debunk alternative or fringe views and promote the establishment view. Occasionally, a production slipped through which hinted at a more open-minded approach but the powers that be at the Beeb eventually restored order. One of those that avoided initial censorship was the hour long documentary on Pam Reynolds called "The Day I Died". It was a pretty fair treatment of the Reynolds case and you can probably still see pirate versions on the web but the BBC subsequently withdrew the DVD and online archive copies.

One way to assess the attitude of the BBC as a corporate body is to look at their debate shows. If you want the kind of informed debate that we on this forum would hope for then you might be lucky to find one if you scan the Radio 4 schedules. But the fare for the masses is much less cerebral as can be seen in the Sunday Morning show, "Heaven and Earth" [Edit: Sorry, that should have read "The Big Questions"]. Subjects such as the afterlife and the paranormal are occasionally discussed but are presented as a science vs religion issue and they wheel in the usual suspects like Dawkins, Cox or Chris French aligned against priests, rabbis and muslim scholars to put their side. Whenever I started to watch it I would soon turn it off in disgust because the real meat of the debate was never approached. Presenting it as a purely religious vs atheist debate is a scandalous misrepresentation.

Disclaimer - I left the UK almost two years ago so I don't even know if that show is still aired.

Here's an example:

The BBC has a history of aligning with the scientific orthodoxy. I used to enjoy their Horizon programmes until it dawned on me that many were merely hit pieces to debunk alternative or fringe views and promote the establishment view. Occasionally, a production slipped through which hinted at a more open-minded approach but the powers that be at the Beeb eventually restored order. One of those that avoided initial censorship was the hour long documentary on Pam Reynolds called "The Day I Died". It was a pretty fair treatment of the Reynolds case and you can probably still see pirate versions on the web but the BBC subsequently withdrew the DVD and online archive copies.

One way to assess the attitude of the BBC as a corporate body is to look at their debate shows. If you want the kind of informed debate that we on this forum would hope for then you might be lucky to find one if you scan the Radio 4 schedules. But the fare for the masses is much less cerebral as can be seen in the Sunday Morning show, "Heaven and Earth" [Edit: Sorry, that should have read "The Big Questions"]. Subjects such as the afterlife and the paranormal are occasionally discussed but are presented as a science vs religion issue and they wheel in the usual suspects like Dawkins, Cox or Chris French aligned against priests, rabbis and muslim scholars to put their side. Whenever I started to watch it I would soon turn it off in disgust because the real meat of the debate was never approached. Presenting it as a purely religious vs atheist debate is a scandalous misrepresentation.

Disclaimer - I left the UK almost two years ago so I don't even know if that show is still aired.

Here's an example:

This video illustrates perfectly what I consider (others may disagree) the despicable and dishonest behaviour of closed minded sceptics. In this case, leaving French out of it, Deborah Hyde of the Sceptics society (I think it's called)

At 53 minutes, Ken Spearpoint relates a classic example of a veridical OBE during cardiac arrest. The patient apparently told him what had been occurring around him during a period of 15 minutes (of cardiac arrest). We know Spearpoint isn't likely to be lying because this occurs not infrequently.  

Hyde quickly goes through her well practiced routine (he wasn't really dead (wrong)....patients might still be able to hear (not in cardiac arrest) etc etc). Then she mentions false positives by which I think she means that we need to know how many patients report an NDE and incorrectly describe the events that went on around them when they were dead. (which correct me if I'm wrong, rarely happens)

Worse, though...(and what really pisses me off) is that she finishes off by quoting the denture case (first correctly mentioning Van Lommel) and then adding the absolutely false interpretation of arch NDE debunker and militant atheist, Gerry Woerlee who completely misrepresented it on order to try to fit it into his materialist worldview.

Woerlee lied about the case, period. But there she is relating the crux of it, precisely how it didn't happen. And because she's articulate and looks sensible, the majority of people listening are going to be persuaded by her.

(I'll delete this post as soon as Dave has seen it as it's off topic of course...unless Sci is okay with it)

This video illustrates perfectly what I consider (others may disagree) the despicable and dishonest behaviour of closed minded sceptics. In this case, leaving French out of it, Deborah Hyde of the Sceptics society (I think it's called)

At 53 minutes, Ken Spearpoint relates a classic example of a veridical OBE during cardiac arrest. The patient apparently told him what had been occurring around him during a period of 15 minutes (of cardiac arrest). We know Spearpoint isn't likely to be lying because this occurs not infrequently.  

Hyde quickly goes through her well practiced routine (he wasn't really dead (wrong)....patients might still be able to hear (not in cardiac arrest) etc etc). Then she mentions false positives by which I think she means that we need to know how many patients report an NDE and incorrectly describe the events that went on around them when they were dead. (which correct me if I'm wrong, rarely happens)

Worse, though...(and what really pisses me off) is that she finishes off by quoting the denture case (first correctly mentioning Van Lommel) and then adding the absolutely false interpretation of arch NDE debunker and militant atheist, Gerry Woerlee who completely misrepresented it on order to try to fit it into his materialist worldview.

Woerlee lied about the case, period. But there she is relating the crux of it, precisely how it didn't happen. And because she's articulate and looks sensible, the majority of people listening are going to be persuaded by her.

(I'll delete this post as soon as Dave has seen it as it's off topic of course...unless Sci is okay with it)

Tim, I really do know how frustrating it is when people like French and this Deborah Hyde act this way, they really ooze patronisation and arrogance. I have come to accept that is something that I can’t really change, especially when the individual has a lot invested in their worldview. The house skeptics are surely excellent evidence of this, and they’re not professional.

Sabine Hossenfelder attacks Bernardo Kastrup's latest article today...

https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1008682668433854465

Painful to read. I suppose it's par for the course that she would ridicule the article without reading it. But when one of the authors turned up and said she was irresponsible not to inform herself before passing judgment, apparently she glanced at it again, completely misunderstood the point of it, and responded accordingly. Why would any academic scientist think it was a good idea to behave like that?

Yeah, sorry I got off topic there. BBC bias on these subjects is one of my hot buttons (or was, when I lived there).

Yeah, sorry I got off topic there. BBC bias on these subjects is one of my hot buttons (or was, when I lived there).

Me too - sorry, I think I started that sub-topic.

completely misunderstood the point of it

Sorry about the abbreviated quote.

It reminds me of something I read earlier today (or yesterday), "Reading it made me physically unwell".

If we can pause to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who experienced such a response. It needs to be understood that there are gut-level reactions. The whole foundations of a person's existence may rest on such understandings. Re-evaluating some ideas is not simply a matter of invoking some rational thought processes.  It may involve re-evaluating one's entire life, past present and future. Such a venture is not to be undertaken lightly.  

It is not the laws of physics or the fundamentals of science which are under threat - they will likely survive unscathed. Resistance is much more at the emotional level.