Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

I remember a while ago a skeptic on Reddit tried to cite this guy's podcast as useful, and I noticed that he touches on several topics. However, he seems to often touch on a topic once and then never address it again. Case in point: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4261 on NDEs, which hasn't aged well at all and is pretty outdated. 

Here are some examples of outdated or inaccurate claims and arguments he makes about NDEs in his podcast:

• • • 'To science, which has never found any reason to suspect life might continue after the death of the body...'
      

To my knowledge, even back in 2011, science made no such claims. And this is again a broad assertion that is unfounded. 

• NDEs are similarly complicated by many unrelated causes of characteristic experiences: drug effects, hypoxia, trauma, brain abnormalities, and simple dreaming, just to name a few
  

The hypoxia/anoxia explanation has been almost debunked by this point. I also haven't heard of any similarities recorded between trauma victims and NDErs, and comparing them to dreams is a blatant false equivalency. 

• It is common for patients to be aware during general anesthesia. They remember many details of the people, objects, and procedures in the room. We absolutely expect some number of supposedly unconscious patients to report things that happened that a layperson would assume were unknowable. In fact, The Lancet published research in 2001 that showed nearly 20% of patients retained memories of things that happened when they were clinically dead.
  

I thought anaesthesia awareness was uncommon? When has there been a study that demonstrated otherwise? And also, 20% isn't a large number is it? 

• What's rarely or never written up in books is the fact that most such "recollections" get their details wrong, and were probably just imagined by the patient. When authors compile stories to promote the idea of NDEs, they tend to universally exclude these; in fact the majority were never recorded anywhere to begin with.
  

And he doesn't cite any sources proving this point. This is again just an assertion that people today shouldn't take seriously because, as more recent literature has shown, this is outdated. How can an unconscious patient, as Fenwick says, simply 'imagine' these details? Maybe the reason why they aren't recorded is because these recollections are actually more accurate than you claim they are, Dunning, hence why you don't cite much evidence backing up this claim. 

• Some of the stories can't be explained by either of the above. They include specific details that the patient could not have known. Sadly, all of these are anecdotal. They're very interesting and I wish we had more of them, and that controls had been in place at the time. Since they weren't, the scientific method requires us to shrug and say "Neat, but not evidence, let's do it better next time."
  

Dismissing anecdotal evidence despite the fact there is far too much of it to just ignore is anti-skepticism and intellectually lazy. These aren't merely just anecdotes, they are verified testimonies that have been, in several cases, hotly debated. If they're just anecdotes, why are so many skeptics scared of them and feel the need to try and debunk them desperately, and typically fail to do so? Why have they been taken seriously by more people over the years, such as Psychology Today? 

• As an example of the value of anecdotes in suggesting directions for research, Dr. Penny Sartori placed playing cards in obvious places on top of operating room cabinets at a hospital in Wales in 2001, while she was working as a nurse, as part of a supervised experiment. Although she's a believer in the afterlife, and documented fifteen cases of reported out-of-body experiences by patients during her research, not one person ever reported seeing the playing cards or even knowing they were there.
  

Funny how he admits she's a proponent, and omits additional details of her research that lead her to form this conclusion. I'm fairly certain she's still convinced, so I don't see why Dunning thinks she shouldn't be. There's also a very obvious rebuttal to this Dunning overlooks that many proponents have had to repeat:

Not everyone who has an NDE reports an OBE, and when they do, is their first reaction honestly going to be to look for cards Sartori has placed around the room? And how are the tops of cabinets 'obvious places'? 

Life review, euphoria, bright lights, and meetings with sacred personages have all been correlated with high levels of carbon dioxide in the brain. Research published in the journal Critical Care in 2010 found that over one-fifth of heart attack patients who went into cardiac arrest and were resuscitated, all of whom would have had high CO2, reported these phenomena. But these patients were all also nearly dead; so the NDE correlates equally well with being near death as it does with the physiological condition.

Once again this deliberately reduced NDEs to very reductionist and basic components, not all of which are reported. As we know, Parnia has stated well after this podcast that it is unlikely NDEs are caused by this oxygen deprivation. Oxygen deprivation has also been apparently associated with chaotic, psychotic hallucinations more frequently than euphoric ones. So this is a blatant sign of confirmation bias on his part. Additionally, NDErs often meet deceased friends and family, which is apparently extremely uncommon in regular hallucinations. 

What about the reverse? Are there reliably documented reports of NDEs from people who were near death, but whose brains had normal oxygen supplies? If there are, I was not able to locate any.

Then you haven't done your research properly Brian, because I am certain that there have been plenty before 2011, including the Pam Reynolds case (which he of course neglects to mention anywhere on his website). 

Dr. Karl Jansen published his successful results of inducing a NDE using the drug ketamine. In 2002, Nature published research in which experimenters gave direct electrical stimulation to the part of the brain called the angular gyrus in the parietal lobe. Subjects reported being able to see themselves lying there from a vantage point near the ceiling, and were able to communicate what they observed as it was happening.

Except for the fact that Jansen doesn't believe what you're claiming, apparently. There have also been several differences pointed out between Ketamine and NDEs if I remember correctly, such as ketamine experiences being more commonly distressing, much like with anaesthesia awareness. I also find it interesting he doesn't specify or elaborate on these 'observations', possibly because they weren't actually verified. 


I have noticed he's been mentioned on here before, such as with the fact he's been involved in theft. He seems to have a very high opinion of himself IMO, and comes across as rather condescending, though other times he does seem quite respectful, even if he says things that are merely assertions. 

The most amazing thing about his podcast is that, despite having been going on since 2006 and still being active today, not once has he ever mentioned Pam Reynolds, Bruce Greyson, Sam Parnia, Jan Holden, Jeffrey Long, Kenneth Ring, Jim Tucker etc. It is quite obvious to me that he's cherry-picking research, glossing over details and taking things out of context, so I don't understand why he gets praise, or did at least. He seems to be very confident in himself, such as when he apparently debunked the James Leiniger reincarnation case, but made a lot of accusations towards those who claim to be reincarnated and their families which come across as stereotyping, generalising and even gaslighting. 

Rant aside, he does occasionally make some decent points in other areas, but his credibility is not great. I did notice there's an option to contact him to correct details of his podcasts, but given his NDE one is from 2011 I doubt he'll be willing to update it by now. 

I didn't know whether to place this in my Mega-thread, since it isn't so much of a skeptical talking point as to whether or not this guy is someone worth interviewing or discussing IMO. 

I've heard Alex from Skeptiko interviewed him once, but I personally find Alex to be too aggressive and argumentative for my liking. That's one of the reasons I came here instead. 

So, has anyone listened to him before or tried contacting him to change some of his misinformed and/or outdated articles? Im sure even some of the resident skeptics here would find problems with this podcast...

[Laird]

I didn't know whether to place this in my Mega-thread

I think it does belong there though, Omni, so I've moved it.

I don't intend to address every point here, any more than I intend to trawl through the internet looking for sceptical articles in order to point out their faults.

However, this one was quite glaring and really stood out:

It is common for patients to be aware during general anesthesia. They remember many details of the people, objects, and procedures in the room. We absolutely expect some number of supposedly unconscious patients to report things that happened that a layperson would assume were unknowable. In fact, The Lancet published research in 2001 that showed nearly 20% of patients retained memories of things that happened when they were clinically dead.

I can't tell whether this is deliberately done in order to mislead the reader. Or maybe the author himself is genuinely confused. Still, it should be clear that a patient during anaesthesia is NOT clinically dead. Hence the reference to the Lancet article here without explanation is quite strange.

It also should be pointed out that it is misleading, perhaps disingenuous, to state that Penny Sartori is a believer in the afterlife. Anyone who knows even a little of her approach to this area of study will recall that Penny started off as a believer that "when you're dead, you're dead" or a similar expression. She was definitely NOT a believer in the afterlife. Only later, as a result of her observations during her work caring for actual patients, did her views shift.

I suppose a school report might read something like, "Sloppy and careless work. Must try harder".

I don't intend to address every point here, any more than I intend to trawl through the internet looking for sceptical articles in order to point out their faults.

However, this one was quite glaring and really stood out:


I can't tell whether this is deliberately done in order to mislead the reader. Or maybe the author himself is genuinely confused. Still, it should be clear that a patient during anaesthesia is NOT clinically dead. Hence the reference to the Lancet article here without explanation is quite strange.

It also should be pointed out that it is misleading, perhaps disingenuous, to state that Penny Sartori is a believer in the afterlife. Anyone who knows even a little of her approach to this area of study will recall that Penny started off as a believer that "when you're dead, you're dead" or a similar expression. She was definitely NOT a believer in the afterlife. Only later, as a result of her observations during her work caring for actual patients, did her views shift.

I suppose a school report might read something like, "Sloppy and careless work. Must try harder".

Hence why I doubt he bothered to do any proper research, just skimmed through articles that favoured his views, hence why he cites so few resources/reading and cherry picks. It is indeed very disingenuous for him to try and insinuate that she's biased because of a prior belief that she didn't actually have. I have noticed this is becoming a trend among pseudo-skeptics: citing or cherry-picking research and articles that are very outdated, flawed or have been refuted already.

The article ends with a cliff-hanger unresolved - how did Matthew respond to his second brain surgery? Was his identity changed? Matthew posted responses to some of the comments sent in on the essay, and he answered this question in his last message in the comments section. His identity or persona basically remained the same. The words in the article's title were just a teaser it seems.

I was amazed to see some of the comments praising the writing...I thought the article was terribly confusing.

And now it seems his identity has never changed. What a bizarre article.

Hence why I doubt he bothered to do any proper research, just skimmed through articles that favoured his views, hence why he cites so few resources/reading and cherry picks. It is indeed very disingenuous for him to try and insinuate that she's biased because of a prior belief that she didn't actually have. I have noticed this is becoming a trend among pseudo-skeptics: citing or cherry-picking research and articles that are very outdated, flawed or have been refuted already.

I think you would be better off reading the latest NDE research. What good does it even do to dig around for old arguments based on old research? Weren't you trying to convince yourself there is life after death, yet here you seem to be going out of your way to do the opposite?

As for Skeptoid, I believe that guy went to jail or was at least fined for some financial fraud scheme.

“Change of identity“ suggests to me a different person, ie they became someone else, not simply changes to the behaviour or mindset of the person. People with dementia and other brain damage certainly can change personality and behaviour but I don’t recall anyone suggesting they became someone else lol

I kinda felt the need to get this refutation of my chest since it had been bugging me for a while. And you're right, he was apparently involved in some kind of online theft and fraud. I was curious as to whether anyone in here has interacted with him since his Skeptiko interview and what they had thought of him. 

I'm still keeping tabs on AwareofAWARE and Near-Death.com, though near-deathnews seems to be very dry at the moment. 

Speaking of which, this video may be of interest to us. Someone posted this on the aforementioned AwareofAWARE blog and said that 18:51 will be of interest. It's an interview with Jim Tucker, and he apparently admits to only being 'open' to reincarnation, which is confusing, but I suspect he's saying that to avoid criticism. It was posted quite recently on YT. 

Speaking of which, this video may be of interest to us. Someone posted this on the aforementioned AwareofAWARE blog and said that 18:51 will be of interest. It's an interview with Jim Tucker, and he apparently admits to only being 'open' to reincarnation, which is confusing, but I suspect he's saying that to avoid criticism. It was posted quite recently on YT.

Well it is certainly interesting how you find these little snippets meant to cast doubt on the idea there's an afterlife...but for myself I never knew he had ever claimed to be absolutely certain one way or another re: Reincarnation.

Well it is certainly interesting how you find these little snippets meant to cast doubt on the idea there's an afterlife...but for myself I never knew he had ever claimed to be absolutely certain one way or another re: Reincarnation.

Well it was posted on the AwareofAWARE blog, under New Era for Parnia? I brought it up here because both I and the OP were confused but also interested. His point was how can Tucker only be 'open' given all the stuff he's looked at? Is he just trying to remain professional?