New video collaboration that I made

Hello Psiencequest.

Last year, Rebecca Watson, a member of the sceptic community and the protegé of Steven Novella made a video attempting to debunk near-death experiences with old recycled arguments. She also took shots to criticize reincarnation research done in UvA.

Darren Mac, the main host of the Seeking I Life Exploration Podcast who used to post here, invited me to create a response to Rebecca Watson's hatchet job piece. I obliged, and to be honest, I feel a weird sense of mischievous satisfaction after the video I made where I took some pot shots at her.

I'd like members of the forum to give their opinion.

Sam Reviews @RebeccaWatsonSkepchick's Arguments Against the Near-Death Experience / Seeking I Stage - YouTube

Your own description put me right off!  "Hatchet job piece" "I took some pot shots at her"   Clearly you are not interested in facts, only getting one up on somebody.  You are no better than those you are opposing!

Your own description put me right off!  "Hatchet job piece" "I took some pot shots at her"   Clearly you are not interested in facts, only getting one up on somebody.  You are no better than those you are opposing!

Perhaps using somewhat colorful language on this description isn't the best on my part here, Brian.

I admit that I do come off that way on the description I gave off above. Perhaps I got overly annoyed by the way Watson dismisses the scientists at UVA DOPS as "quacks" or "lunatics". So, I guess you could say I'm using the same dismissive language that she uses. Which, you are right, doesn't make me any better.

However, I think this is not the case on the video and that I believe that I deal with facts in it.

[Laird]

I'd like members of the forum to give their opinion.

I don't have a problem with your having fought snark with snark, and overall I thought it was a good response video. I like that you explicitly identified, numbered, and addressed claimed causes of NDEs, and I thought you addressed them well. I also like that you called out various other claims, including that of (religious) belief confirmation or buttressing, and that you pointed out the irony of the claim of endless rehashing of ideas.

I'm curious to know whether you considered outlining various other aspects of NDEs that contribute to an understanding that they are more than the mere last gasps of a dying brain, in particular, veridical perceptions of events beyond the range of the biological senses, miraculous healings foretold in the NDE to occur should the experiencer choose to return, the life-changing effects of NDEs on many experiencers, and meeting loved ones on "the other side" not yet known to be dead or otherwise not previously known to the experiencer. If you did consider this possibility and rejected it, was it because you wanted to keep your response short 'n sweet?

Finally, a few minor nitpicks:

1. There was a large enough volume difference between the excerpts from the original video and your own content that I found myself having to frequently adjust the volume.
   
2. I'd have liked for all references - plus a link to the original video - to have been provided in the video description (below the video), and not just within the video.
   
3. When at around 2:04 you say "We need just one example", it might have been helpful to have explicitly noted that there are other examples.
   

Generally, though: nice work; much appreciated.

I don't have a problem with your having fought snark with snark, and overall I thought it was a good response video. I like that you explicitly identified, numbered, and addressed claimed causes of NDEs, and I thought you addressed them well. I also like that you called out various other claims, including that of (religious) belief confirmation or buttressing, and that you pointed out the irony of the claim of endless rehashing of ideas.

I'm curious to know whether you considered outlining various other aspects of NDEs that contribute to an understanding that they are more than the mere last gasps of a dying brain, in particular, veridical perceptions of events beyond the range of the biological senses, miraculous healings foretold in the NDE to occur should the experiencer choose to return, the life-changing effects of NDEs on many experiencers, and meeting loved ones on "the other side" not yet known to be dead or otherwise not previously known to the experiencer. If you did consider this possibility and rejected it, was it because you wanted to keep your response short 'n sweet?

Finally, a few minor nitpicks:

1. There was a large enough volume difference between the excerpts from the original video and your own content that I found myself having to frequently adjust the volume.
   
2. I'd have liked for all references - plus a link to the original video - to have been provided in the video description (below the video), and not just within the video.
   
3. When at around 2:04 you say "We need just one example", it might have been helpful to have explicitly noted that there are other examples.
   

Generally, though: nice work; much appreciated.

I do hope that I didn't come off as snarky as I may seem at first hand. Especially because in the video itself I do not wish to sound antagonizing.

I could have considered outlining those other aspects of NDEs that could be considered anomalous. My main objective, however, was to address one specific point that Mrs Watson made with regards to the studies placing targets near the ceiling. The idea that patients in controlled studies didn't "see" the targets.

Other than that, this brings another interesting point unrelated to the video; I'm not aware of many examples of veridical perception that occur in locations distant from the location of the body of the experiencer. I'm aware of some that appear in Rivas et al (2016) but they are relatively few and I'm not aware of any examples outside that source, even if relying only on the experiencer's testimony. If you do happen to know about more of these kinds of examples, I definitely would appreciate it.

Fair point about the audio, and definitely will have it in mind for the video editor for the next projects I create for the podcast.
As for the links, I made the video for the podcast, but I don't have access to the channel itself. For example, I did not decide on the name of the title of the video. However, I will make sure to contact Darren Mac about this so that they can appear on the video description, including the link to Mrs Watson's original video.
Fair point also about Dr. Peter Cummings' example. I guess I decided to take the "one white crow" approach, but it would have been useful to clarify.

Laird, thanks for the even handed review.

[Laird]

I do hope that I didn't come off as snarky as I may seem at first hand.

Don't worry, you didn't - the snark was minor in comparison to that in the video to which you were responding, and perfectly fine in context, especially given the substantive points you made.

I'm not aware of many examples of veridical perception that occur in locations distant from the location of the body of the experiencer. I'm aware of some that appear in Rivas et al (2016) but they are relatively few and I'm not aware of any examples outside that source, even if relying only on the experiencer's testimony. If you do happen to know about more of these kinds of examples, I definitely would appreciate it.

I haven't kept a record of the ones I've come across, and (for shame) have not read The Self Does Not Die in full, so I probably couldn't recite any of which you're not already aware, but there are a few that do stick out in my memory without having to do any digging (Maria's shoe; the "non-smoking relative accepting the offer of a cigarette" case; and "denture man").

the next projects I create for the podcast.

Oh, good, I'm glad you plan to produce more.

As for the links, I made the video for the podcast, but I don't have access to the channel itself.

Fair enough, and I suspected as much.

Laird, thanks for the even handed review.

 

I have PMd @Sam  to apologize for the abrupt way I responded in this thread and I wanted also to make the apology public.  I still haven't watched the video but I have developed a better opinion of Sam's position on the basis of other posts he has made on the forum.

I have to admit, looking into this Rebecca Watson person, I was surprised that she makes approximately $2,000 for every video she posts on Youtube?

One can't help but think of the pseudoskeptic accusation that people make paranormal claims as a means to grab easy money...

Hello Psiencequest.

Last year, Rebecca Watson, a member of the sceptic community and the protegé of Steven Novella made a video attempting to debunk near-death experiences with old recycled arguments. She also took shots to criticize reincarnation research done in UvA.

Darren Mac, the main host of the Seeking I Life Exploration Podcast who used to post here, invited me to create a response to Rebecca Watson's hatchet job piece. I obliged, and to be honest, I feel a weird sense of mischievous satisfaction after the video I made where I took some pot shots at her.

I'd like members of the forum to give their opinion.

Sam Reviews @RebeccaWatsonSkepchick's Arguments Against the Near-Death Experience / Seeking I Stage - YouTube

 I think you did a very good job with this. And, perhaps in contrast to Brian, I believe that ignorant, nasty morons such as Watson deserve to be treated rudely--as far as I'm concerned you were too polite if anything. I have never, EVER, been able to understand how she is famous. Repeating other (smarter) people's bad arguments with added incompetence and a haughty, splenetic attitude. How is this a "winning" formula? I once read someone half-jokingly argue that certain people are made highly successful by the elite as a sort of demoralization psyop: find a person with literally no redeeming qualities, and a big helping of unpleasant ones, make them rich and famous for no clear reason--a big middle finger to ordinary people, in essence. I laughed at the time but now that I'm reminded that Watson exists, I can't help but think that maybe there's more to that theory than I thought at first.

I'm LMAO here at how Watson cannot manage to go more than a sentence or two without betraying what a Reddit-worthy midwit she is. For example, her childish caricature understanding of mainstream scientific progress in recent decades. She knows that this progress is necessarily "accelerating" because of course the egghead consensus-makers of Official Science are infallible super-geniuses who can't help but be right about everything all the time, just like Daddy Dawkins told her. Meanwhile, people who have bothered to study scientific progress empirically (you know, like actual scientists) have found that the rate of progress is, if anything, probably decreasing: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x

And unsurprisingly, where rational argument fails, Watson has to indulge in moralistic fallacy whining to make up the gap. "Stevenson's view is transphobic, therefore definitely wrong!" Another "scientific" "rationalist" who can't think her way out of a paper bag.