No Wonder Science Is Hopelessly Stuck

One could also ask, who is an expert? A meteorologist knows weather. A linguist knows language.

But what of phenomena pushing at the edges of human knowledge, and maybe particularly those disdainfully ignored by scientists? Who do we turn to then? Perhaps one might argue that everyone is a student, someone who is learning. How rapidly one learns of course may depend on how deeply one is immersed in the subject area. Actual experiencers would come first. Close behind are those who spend time interacting with such experiencers. Others may have something to say, where that fits in may vary considerably.

One could also ask, who is an expert? A meteorologist knows weather. A linguist knows language.

But what of phenomena pushing at the edges of human knowledge, and maybe particularly those disdainfully ignored by scientists? Who do we turn to then? Perhaps one might argue that everyone is a student, someone who is learning. How rapidly one learns of course may depend on how deeply one is immersed in the subject area. Actual experiencers would come first. Close behind are those who spend time interacting with such experiencers. Others may have something to say, where that fits in may vary considerably.

I think the pragmatic answer would be "whoever has the necessary knowledge and understanding". 

Where psi is concerned that would rule out sceptics who dismiss phenomena without studying the evidence, and also parapsychologists without adequate knowledge of the data analysis and statistics they are using. In some obscure fields, it might rule out everyone!

It's the actual information which matters, not who is providing it, experts have all the same biases as non-experts.

One may decide to give a higher weighting to information depending on who is providing it, based on past experience, but it's really only ever a shortcut, a method of saving time and reducing the signal to noise ratio, and one is really only selecting the information based on ones own biases.

I think the problem comes when it's not just a matter of information, but also of understanding. 

Pure mathematics is another example. If we're trying to decide whether the proof of a theorem in number theory is correct, we need something more than access to information. Even if we were prepared to devote years of study to the question, most of us just don't have the aptitude to acquire the necessary understanding of the subject. It has to be left to experts. That's an extreme example, but in a less extreme form the principle applies to a lot of scientific questions.

You know tim, I wonder what Van Lommel (or Parnia) would have to say about this article of Shermer's. I am surprised you haven't reached out for comment from Pim, or somebody else hasn't already!

Not criticising you for not, but I am just really curious to hear a rebuttal.

Do you mean what would they make of Shermer's statement that his (Von Lommel's)  patients were only near death and not dead? It's just the same old playing with semantics tactic that sceptics always resort to. Lets face it they haven't got much else, have they. They couldn't really have been dead because you're not dead unless you stay dead.

Why do doctors even bother resuscitating them if they're not dead one might logically enquire? The answer may well then be that they resuscitate them because they have to resuscitate them, it's their job. But the patient wasn't dead. You get the idea.

But the patient is dead and will stay dead unless medics intervene. Death is a process that begins when the heart stops. Granted, the brain cells haven't yet burst (apparently) after 2 minutes or even 22 minutes sometimes, that's un unknown variable at the moment. But the state of the patient's consciousness as far as materialism is concerned is just the same as the state of consciousness as a person laying on a mortuary slab.  

I've seen someone drop dead from a cardiac arrest, right in front of me. They're gone in an instant. They can't still observe their surroundings. I'm not a doctor or an expert but if their heart has actually stopped as in cardiac arrest it's lights out and the sceptics can say whatever they like. I'm sick of arguing with those idiots. (Not Max BTW his argument is somewhat more novel but of course I don't agree with him either)

It's the actual information which matters, not who is providing it, experts have all the same biases as non-experts.

One may decide to give a higher weighting to information depending on who is providing it, based on past experience, but it's really only ever a shortcut, a method of saving time and reducing the signal to noise ratio, and one is really only selecting the information based on ones own biases.

I have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement. People tend to get hung up on certain terminologies as they pertain to particular fields of expertise. "Mainstream" scientists hypothesize things they cannot readily explain, as do meta physicists and parapsychologists when it comes to various phenomena. The issue rises when the culture of credibility is given to "science" and pseudoscience is virtually dismissed. An individual that has subjected himself to years of canned academia is the "expert" and the other, who has unschooled (usually for lack of available viable resources) in the field of paranormal, is a nutcase. These are collective presumptions among the masses. The universe and the world as we perceive it will provide all the proof you need if you are willing to think on a higher level.