Sue Blackmore vs Graham Nichols Interview.

Even if it was true, it proves, like her thesis, absolutely nothing about other people's experiences. I think perhaps she has an overinflated opinion of the value of her own experiences.

"Although I disagree with Susan, I like her approach she seems to be open to the possibility of these things and seems to be truly interested in the truth and not espousing her personal belief."

Hi, Jkmac. Susan is all over the internet gleefully recounting how initially impressed she was with her OBE and how real it seemed at the time and she "really believed" that she'd been out of her body and this was going to upturn science etc etc, before informing us that when she actually checked it out (the cast iron gutters she saw were in fact plastic) she realised that it was all a fantasy !

If you just follow this through with simple logic, it's glaringly obvious it's just complete bullsh@t unfortunately (sorry Susan)

When did she change her mind about the authenticity of her experience ? Clearly when she went outside to check if what she'd "seen" matched up with what was actually there. So when would that be ? Six years later ? Six months, six weeks  ? Six hours later ? Probably the latter, six hours.

So how could she possibly believe for quite a long time, (she means a substantial period of time ) that she'd had a genuine OBE when she obviously (as the good scientist she purports to be) would have checked it out straight away and seen that what she saw was wrong !

Seventeen years ago, she said this :

"Come to think of it, I feel slightly sad. It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that"

Sorry but it's just not a believable story.

https://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journal...e-unknown/

 https://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/drugs/a...xperience/

So you think she is putting on a cheery and agreeable show? 

Either way: whether it's her incompetence or something else, I think she is on the wrong track.

So you think she is putting on a cheery and agreeable show? 

Either way: whether it's her incompetence or something else, I think she is on the wrong track.

She's had a lovely time on the back of this 'weedy' OBE, many people just accept what she tells them (don't mean you) but here is another piece from her that demonstrates she's just blagging it.  


"I long ago became fascinated with near-death experiences (NDE). In 1970, before the term was even invented, I had an extraordinary drug-induced experience (this was the time of hippy enthusiasm for old-fashioned mild cannabis). This life-changing experience included the tunnels, lights, out-of-body experience and meeting other beings that occur in the classic NDE. I was convinced that my spirit had left my body, and that is why I went on to become a parapsychologist, trying to prove this was true. I found it was not"

"This life changing experience"

It couldn't have been life changing , because as I said, she would have checked immediately to see if her OBE was genuine.
And it wasn't... so how long was it life changing for ? a couple of hours ?

She only started saying this stuff (I remember) when people who had had NDE's began to tell their stories. Why ? Because then she could offer herself as a control or as someone who had experienced what they had but knew better about it and at the same time score brownie points with her academic colleagues and superiors, who were ideologically opposed to what these experiences suggested.

She's had a lovely time on the back of this 'weedy' OBE, many people just accept what she tells them (don't mean you) but here is another piece from her that demonstrates she's just blagging it.  


"I long ago became fascinated with near-death experiences (NDE). In 1970, before the term was even invented, I had an extraordinary drug-induced experience (this was the time of hippy enthusiasm for old-fashioned mild cannabis). This life-changing experience included the tunnels, lights, out-of-body experience and meeting other beings that occur in the classic NDE. I was convinced that my spirit had left my body, and that is why I went on to become a parapsychologist, trying to prove this was true. I found it was not"

"This life changing experience"

It couldn't have been life changing , because as I said, she would have checked immediately to see if her OBE was genuine.
And it wasn't... so how long was it life changing for ? a couple of hours ?

She only started saying this stuff (I remember) when people who had had NDE's began to tell their stories. Why ? Because then she could offer herself as a control or as someone who had experienced what they had but knew better about it and at the same time score brownie points with her academic colleagues and superiors, who were ideologically opposed to what these experiences suggested.

I think you may be on the right track. 

I do have a sense that she is leaving the door open though, for the right evidence. I just don't think she is spending any time looking for it.

I seem to recall reading somewhere sometime ago that someone (apologies for the vagueness but she isn't someone I'm particularly interested in) else examined the results she gathered and which she cited in her own thesis and found evidence of an effect.

She seems to have made a career based on a piece of research didn't establish anything (to her) and in fact, perhaps based on data that proved the opposite. Great work if you can get it.

I think that refers to an examination of her experimental work by Rick E. Berger, Journal of the American Society for Psychical research 83, 123-144 (1989):
https://web.archive.org/web/200801080226...itique.htm

ABSTRACT: A critical examination of Susan Blackmore’s psi experiment database was undertaken to assess the claims of consistent “no ESP” across these studies. Many inconsistencies in the experimental reports were found, and their serious consequences are discussed. Discrepancies were found between the unpublished experimental reports and their published counterparts. “Flaws” were invoked to dismiss significant results while other flaws were ignored when studies produced nonsignificant results. Experiments that were admittedly flawed in the unpublished reports were mixed with supposedly unflawed studies and published without segregation, creating the impression of methodological soundness. Two instances in which study chronology was reordered were found. Overall, it is concluded that Blackmore’s claims that her database shows no evidence of psi are unfounded, because the vast majority of her studies were carelessly designed, executed, and reported, and, in Blackmore’s own assessment, individually flawed. As such, no conclusions should be drawn from this database.

An article by Chris Carter on Skeptical about Skeptics refers to this, and a response by Blackmore in the same journal, in which she wrote:
I am glad to be able to agree with his final conclusion – ‘that drawing any conclusion, positive or negative, about the reality of psi that are based on the Blackmore psi experiments must be considered unwarranted.’
http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/in...-research/

I think that refers to an examination of her experimental work by Rick E. Berger, Journal of the American Society for Psychical research 83, 123-144 (1989):
https://web.archive.org/web/200801080226...itique.htm

ABSTRACT: A critical examination of Susan Blackmore’s psi experiment database was undertaken to assess the claims of consistent “no ESP” across these studies. Many inconsistencies in the experimental reports were found, and their serious consequences are discussed. Discrepancies were found between the unpublished experimental reports and their published counterparts. “Flaws” were invoked to dismiss significant results while other flaws were ignored when studies produced nonsignificant results. Experiments that were admittedly flawed in the unpublished reports were mixed with supposedly unflawed studies and published without segregation, creating the impression of methodological soundness. Two instances in which study chronology was reordered were found. Overall, it is concluded that Blackmore’s claims that her database shows no evidence of psi are unfounded, because the vast majority of her studies were carelessly designed, executed, and reported, and, in Blackmore’s own assessment, individually flawed. As such, no conclusions should be drawn from this database.

An article by Chris Carter on Skeptical about Skeptics refers to this, and a response by Blackmore in the same journal, in which she wrote:
I am glad to be able to agree with his final conclusion – ‘that drawing any conclusion, positive or negative, about the reality of psi that are based on the Blackmore psi experiments must be considered unwarranted.’
http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/in...-research/

Thanks Chris

I think that refers to an examination of her experimental work by Rick E. Berger, Journal of the American Society for Psychical research 83, 123-144 (1989):
https://web.archive.org/web/200801080226...itique.htm

ABSTRACT: A critical examination of Susan Blackmore’s psi experiment database was undertaken to assess the claims of consistent “no ESP” across these studies. Many inconsistencies in the experimental reports were found, and their serious consequences are discussed. Discrepancies were found between the unpublished experimental reports and their published counterparts. “Flaws” were invoked to dismiss significant results while other flaws were ignored when studies produced nonsignificant results. Experiments that were admittedly flawed in the unpublished reports were mixed with supposedly unflawed studies and published without segregation, creating the impression of methodological soundness. Two instances in which study chronology was reordered were found. Overall, it is concluded that Blackmore’s claims that her database shows no evidence of psi are unfounded, because the vast majority of her studies were carelessly designed, executed, and reported, and, in Blackmore’s own assessment, individually flawed. As such, no conclusions should be drawn from this database.

An article by Chris Carter on Skeptical about Skeptics refers to this, and a response by Blackmore in the same journal, in which she wrote:
I am glad to be able to agree with his final conclusion – ‘that drawing any conclusion, positive or negative, about the reality of psi that are based on the Blackmore psi experiments must be considered unwarranted.’
http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/in...-research/

Good stuff, Chris.

I think that refers to an examination of her experimental work by Rick E. Berger, Journal of the American Society for Psychical research 83, 123-144 (1989):
https://web.archive.org/web/200801080226...itique.htm

ABSTRACT: A critical examination of Susan Blackmore’s psi experiment database was undertaken to assess the claims of consistent “no ESP” across these studies. Many inconsistencies in the experimental reports were found, and their serious consequences are discussed. Discrepancies were found between the unpublished experimental reports and their published counterparts. “Flaws” were invoked to dismiss significant results while other flaws were ignored when studies produced nonsignificant results. Experiments that were admittedly flawed in the unpublished reports were mixed with supposedly unflawed studies and published without segregation, creating the impression of methodological soundness. Two instances in which study chronology was reordered were found. Overall, it is concluded that Blackmore’s claims that her database shows no evidence of psi are unfounded, because the vast majority of her studies were carelessly designed, executed, and reported, and, in Blackmore’s own assessment, individually flawed. As such, no conclusions should be drawn from this database.

An article by Chris Carter on Skeptical about Skeptics refers to this, and a response by Blackmore in the same journal, in which she wrote:
I am glad to be able to agree with his final conclusion – ‘that drawing any conclusion, positive or negative, about the reality of psi that are based on the Blackmore psi experiments must be considered unwarranted.’
http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/in...-research/

Wow. That's a pretty serious denunciation from a pretty credible source...

[Laird]

Thanks for this, Chris. I've just gone through and read both the original research paper and Chris Carter's article on it. Pretty damning stuff. In particular this:

An article by Chris Carter on Skeptical about Skeptics refers to this, and a response by Blackmore in the same journal, in which she wrote:
I am glad to be able to agree with his final conclusion – ‘that drawing any conclusion, positive or negative, about the reality of psi that are based on the Blackmore psi experiments must be considered unwarranted.’
http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/in...-research/

...which hasn't stopped Sue from drawing those conclusions when it suits her ideological purposes.

Thanks for this, Chris. I've just gone through and read both the original research paper and Chris Carter's article on it. Pretty damning stuff. In particular this:


...which hasn't stopped Sue from drawing those conclusions when it suits her ideological purposes.

Listening to the discussion, towards the end she's pretty humble about drawing too many conclusions. Btw, I thought this conversation was excellent, thanks largely to the unobtrusive facilitator.