Text Resources Thread

By an odd coincidence the SPR Facebook page has a link to a paper by Karina Stengaard Kamp and Helena Due entitled "How many bereaved people hallucinate about their loved one? A systematic review and meta-analysis of bereavement hallucinations", in press in the Journal of Affective Disorders:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...2718301551

Note the pejorative or at any rate premature evaluation in the term 'hallucinate', as well as the term 'Disorders'. It seems there is difficulty in viewing this phenomena as either real or normal.

Note the pejorative or at any rate premature evaluation in the term 'hallucinate', as well as the term 'Disorders'. It seems there is difficulty in viewing this phenomena as ether real or normal.

I agree that "hallucination" presumes the experiences are not objectively real. But isn't "After-Death Communication" just as presumptious in the opposite direction?

I agree that "hallucination" presumes the experiences are not objectively real. But isn't "After-Death Communication" just as presumptious in the opposite direction?

Well, not necessarily. When it comes to communication, one may seek to verify the content - if possible. I'd go with innocent until proven guilty.

Well, not necessarily. When it comes to communication, one may seek to verify the content - if possible. I'd go with innocent until proven guilty.

Sorry, but I think you've got to be even-handed. If neutral language is preferable - which I'm sure it is - then that has to apply to both sides of the argument. (And of course, it's not a question of innocence or guilt. I'm sure there's no suggestion that anyone is being dishonest about these experiences.)

I don't think it's a matter of being 'even handed' when it comes to the name of a phenomenon. The term NDE is used (near death experience) even though not all such experiences involve being close to death.Likewise with ADC (after death communication) that is simply the recognised name for the phenomenon.

Likewise with ADC (after death communication) that is simply the recognised name for the phenomenon.

Obviously it's not the recognised name for the phenomenon as far as the authors you are criticising are concerned. They consider that "bereavement hallucinations" - which they abbreviate as BHs - is the recognised name for it. Google shows that that is also a pretty widespread terminology, about as common in academic literature in the UK as ADC, albeit less common in the USA.

I really don't see the point of objecting to the use of one loaded term by sceptics, while defending the use of another loaded term by proponents. If you want neutral terms to be used so be it, but that should apply to both sides. But in any case, surely the important thing is to look at the evidence, not the nomenclature.

Michael Prescott has a blog post on the curious case of Runolfur Runolfsson, allegedly a "drop-in communicator" at a series of Icelandic seances in the 1930s who alerted the sitters to the location of his thigh bone, which had gone missing after he died:
https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich...-case.html

Prescott includes a link to the original paper on the case by Erlendur Haraldsson and Ian Stevenson, which was published in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in 1975:
https://notendur.hi.is/erlendur/english/...r_Run2.pdf

Michael Prescott has a blog post on the curious case of Runolfur Runolfsson, allegedly a "drop-in communicator" at a series of Icelandic seances in the 1930s who alerted the sitters to the location of his thigh bone, which had gone missing after he died:
https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich...-case.html

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, by an odd coincidence Keith Parsons has just released a short video documentary on the same case, entitled "The Strange Case of Runki's Leg":

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, the BBC has an article by Vicky Spratt on spiritualism and what the author sees as "new culture of spirituality which centres on women’s power":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/e...ebfc4dc613

Chris French and Diane Purkiss (an Oxford academic who has written about witchcraft) provide sceptical comment. At the end, the author quotes with evident approval something that Purkiss said to her: “I do think that it’s totally made up, but I also want to stress this: I think it’s great.”

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, the BBC has an article by Vicky Spratt on spiritualism and what the author sees as "new culture of spirituality which centres on women’s power":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/e...ebfc4dc613

Chris French and Diane Purkiss (an Oxford academic who has written about witchcraft) provide sceptical comment. At the end, the author quotes with evident approval something that Purkiss said to her: “I do think that it’s totally made up, but I also want to stress this: I think it’s great.”

I read the article. Admittedly there was nothing in the body of the account which was in any way convincing, on the other hand I can't help but feel it is entirely typical of that propaganda machine to summarise the topic as "totally made up"; it would be an enormous surprise if it was otherwise.

Traditionally, in the spirit of a cricket-playing nation and respecting fair play, one might end such an article on a note such as "maybe there is something in it" or some such open-ended statement. But not the BBC, it is batting firmly on the materialist team.