The BBC's "CrowdScience" tackles life after death

It's not as simple as saying 'science is wrong' Chris.

Does not this very thread show an example of how misguided mainstream 'science' can be when Blackmore is continually trotted out as an expert on a science programme.

I can't see how it tells us anything about "science". I think it tells us quite a lot about the BBC's editorial policies, which seem to interpret the requirement for impartiality in terms of adopting a position perceived as somewhere in the middle and pushing that, rather than representing a variety of views objectively.

I don't follow this? I am not the type that follows blindly, so my instinct is 'probably not'. 

I’m not sure what you don’t follow. I guess I was suggesting the frequent use of Susan’s so-called expertise in the area of Psi suits sceptics because she appears to be opposed to it and that anyone who opposes is a friend from the sceptics’ perspective, irrespective of their actual expertise.

I wasn’t commenting on you - I know nothing about you.

I can't see how it tells us anything about "science". I think it tells us quite a lot about the BBC's editorial policies, which seem to interpret the requirement for impartiality in terms of adopting a position perceived as somewhere in the middle and pushing that, rather than representing a variety of views objectively.

When I say science I usually mean Scientists, the human side. Maths & Science can stand alone as monuments, the materialists Gods. 

Scientists and most others seem quite happy to accept the shite that Blackmore spouts, having told us again and again that she has done little or no research in this area for decades.

The BBC is no place to expect balanced views, you just have to be a Scot to realise that!

I’m not sure what you don’t follow. I guess I was suggesting the frequent use of Susan’s so-called expertise in the area of Psi suits sceptics because she appears to be opposed to it and that anyone who opposes is a friend from the sceptics’ perspective, irrespective of their actual expertise.

I wasn’t commenting on you - I know nothing about you.

Ok, thanks, that helps explain what you meant.

I know it wasn't about me, I never suggested it was. I only made a comment about it on the basis of how I think generally.

Ok, thanks, that helps explain what you meant.

I know it wasn't about me, I never suggested it was. I only made a comment about it on the basis of how I think generally.

Roger. 

Obiwan pid='9876' dateline='1508675787']
Roger. 

I can't see how it tells us anything about "science". I think it tells us quite a lot about the BBC's editorial policies, which seem to interpret the requirement for impartiality in terms of adopting a position perceived as somewhere in the middle and pushing that, rather than representing a variety of views objectively.

"adopting a position perceived as somewhere in the middle"

I think there's a circularity here. The BBC's stance is only seen as representing 'somewhere in the middle' by those who consider the BBC's position to be somewhere in the middle.

An objective view of BBC policy would note that views opposing survival of consciousness appear on science programmes, while views in favour are relegated to the programmes on religion or belief.

"adopting a position perceived as somewhere in the middle"

I think there's a circularity here. The BBC's stance is only seen as representing 'somewhere in the middle' by those who consider the BBC's position to be somewhere in the middle.

I suspect that's what they see themselves as doing - not just regarding the paranormal, but in relation to all kinds of controversial issues. They fall into the trap of thinking they have to adopt a position and communicate that position to their viewers and listeners. Blackmore is a gift to them because she presents herself as someone who used to be a believer but has been swayed by the evidence. (To my mind, she's more someone who jumped to one conclusion at the start of her career and later jumped to the opposite conclusion.)

I don't think the BBC should be doing that when there's a genuine unresolved debate about an issue. I think in those circumstances their job is to acknowledge that various views are held, and reflect those views fairly. It's for the viewers and listeners to look at the evidence and decide what to believe - not the BBC.

I suspect that's what they see themselves as doing - not just regarding the paranormal, but in relation to all kinds of controversial issues. They fall into the trap of thinking they have to adopt a position and communicate that position to their viewers and listeners. Blackmore is a gift to them because she presents herself as someone who used to be a believer but has been swayed by the evidence. (To my mind, she's more someone who jumped to one conclusion at the start of her career and later jumped to the opposite conclusion.)

I don't think the BBC should be doing that when there's a genuine unresolved debate about an issue. I think in those circumstances their job is to acknowledge that various views are held, and reflect those views fairly. It's for the viewers and listeners to look at the evidence and decide what to believe - not the BBC.

"Blackmore is a gift to them because she presents herself as someone who used to be a believer but has been swayed by the evidence."

Agreed. But when you look into her reasons, they don't add up. Her OBE (weed induced ??) apparently (initially) convinced
her that the paranormal was  real.....(this lasted for some months) until she went outside and looked at the guttering on the roof tops that she claimed to have seen during her experience.

Then she realised (apparently) that it couldn't have been real and changed her mind. Now the point here is that it is obviously nonsense because she would have gone outside as soon as possible to check on the view of the buildings that she witnessed, and then she would have seen that it didn't match up the same day.

So there never could have been any great conversion to belief in the paranormal (and back again) from her OBE. I think it's fair to say she's not sincere (at best)

"Blackmore is a gift to them because she presents herself as someone who used to be a believer but has been swayed by the evidence."

Agreed. But when you look into her reasons, they don't add up. Her OBE (weed induced ??) apparently (initially) convinced
her that the paranormal was  real.....(this lasted for some months) until she went outside and looked at the guttering on the roof tops that she claimed to have seen during her experience.

Then she realised (apparently) that it couldn't have been real and changed her mind. Now the point here is that it is obviously nonsense because she would have gone outside as soon as possible to check on the view of the buildings that she witnessed, and then she would have seen that it didn't match up the same day.

So there never could have been any great conversion to belief in the paranormal (and back again) from her OBE. I think it's fair to say she's not sincere (at best)

I agree it doesn't add up. Nor does the to-ing and fro-ing over what conclusions could or couldn't be drawn from her own experimental work (as discussed on the other thread).