Cybele, on 27 October 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:
It's not really about providing evidence
against a point of view, it's about the quality of evidence
for a belief. Some people find anecdotes convincing, others don't.
Skepticism itself requires no evidence; it should be a default position. However, if you are refuting an explanation based in spiritualism and replacing it with an explanation based in scientific materialism, you should be able to provide evidence for the latter belief. People who are invested in the former interpretation will brush-off or interpret scientific evidence to conform to their beliefs (confirmation bias) and vice-versa. Thus, these types of discussions are often futile exercises which result in little more than mounting hostility.
I think it's near worthless, in terms of adding credibility, that the near death experiencer in this case was a neuro-scientist. Doctors aren't infallible in terms of memory or judgment. I think a fairly good alternate explanation for this case is described in the following blog (also written by a neuroscientist):
http://theness.com/n...roof-of-heaven/
No but you can be creative and come up with all sorts of unsubstantiated rhetoric while assuming the conclusion because of personal bias.
Most everything in that article I have already logically addressed in these threads. Thats how arguments work. Repeating the same material over and over again without addressing the argument against that particular argument is just stubborn and only prooves that the arguments can not stand by themselves without bias to support them.
Some more examples from the article cited above. Trying not to repeat the things I have already addressed.
"Alexander claims there is no scientific explanation for his experiences, but I just gave one"
He absolutely did not!!!! He did not give a "scientific" explanation, he gave creative conjecture within the realms of his specific philosophy. Remember... Science is based on empiricism. Unless he has some sort of proof this is what happened inside the doctors brain it's just being creative. Its also dogmatic to insist that a materialist inturpretation is authoritative over others with out proof.
"The “hyper-vivid” description is also common of altered brain states."
WeLl yeah!!! An NDE is an altered state of conciousness. It's perfectly consistent with the brain as a receiver view.
"Even though he says he was not a devout Christian before the experience, his experience is strangely consistent with the cultural norms of his background"
And strangely consistent with many other NDEs and altered states from Buddhists to native Americans to African tribesmen. Shhheeesh you have to wonder If skeptics read anything other than their skeptical own material. Did you mention selection or confirmation bias ?
"Addressing his one major unstated premise, that the experienced occurred while his cortex was inactive, demolishes his claims and his interpretation of his experience."
Even If the experience happened while there was actual brain function, as I have repeatedly reminded everyone..... So what!!!! First off he has not a single shred of evidence that this was the case or not other then a belief that experiences can only happen while the brain is functional ( yet another example of assuming the conclusion). Indeed IF experiences can occure in a spirit realm quit obviously they are not going to be downloaded ( for lak of a better word) until the brain is functional again. This is a well known attribute in altered state practice.
Again his arguments are entirely consistent with what would be expected with the alternate view point. Nor are they very sophisticated or new. He is basically pulling straight from blackmores book that is an extreme example of "scientific?? " rhetoric and philosophical bias. Here is a critic of her book.
http://near-death.co...rticles001.html
Edited by Seeker79, 28 October 2012 - 10:08 PM.
"To know oneself is to study one self in action with another person. Relationship is a process of self evaluation and self revelation. Relationship is the mirror in which you discover yourself - to be is to be related."---Bruce Lee
2
