Pam Reynolds Near-Death Experience

[Titus Rivas]

As a non-debunker, I'm curious about how skeptics think they can deal with the so called Pam Reynolds Case. This is a relatively recent case of an Near Death Experience during brain surgery (to remove an aneurysm). In this case, the subject would have observed the procedure while her brain processes had been artificially stopped.

I've been in touch through e-mail with the brain surgeon in question who referred me to the account given of the case in Michael B. Sabom's book Light and Death, adding that Pam's account was 'remarkably accurate'.

For more information visit these sites:

Visions and memories occur while brain dead (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html)
Pam Reynolds Homepage (http://www.geocities.com/pamreynoldsus/)

Titus Rivas

[c0rbin]

As a non-debunker, I'm curious about how skeptics think they can deal with the so called Pam Reynolds Case.


Ummm...skeptically.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
As a non-debunker, I'm curious about how skeptics think they can deal with the so called Pam Reynolds Case. This is a relatively recent case of an Near Death Experience during brain surgery (to remove an aneurysm). In this case, the subject would have observed the procedure while her brain processes had been artifically stopped.

...snip...

Titus Rivas

I'm not too sure what you mean by "skeptics think they can deal with"? What is there to "deal with"? Either the facts are right or they are wrong or we can't determine the right/wrong.

That's how I deal with most things - perhaps I'm not what you meant by a "skeptic"?:confused:

[Phil]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
As a non-debunker, I'm curious about how skeptics think they can deal with the so called Pam Reynolds Case.
Just like we deal with any other case. She's making the claim. She must provide the proof.

But I'll play along for this thread.

We can examine all the biological possibilities that could produce the types of phenomena associated with near death experiences, and we have before. Those types of studies are well documented. I'd wager that as her brain died, she experienced the same types of things any other person claiming near death experience reported.

As to the accuracy of her 'vision', I'll say this:

In this case, as in all near death cases, the vision has been deemed accurate because of 'memory hits' (similar to a cold reader getting positive hits). She simply had a brain dump, and some of that stuff coincided with what took place in the O.R.

But when did the events that triggered those memories actually take place? Before or after she was put to death? Did they take place at all? She was after all in a very traumatic situation.

I recently was put under for a minor knee operation and remember a great deal of activity in the O.R., as I was drifting from consciousness. But I can't reconstruct accurately the chronology of events, the faces, or anything else that took place. I could however, spew things out that the attendant staff would recognize, and possibly misperceive as accurate memories. This is probably what's happened in this case.

Also, don't be surprised to find that skeptics are not averse to saying "I just don't know". You'll find we resort to that answer when faced with the unexplained (although I doubt this case is really unexplained) before we jump to "well, I can't explain it, so there must be an afterlife."

Still, the burden of proof is hers.

[Titus Rivas]

Darat,



I'm not too sure what you mean by "skeptics think they can deal with"? What is there to "deal with"? Either the facts are right or they are wrong or we can't determine the right/wrong.

That's how I deal with most things - perhaps I'm not what you meant by a "skeptic"? I meant a real debunker :D

cOrbin,

Ummm...skeptically. Which would be?

Phil,

Just like we deal with any other case. She's making the claim. She must provide the proof. No doubt, but that's what she supposedly did.

We can examine all the biological possibilities that could produce the types of phenomena associated with near death experiences, and we have before. Those types of studies are well documented. I'd wager that as her brain died, she experienced the same types of things any other person claiming near death experience reported. You should read the material on the websites then. Her brain processes stopped altogether. Within a materialist framework she was not supposed to experience anything . That's the main feature of this case, isn't it?

But when did the events that triggered those memories actually take place? Before or after she was put to death? Did they take place at all? She was after all in a very traumatic situation. They did take place, as was confirmed by the surgeon (even to me personally via e-mail). They specifically concerned surgery, not anything which happened beforehand.

Also, don't be surprised to find that skeptics are not averse to saying "I just don't know". You'll find we resort to that answer when faced with the unexplained (although I doubt this case is really unexplained) before we jump to "well, I can't explain it, so there must be an afterlife."
Would you agree however, that as long as you don't know the case at least deserves to be seen as interesting and if not, why not?

Best wishes,

Titus Rivas

[c0rbin]

You should read the material on the websites then. Her brain processes stopped altogether. Within a materialist framework she was not supposed to experience anything . That's the main feature of this case, isn't it?

Why should any one assume that her expiriences happened after her brain processes stopped altogether?

Why?

This is the problem with NDE. No one can tell you how near their expirience was to death.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
As a non-debunker, I'm curious about how skeptics think they can deal with the so called Pam Reynolds Case. This is a relatively recent case of an Near Death Experience during brain surgery (to remove an aneurysm). In this case, the subject would have observed the procedure while her brain processes had been artifically stopped.

This sounds a little suspect, from what I understand, brain processes don't stop and start. It's not like your heart that can be restarted with a jolt of electricity. The only way that a brain stops functioning is when it's dead. The brain may slow it's function down to preserve oxygen, This gives the appearance of being off because the electrical response is very low and difficult to detect. But, if it shuts off then it can't be turned on.

[Phil]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like we deal with any other case. She's making the claim. She must provide the proof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt, but that's what she supposedly did

Are you saying she proved there's an afterlife, or she proved she experienced near death phenomena?

I have not had time to read all the specifics, but let's say the doctors stopped everything to where she was not supposed to experience anything at all. That point doesn't really matter. That's precisely why I included my own knee surgery experience. I was awake, though barely, before the operation, and lucid enough to look around the O.R., soaking up much of what I saw. Had I the gumption, I could have spewed a nice tale of the procedures that took place while I was out that would not have been completely accurate, but would have contained enough 'hits' that the gullable would believe I had somehow seen the operation in progress.

I'm suggesting that the same thing could be happening here. This woman at some point gathered information about things around her, or perhaps recalls something she saw on ER, and laid down a good story afterward with enough 'hits' that someone bought it and deemed her recollection accurate. (Notice no one ever says 'exact' in these cases).

The big question I guess is, how close to death were these memories (if they can be called memories) formed?

[Quasi]

First, her heart was stopped or almost stopped by cold, she was not given a targeted neurotoxin to her brain. So during this period, she had brain function. Under those conditions the brain can function for some time. It has already been reported that children who fall into the ice can be fully alive (no brain damage) after over one hour underwater. The second fact that you should consider is that anasthesia, or any other treatment is not 100% effective in all people. I have a resistance to anasthetics, and when under general, I remember much of the operations, although I felt no pain. So her recalling things that went on are fully explainable. The mind tends to make things up and to connect data, which is why cold reading works too- people assume the paranormal when they do not know any better. This is another case of "we don't understand it all therefore paranormal." Finally, never underestimate humanities desire to evade death. Most everyone will rationalize and believe to the very end.
I find it unlikely this phenomena could be actively tested for due to ethical considerations, but maybe we should ask Gary Schwartz?

[Diogenes]

" Near " is the operative word here..




If she recalls things that took place while her brain was ' stopped ', then the obvious explanation is, that it wasn't.


I'm waiting for the report we get, when they have dug someone up after a week or so.



This from one of the ' Scientists ' quoted:
. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don’t know what’s happening and the brain isn’t working.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Diogenes
If she recalls things that took place while her brain was ' stopped ', then the obvious explanation is, that it wasn't.
Well, all the blood was drained out of her brain, her brain was chilled to 60 degrees Fahrenheit, and the EEG devices attached to her were all showing zero brain activity.

BUT,

From the webpage's description (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html), all of the memories she has of things that supposedly happened to her during the surgery are memories of things that happened near the beginning of the surgery. Probably before her brain had "flatlined." All of her other "visions" were of dead relatives and tunnels of light and a vision of her own dead body being "covered" and other little daydreams like that, which she could have experienced after her brain was brought back "on line" but before she reawoke.

[SteveGrenard]

PHIL: In this case, as in all near death cases, the vision has been deemed accurate because of 'memory hits' (similar to a cold reader getting positive hits).

I can't believe you are implying that Pam Reynolds was a "cold" reader.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No Steve, I think he is just saying that tossing out a bunch of purported memories and getting some hits is similar to the way cold reading works.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I liked this quote:The modern tradition of equating death with an ensuing nothingness can be abandoned. For there is no reason to believe that human death severs the quality of the oneness in the universe
There is nothing I hate worse than low-quality oneness. Eventually the quality gets so bad that twoness happens. But before that point, it's just lousy oneness all the way down.

~~ Paul

[SteveGrenard]

Paul, I guess you didn't get the humor. Sorry about that. Pam Reynolds, "cold reader" -- get it?

[Pyrrho]

Anecdotal. Dismissed. Next?

[SteveGrenard]

Actually there was nothing anecdotal about Pam being cold. This is from a description of her case. The surgery was well documented and witnessed by a team of doctors and O.R. nurses.

"This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life........"

Pam's brain and other tissues were protected from destruction by lowering her body temperature so that metabolism and oxygen consumption became nil. This is what protects drowning victims in cold fresh water and permits them to be revived even after being submerged a half hour or more. The statement above regarding such victims which implies they still had life in them and were not dead does not apply to the Reynolds case. Such drownings are anecdotal because EEGs are not performed in the field, there are no controlled conditions such as in Reynolds and the blood, however, cold and bereft of oxygen it is (by having the lungs filled with water) is not drained from the head.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Actually there was nothing anecdotal about Pam being cold. This is from a description of her case. The surgery was well documented and witnessed by a team of doctors and O.R. nurses.

"This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life........"
Oh, I'm sure that part's well-documented. It's her memories that are anecdotal. Can anyone specify when she had these visions? I don't think so. Could have been before, could have been after, could have been during -- nobody knows, and there's no way to know. It's anecdotal. Case dismissed for lack of objective evidence. Any conclusions that she experienced out-of-body projection/visions/near-death remote viewing is leaping to a biased conclusion. In fact, no conclusion positive or negative can be drawn here. It's a nice story, it really is, but that's all it is.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, I guess you didn't get the humor. Sorry about that. Pam Reynolds, "cold reader" -- get it?
Oops, missed those dang quotes!

~~ Paul

[Ceinwyn]

Oh yeah, I've seen this. It was called Flatliners. (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0099582)

[Phil]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
PHIL: In this case, as in all near death cases, the vision has been deemed accurate because of 'memory hits' (similar to a cold reader getting positive hits).

I can't believe you are implying that Pam Reynolds was a "cold" reader.
No, I'm saying she was in a stressful situation, and perhaps started recounting what she remembered, and an attendant staff member misperceived her recollections as events from the surgery. The snow ball starts to roll, and suddenly it's a near death experience. A couple of parties start to believe it, and the story sticks. I'm not saying she's purposely deceiving anyone, only that the collection of facts and the construction of the story was based on selective memory or forced memory, like the hits of a cold reader.

Edited to say: Sorry. I posted this before reading your follow up.

Have to admit, I didn't get your joke either, but it's pretty goddamn funny!

[reprise]

One thing which bothers me about this and other NDEs is the apparent lack of observation of things which should be visible to someone able to "see" a room from above.

By definition, the brain does not die during an NDE. In fact the precautions taken for brain surgery such as Reynolds' are taken in part to minimise the chances of the brain being damaged by the procedure.

Similarly, when we decide to cease CPR on a person it is generally after a period of time when we have reason to believe that extensive brain damage will have occured - the brain might not be "dead" in the sense of unable to have any form of functioning restored, but will almost certainly be damaged to the extent that independent existence will no longer be a possibility for the patient.

Like Phil, I have odd responses to anaesthesia - in particular I tend to come out of it extremely quickly. If you've ever had nitrous oxide for dental procedures or during labour, you'll be aware of that "distant" feeling it produces - especially with respect to sound. Nitrous is very often the gas used to maintain anaesthesia after initial induction, and it is not surprising that people sometimes recall sounds from their period of anaesthesia - the anaestheist is generally trying to use the lowest dose of anaesthetic compatible with the surgeon's requirements.

Not many skeptics maintain that NDEs do not exist - rather we reject claims that they are "supernatural" and offer "evidence" for persistence of consciousness after physical death.

[MRC_Hans]

A few points (some already made):

This woman was not at any time dead. Death is per definition an irreversible condition. She was, however, for the purpose of the operation, placed in a condition that clinically was almost indistinguishable from death.

I do not know how the procedures of that hospital, but it is a very normal procedure to go through the operation in great detail with patients that are about to undergo complex, risky operations. Till such time as it is documented that this did NOT happen in this case, I will assume that her detailed knowledge of the operation was due to the pre-op briefing she probably received.

Hallucinating and experiencing disrupted time-flow is quite normal for post-operative patients. I am sure all the things she report was actually percieved by her, but a patient waking up from brain surgery is not exactly what you would call a reliable whitness.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Titus, what do you mean by terming yourself a non-debunker? Are you implying that you believe anything you are told?

Hans

[Titus Rivas]

So if I understand most of you guys correctly, you claim that Pam's memories would not relate to an episode during which the standstill procedure had already become effective. However, that is simply not in accordance with the acount she has given, which is why the case is judged so important by some in the first place. Her heart was supposed to have stopped beating already and there were no brain waves.

Here's some details:

"There was so much in the operating room that I didn't recognize, and so many people."

"I thought the way they had my head shaved was very peculiar. I expected them to take all of the hair, but they did not ...

"The saw-thing that I hated the sound of looked like an electric toothbrush and it had a dent in it, a groove at the top where the saw appeared to go into the handle, but it didn't ... And the saw had interchangeable blades, too, but these blades were in what looked like a socket wrench case ... I heard the saw crank up. I didn't see them use it on my head, but I think I heard it being used on something. It was humming at a relatively high pitch and then all of a sudden it went Brrrrrrrrr! like that,"

"Someone said something about my veins and arteries being very small. I believe it was a female voice and that it was Dr. Murray, but I'm not sure. She was the cardiologist. I remember thinking that I should have told her about that ... I remember the heart-lung machine. I didn't like the respirator ... I remember a lot of tools and instruments that I did not readily recognize."

Like a few other NDEers, she provided information about what happened to her in the operating room that was corroborated by technical witnesses. Although she previously did not have specific information about the procedures that were performed on her, she provided detailed descriptions that were later substantiated.

I gather that a renowned neurosurgeon as Dr. Robert F. Spetzler of the Division of Neurosurgery Barrow Neurological Institute (Phoenix, Arizona) wouldn't officially state her account was remarkably accurate when it actually wasn't. In his own words: "Her recollections occurred shortly after surgery and were remarkably accurate. There was no cortical activity whatsoever nor were there any brainstem evoked potentials. I remain skeptical but have seen too many unexplained phenomena to be so arrogant as to know that they didn’t happen."

So much for the justification of the non-debunker's fascination and even enthusiasm. (Comment on somebody's enthusiasm about this formulation : I just meant that this is what I wanted to say about it here, sorry if I didn't use the right expression ;) )

What's your reason to just dismiss the case out of hand anyway if you take all this in consideration?

What type of similar case would be acceptable for you? I mean when would you believe that at least some persons continue to experience something after their brain stopped functioning altogether. Any suggestions?

By the way, MRC_Hans, you asked what I meant by terming myself a non-debunker? Well, the answer is quite simple: I don't make it a habit to dismiss something out of hand just because it wouldn't fit in the orthodox scientific world view, and I don't have a materialist framework anyway.
As I understand it, those are two defining characteristics of most debunkers (dismissal of anything that seems to contradict the orthodox scientific world view and adherence to that world view), wouldn't you agree?
Which does not mean I would believe everything I'm being told. For one thing, I don't easily buy a skeptical explanation of a possible anomaly :wink:.

Best wishes,

Titus

[reprise]

Nobody is "dismissing out of hand" Pam Reynold's experience - please don't try to set up a strawman - we just reject the notion that there is anything "mystical" about it.

The so-called "stand-still" procedure is exactly that - it's specifically designed to stop the suffering damage or dying during procedures which normal circulation cannot be maintained - the brain doesn't "stop" functioning altogether, it just functions at such a low level that its activity is undetectable. No-one pretends that the brain actually "stops" (we'd be in trouble if it did, because we know how to restart cardiac and respiratory function, but we don't yet know how to "restart" a brain), only that it is put in a state something similar to hibernation.

Reynold's was already a participant in an NDE study at the time of the surgery - this is extremely bad scientific control of a study.

Personally, I believe that NDEs will be found to be a similar phenomenon to sleep paralysis and ICU-itis.

I'd be extremely interested in finding out the anaesthesia protocol for this particular operation, as the brain itself doesn't feel pain and it's highly possible that something less than total anaesthesia was required during much of the operation.

This particular piece of horsecrap is particularly worth noting :
... an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don’t know what’s happening and the brain isn’t working.

The brain does not "cease to function" during unconsciousness - if it did, we'd die each time we lost consciousness; quite obviously, we do not die every time we lose consciousness. It's also quite common for people to drift in and out of consciousness during and immediately after traumatic events - sometimes having a recollection of what occured prior to fully regaining consciousness and sometimes not.

We have to eliminate an awful lot of mundane explanations for NDEs before we seriously start considering paranormal ones.

[Titus Rivas]

Nobody is "dismissing out of hand" Pam Reynold's experience - please don't try to set up a strawman - we just reject the notion that there is anything "mystical" about it. Sorry for the provocative shorthand on my part. I thought you could appreciate that. I had understood such provocative wording would be part of the social conventions among debunkers.

The so-called "stand-still" procedure is exactly that - it's specifically designed to stop the suffering damage or dying during procedures which normal circulation cannot be maintained - the brain doesn't "stop" functioning altogether, it just functions at such a low level that its activity is undetectable. No-one pretends that the brain actually "stops" (we'd be in trouble if it did, because we know how to restart cardiac and respiratory function, but we don't yet know how to "restart" a brain), only that it is put in a state something similar to hibernation

The point is not whether it literally stopped in all respects, the point is that it stopped to the extent that any experience would be in contradiction with most if not all contemporary materialist models of mental functioning. I've often read about skeptics who criticize the notion that people with an NDE had really been 'dead'. As if the cases would only be anomalous if the person in question had really been physically dead! Quite a flaw I'd say, as the problem would still be that a flat EEG cannot (within contemporary neurology anyway) be reconciled with any type of lucid subjective functioning.

Reynold's was already a participant in an NDE study at the time of the surgery - this is extremely bad scientific control of a study. Do you really think so? I would rather think it's an additional positive feature of the case as more variables should have been known beforehand.

But again, what type of case would be a real problem for your views? Can you give a hypothetical description of such a case?

Best wishes,

Titus

[Pyrrho]

Why are people assuming that Pam Reynolds' visions took place when she had a flat EEG? Nobody knows when or if she experienced those "visions". The whole thing is a leap of faith, all scientific festooning aside.

I do dismiss her experience out-of-hand.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Sorry for the provocative shorthand on my part. I thought you could appreciate that. I had understood such provocative wording would be part of the social conventions among debunkers.

It is. So are snap rebuttals :D .

The point is not whether it literally stopped in all respects, the point is that it stopped to the extent that any experience would be in contradiction with most if not all contemporary materialist models of mental functioning. I've often read about skeptics who criticize the notion that people with an NDE had really been 'dead'. As if the cases would only be anomalous if the person in question had really been physically dead! Quite a flaw I'd say, as the problem would still be that a flat EEG cannot (within contemporary neurology anyway) be reconciled with any type of lucid subjective functioning.

The point is that nobody, not even Pam Reynolds, can know WHEN those perceptions occurred. The only thing we know is that she reported it at some time after the procedure.

(On PR already being involved in NDE studies)
Do you really think so? I would rather think it's an additional positive feature of the case as more variables should have been known beforehand.

Ever heard of a thing like observer bias?

But again, what type of case would be a real problem for your views? Can you give a hypothetical description of such a case?

Beside the point, but to convince a skeptic, you need solid evidence, simple as that.

Best wishes,

Titus [/B]

Basically, this account is an NDE. Unless PR made up the whole thing, she had an NDE. I don't see anybody refuting that. What is refuted is that an NDE is a paranormal event.

Hans


Hans

[Titus Rivas]

Beside the point, but to convince a skeptic, you need solid evidence, simple as that.

Fair enough, Hans, but what would constitute such evidence in this context? Meaning for yourself and other debunkers?

Best wishes,

Titus

[dissonance]

Evidence of what, exactly? She certainly did have a NDE. I wouldn't argue with with that. What I would argue is that there was anything paranormal about it, as all of her experiences can be explained by mundane means, as people have done in this thread.

So what evidence would be acceptable would depend on the specific claim being made. So let's say someone claims that during an operation, they found themselves floating outside their body observing the operation. What would be conclusive evidence that it actually happened? Let's say the person, after waking up, is able to report the details accurately of another room in the building that there is no way they have seen, ever. That would be pretty good, although there are a LOT of ways someone could cheat that would have to be eliminated. And the room would have to contain some unique, unexpected objects for a hospital room, of course. I mean, I could pretty accurately describe a random hospital room right now, but that doesn't mean I have special powers. It just means I've seen hospital rooms before.

Really, though, the evidence depends on the specific claims being made. I see nothing in this particular case that can't be explained mundanely.

[anduin]

I am extremely suspicious of the fact that this person was already participating in an NDE study, there is a very large possibility that there was communication given to Reynolds after her operation about what took place, and I have not found anything in the pages that you have given that tell me otherwise.

I need to know more details about this case: When did Pam Reynolds write her report? Did she have contact with any of the people involved in the operation before she put it down on paper? How was the information verified?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Titus said:I don't make it a habit to dismiss something out of hand just because it wouldn't fit in the orthodox scientific world view, and I don't have a materialist framework anyway.
As I understand it, those are two defining characteristics of most debunkers (dismissal of anything that seems to contradict the orthodox scientific world view and adherence to that world view),
You know, this straw man is so big and so strong that he'll soon morph into a steel man. I spend some time on another forum called Debunker Debunkers, and they have this same twisted definition of debunk. That allows them to dismiss anything that someone says once they've labeled him a debunker, precisely the thing they are complaining about concerning debunkers.

Just put a note on top of a cabinet in the operating room---after the patient is flatlined---and ask her to read it during her NDE.

~~ Paul

[MRC_Hans]

What dissonance said!

Lets have a look at her testimonial:
Originally posted by Titus Rivas
So if I understand most of you guys correctly, you claim that Pam's memories would not relate to an episode during which the standstill procedure had already become effective. However, that is simply not in accordance with the acount she has given, which is why the case is judged so important by some in the first place. Her heart was supposed to have stopped beating already and there were no brain waves.

Here's some details:

"There was so much in the operating room that I didn't recognize, and so many people."

So she did not see the operating room very clearly. The "many people" is typical of post-operative perception; in your unclear condition, you notice people coming and going, but you have no sense of time, so you think it all happens at the same time. Tried it myself.

"I thought the way they had my head shaved was very peculiar. I expected them to take all of the hair, but they did not ...

Yeh, interesting, but she would notice this after waking.

"The saw-thing that I hated the sound of looked like an electric toothbrush and it had a dent in it, a groove at the top where the saw appeared to go into the handle, but it didn't ... And the saw had interchangeable blades, too, but these blades were in what looked like a socket wrench case ... I heard the saw crank up. I didn't see them use it on my head, but I think I heard it being used on something. It was humming at a relatively high pitch and then all of a sudden it went Brrrrrrrrr! like that,"

If she did not encounter this during the prebriefing, she probably saw it on TV earlier, I certainly have, and since she must have known for some time that she was to undergo brain surgery, she might have looked for TV features about that, they might even have shown her some.

"Someone said something about my veins and arteries being very small. I believe it was a female voice and that it was Dr. Murray, but I'm not sure. She was the cardiologist. I remember thinking that I should have told her about that

This is nonsense. Leading up to of the operation, they would already have stuck about a hundred needles in her, and if her veins were small, she would have heard that remark repeatedly.

... I remember the heart-lung machine. I didn't like the respirator ... I remember a lot of tools and instruments that I did not readily recognize."

Anybody here who hasn't seen a heart-lung machine or a respirator, on TV at least? I would also guess at there being lotsa strange instruments.

Like a few other NDEers, she provided information about what happened to her in the operating room that was corroborated by technical witnesses. Although she previously did not have specific information about the procedures that were performed on her, she provided detailed descriptions that were later substantiated.

Again, was she not briefed about the operation? That would be unusual. What descriptions that she could not make based on previous experience?

I gather that a renowned neurosurgeon as Dr. Robert F. Spetzler of the Division of Neurosurgery Barrow Neurological Institute (Phoenix, Arizona) wouldn't officially state her account was remarkably accurate when it actually wasn't. In his own words: "Her recollections occurred shortly after surgery and were remarkably accurate. There was no cortical activity whatsoever nor were there any brainstem evoked potentials. I remain skeptical but have seen too many unexplained phenomena to be so arrogant as to know that they didn’t happen."

Appeal to false authority. No doubt the gentleman is an exellent neurosurgeon, but is he qualified in investigation of NDE evidence?

So much for the justification of the non-debunker's fascination and even enthusiasm.

You said it!

What's your reason to just dismiss the case out of hand anyway if you take all this in consideration?

That the report can be explained in mundane terms.

*snip*

Sorry, outta time right now.
Best wishes,

Titus


Hans

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Titus said:
You know, this straw man is so big and so strong that he'll soon morph into a steel man. I spend some time on another forum called Debunker Debunkers, and they have this same twisted definition of debunk. That allows them to dismiss anything that someone says once they've labeled him a debunker, precisely the thing they are complaining about concerning debunkers.

Just put a note on top of a cabinet in the operating room---after the patient is flatlined---and ask her to read it during her NDE.

~~ Paul
I work as an equipment fixer guy in a hospital. I feel a little silly about this, but after seeing a show on TEEVEE describing a similar, or possibly the same, claim offered by the non-debunker, I placed a learn-to-read flashcards on the top arm of all the OR lights after I did maintenance on them. I swiped the cards from my daughter... you know those ones that say CAT, and there's a picture of a cat, or DOG with the picture of the dog? We get the occassional patient that recounts the "floating over my body watching the operation" tale, after their surgery while they are in the post anesthesia recovery unit. I told all the PACU nurses about my little experiment, and they're playing along. They told me they've had a few "floaters", but no hits yet.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
A few points (some already made):

This woman was not at any time dead. Death is per definition an irreversible condition. Hans

That's a very useful definition of death for skeptics to adopt isn't it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Anecdotal. Dismissed. Next?

What would constitute a non-anecdotal NDE?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Quasi
Most everyone will rationalize and believe to the very end.
[/B]

One finds himself or herself in some sort of "otherworldly" reality were they feel more conscious and alive than they have ever been in their lives. The question then is why should that person believe that they will very shortly instantaneously cease to be? Surely one would not need to rationalize in order to suppose they will continue having experiences? Rather it seems to me that they would need to rationalise in order to construe the experience as being some sort of hallucination, and that very shortly they will just switch off like a light. What conceivable justification could warrant this belief?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by reprise
Nobody is "dismissing out of hand" Pam Reynold's experience - please don't try to set up a strawman - we just reject the notion that there is anything "mystical" about it.



We just reject the notion of any explanation inconsistent with materialist principles.



ie you already know the truth about the world, therefore any evidence which challenges this "knowledge", simply must be flawed in some way or other.

[crocodile deathroll]

I don't know, I just think that anedote sounds too vague. If she witnessed it first hand and she can't explain it, then how are we to know?

The light was incredibly bright, like sitting in the middle of a light bulb. It was so bright that I put my hands in front of my face fully expecting to see them and I could not. But I knew they were there. Not from a sense of touch. Again, it's terribly hard to explain, but I knew they were there ...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by dissonance
[B]Evidence of what, exactly? She certainly did have a NDE. I wouldn't argue with with that. What I would argue is that there was anything paranormal about it, as all of her experiences can be explained by mundane means, as people have done in this thread.



I'm reading through this thread at the moment. I must have missed that. Where did people do this??

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I'm reading through this thread at the moment. I must have missed that. Where did people do this??

II - I think dissonance may be refereing to the fact that we don't know if she had zero brain activity and we don't know when she expereinced the "events" she described?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by dissonance

So what evidence would be acceptable would depend on the specific claim being made.



Let's say no specific claim, just that NDE's and especially PR's are strongly suggestive of the survival hypothesis.



So let's say someone claims that during an operation, they found themselves floating outside their body observing the operation. What would be conclusive evidence that it actually happened?



And if one does not have conclusive evidence, but merely strongly suggestive evidence, one should favour the hypothesis that it was all made up, or is an hallucination should we?? :rolleyes:

I'm continually bemused at how effectively people are conditioned by the prevailing western metaphysic to the extent that they refuse to consider any evidence at odds with its tenets.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


...snip...

I'm continually bemused at how effectively people are conditioned by the prevailing western metaphysic to the extent that they refuse to consider any evidence at odds with its tenets.

What do you mean by "western metaphysics"?

[Dragonrock]

My wife is an ICU nurse and often they will perform procedures on patients without removing the patient from their room. They put them under general anesthesia while they are being worked on. Quite often when the patients wake up they have the same vision. They believe that they were taken to the basement of the hospital and experimented on. They never left their rooms, but they are certain that they were taken to the basement. What's strange is not that they hallucinated, it's that so many people hallucinate similar things. Why is it so hard to believe that NDEs are just the brain making up things in response to incomplete stimuli similarly to what happens under anesthesia?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:That's a very useful definition of death for skeptics to adopt isn't it?
Aw Ian, come on. Try to stick with the standard definition of one or two words.

"1 : a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life"

Dragonrock noted:They believe that they were taken to the basement of the hospital and experimented on. They never left their rooms, but they are certain that they were taken to the basement.
Mwahahaha ... the old medical experiments in the dank, musty basement trick. Never saw that in a movie, oh no.

~~ Paul

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's say no specific claim, just that NDE's and especially PR's are strongly suggestive of the survival hypothesis.
Let's not.
It's all immaterial, after all.

[c0rbin]

That's a very useful definition of death for skeptics to adopt isn't it?

Adopt?!?

Get a dictionary.

You, sir get the big :rolleyes:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:One finds himself or herself in some sort of "otherworldly" reality were they feel more conscious and alive than they have ever been in their lives. The question then is why should that person believe that they will very shortly instantaneously cease to be? Surely one would not need to rationalize in order to suppose they will continue having experiences? Rather it seems to me that they would need to rationalise in order to construe the experience as being some sort of hallucination, and that very shortly they will just switch off like a light. What conceivable justification could warrant this belief?
Are we talking about someone who is going to continue living after this experience, or die?

~~ Paul

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What would constitute a non-anecdotal NDE?
I suppose one could gather volunteers who would be subjected to the procedures Pam Reynolds underwent -- except for the actual surgery, of course. The volunteers would be kept isolated prior to the procedure. Certain details not typical for such procedures would be arranged and performed while and only while the volunteer was "flatlined". Let's say, someone draws a simple picture on a card. The five known senses for each volunteer would have to be controlled -- ear plugs, eye shields, nose plugs, etc.

The volunteer could then try to report these details, which would then be compared with the actual events performed during the "flatline" period. The set of details could be the same for each volunteer, or could be randomly different for each volunteer. Speaking during the procedure would be prohibited for the team peforming the procedure. Reports from volunteers of events or details that were not performed during the "flatline" period would be discarded because of possible sensory leakage.

There are, of course, severe ethical problems with taking people to near death.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm continually bemused at how effectively people are conditioned by the prevailing western metaphysic to the extent that they refuse to consider any evidence at odds with its tenets. Even non-western metaphysics precludes making unwarranted assumptions in scientific investigations, which is what is happening in this case. Now, if we're talking about believing something on the basis of faith, that's perfectly admissible in any metaphysic, even if it is illogical. Believing in NDE is an act of faith. Let's just call it religion, which is what it boils down to.

[tracer]

Originally posted by reprise
Nitrous is very often the gas used to maintain anaesthesia after initial induction, and it is not surprising that people sometimes recall sounds from their period of anaesthesia - the anaestheist is generally trying to use the lowest dose of anaesthetic compatible with the surgeon's requirements.
That might explain how, when they put me under to set my broken finger when I was 8 years old, I could see and hear one of the women in the operating theater talking to me once in a while. (The rest of the time I had a weird dream wherein the surgeon performing the procedure was dancing and talking in rhythm (what today is called "rap") against a black void in the background. When I came to, they were putting the cast on my hand.)

[crocodile deathroll]

How about in independant data recorder in a ceiled box in the OR that records everything in the room, and if someone makes a claim either paranormal or legal, then they could break the box the read that data to verify their claim?

[SteveGrenard]

All this talk about anesthetics and hallucinations while interesting has no relevance in the Pam Reynolds case since the profound hypothermia to which she was subjected caused complete cessation of cellular metabolism in the brain and there would be no pathways by which such agents could function.

The idea of a black box in the O.R. is interesting. To my knowledge all events in major surgeries are frequently video and audiotaped in any case although I am not sure if this ocurred in the PR case but it is likely, given the nature of this procedure.
The question as to when during the procedure Pam had heard what she heard is also important. I suggest that the staff who made the comments she overheard could best attest to that.
A time coded recording would also and better serve that purpose. If some nurse said she was going out forsome hot coffee; okay, okay just kidding, going out then to fetch an instrument the doctor needed.... while Pam was in total standstill, then it could be determined that way.

The NDE as an out of body experience is also being overlooked.
The persons involved in these cases who never got off the table allege to have traveled out of body and out of the room they were physically locked down within. There are several cases where they correctly described things such as old sneakers on window ledges or on top of lockers in staff areas which they had no way of seeing through normal means. I recall the window ledge sneaker was well described down to a hole worn in the toe.
(Ref: Greyson and Flynn (eds) The Near Death Experience:
Problems, Prospects, Perspectives. 1984. Charles C. Thomas Publishers, Springfield, Illinois)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, but what really happened with that shoe?

http://www.sfu.ca/psychology/groups/faculty/beyerstein/research/articles/13MariasNDE.doc

~~ Paul

[Jethro]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
All this talk about anesthetics and hallucinations while interesting has no relevance in the Pam Reynolds case since the profound hypothermia to which she was subjected caused complete cessation of cellular metabolism in the brain and there would be no pathways by which such agents could function. While it is true said agents could not function while her brain was "off," we have little reason to believe that her experience absolutely had to happen during that period.

[SteveGrenard]

Given the source of this investigation into the Harborview case, I am not surprised it glosses over some details making the tennis shoe example more valid. Its much more speculative than the case itself if one had to weigh both sides. They gloss over, for example, the fact that the patient had detected a hole in the toe and a shoelace tucked under the heel. They could not prove the patient was ever in the room whose ledge it was perched on and make a a leap of faith about seeing it from ground level, with this kind of detail, when it was on a ledge three stories up. If you were on ground level looking up at a 3-story high ledge and saw a shoe from that vantage point would you also, from that distance and at that angle be able to see a hole in the toe and how the lace was under its heel? I am not sure I could do it.
This author would have us believe it could be done. When I read speculation like this in an effort to debunk, it impeaches the entire account for me. The author stretches the limits of Occam's razor by developing a convoluted set of multiple possibilities to account for the observation as well, necessarily complicating explanations, making them non-parsimonious, in order to confirm his bias against this type of phenomena.


Since we are on stinky old sneakers, Paul did you happen to run into the other sneaker account where it was later found, as seen by an NDEer, on top of a locker in an off limits staff locker room?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sneakers here, sneakers there. It's like finding a severed arm in a ghost story. We need controlled experiments.

~~ Paul

[Hexxenhammer]

Pam Reynolds herself posted to the Readers Digest boards about the search for a soul. See the Philosophy and Religion board for the thread about that. Here's a post and her reply:

mcnulty Fri 08/08/03, 8:39:35
I am extremely annoyed by medical researchers/scientists who are too closed minded to consider the possibility that something supernatural outside the bounderies of human science does exist. No amount of science can explain the existence of human life. Even if we evolved from the smallest amount of matter where did that small bit of matter come from? This alone tells me that there are some things science will never be able to explain. Is it really so difficult for these scientists to believe that they simply haven't the power to explain everything? What makes them so smart that they can know without a doubt that souls don't exist. These scientists think they are too brilliant to consider such silliness, but they are extremely short-sighted. This is too bad for I would think the best medical researchers would be those people who can accept they don't know everything and are open minded to new possibilities.

pamreynold Fri 08/08/03, 8:57:04
When it hapened to me, Dr. Spetzler's mind was wide open. I agreed to speak only with the scientific community and was recieved by open minded truth seekers. At the time, I myself thought that the event was a "brain thing". Research convinced me otherwise. The research was conducted by yet another man of science, Dr. Michael Sabom pamreynoldsus@yahoo.com

Readers Digest "Is there a soul" board (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?50@217.L4vMatVZsJO.4@.efe9a79/1342)

[bPer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's a very useful definition of death for skeptics to adopt isn't it?
Originally posted by c0rbin


Adopt?!?

Get a dictionary.

You, sir get the big :rolleyes:
Sorry, but I don't see any problem with the quote. Could you please explain why "adopt" is inappropriate here?

bPer

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Pam Reynolds herself posted to the Readers Digest boards about the search for a soul. See the Philosophy and Religion board for the thread about that. Here's a post and her reply:

mcnulty Fri 08/08/03, 8:39:35
I am extremely annoyed by medical researchers/scientists who are too closed minded to consider the possibility that something supernatural outside the bounderies of human science does exist.

Again with the scientist being closed minded? This coming from a woman who has apparently closed her mind to mundane explanations? *SSSniif!* I love the smell of hypocracy.

[anduin]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Given the source of this investigation into the Harborview case, I am not surprised it glosses over some details making the tennis shoe example more valid. Its much more speculative than the case itself if one had to weigh both sides. They gloss over, for example, the fact that the patient had detected a hole in the toe and a shoelace tucked under the heel. They could not prove the patient was ever in the room whose ledge it was perched on and make a a leap of faith about seeing it from ground level, with this kind of detail, when it was on a ledge three stories up. If you were on ground level looking up at a 3-story high ledge and saw a shoe from that vantage point would you also, from that distance and at that angle be able to see a hole in the toe and how the lace was under its heel? I am not sure I could do it.
This author would have us believe it could be done. When I read speculation like this in an effort to debunk, it impeaches the entire account for me. The author stretches the limits of Occam's razor by developing a convoluted set of multiple possibilities to account for the observation as well, necessarily complicating explanations, making them non-parsimonious, in order to confirm his bias against this type of phenomena.


Steve, you fail to see that the problem with Maria's NDE is not the details, but the fact that the original patient cannot be found for interview, hence there is no way of knowing what Maria saw as Clark is relying on seven year-old recollection of the events. We can't even know if this person existed at all!

This story is hearsay. Dr. Kenneth Ring made this report popular in one of his books. However, Ring did not witness any of these events; he is simply passing on a story that was recounted by Kimberly Clark Sharp, another NDE believer and author of the book “After the Light”. Sharp is the only witness of these events, it is impossible to interview “Maria”, and it is impossible to verify any sort of information about this case. Did Maria exist? Can we find medical records? Is there proof that she was in the hospital at the time? Can she be found and interviewed? Is there any verification other than Sharp’s own word?

Do you see how feeble the case is? In particular, with a little bit of research I could find a huge lie told by Ring in his interpretation of events. He says in his book that:

“Clark, who had heard about NDE's but was skeptical of them--and of Maria's story-- listened with feigned but seemingly empathic respect to the patient's account of what was, for Clark, her bizarre-sounding narrative?.”

However, Clark claims to have had a NDE at age 22 in her book! Click here for details.
http://www.seattleiands.org/HTM/br1.htm
How was she sceptical of NDEs when most of her book talks about her alleged NDE? Doesn't the fact that Clark was a strong believer taint her testimony, given the fact that we have no access whatsoever to the subject?

Can you see why am I less than impressed by this case? All you have is the word of a believer who has an agenda, that of writing books pushing her experience. What better way of making it more interesting and believable than by inventing the story of Maria?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Again with the scientist being closed minded? This coming from a woman who has apparently closed her mind to mundane explanations? *SSSniif!* I love the smell of hypocracy.
For some bizarre reason, some people see "being closeminded" as a legitimate arguement. Claiming that someone is "closeminded" is neither an arguement of logic nor science.

Usually, when it results to calling one or the other closeminded, thats usually the cry someone very desperate to undermine the credibility of another's scientific claim, or the cry of someone ignorantly refuses to question all those optimistic afterlife fantasies and think in terms of rationalism.

[SteveGrenard]

Anduin: Steve, you fail to see that the problem with Maria's NDE is not the details, but the fact that the original patient cannot be found for interview, hence there is no way of knowing what Maria saw as Clark is relying on seven year-old recollection of the events. We can't even know if this person existed at all!


Reply: Well this doesn't bother me since Clark's case involved a patient whose identity was shielded. By comparison, Michael O'Neill, the man who e-mailed Randi about his experience on Crossing Over cannot be found either and his contact point is being protected by Randi who did not allow anyone who has quoted him to talk directly with him. O'Neill is NOT a patient and has been widely quoted (same quotes as furnished by Randi) in TIME magazine and over and over again on skeptic websites and in skeptic literature with absolutely no way to confirm any of his assertions. O'Neill should be on the top of a skeptic lecture circuit relating his account and answering questions, but where is he?

I first read the Maria case in a Chapter by Clark in a book edited by Charles Greyson, M.D. of the University of Virginia Medical Center and Charles Flynn, pHD of Miami Univ, Oxford, Ohio. Clark wrote her case up as a clinical case history. While I am appealing to their credentials, I will do so: Clark at the time was an Assistant Clinical Professor at the School of Social Work and was an Instructor the University of Washington, School of Medicine.
The book, I referenced above, is a multiauthored volume
dealing with the pros and cons of NDEs. If some crackpot or some magician had written up Maria's story for the National Examiner I would not give it the attention it deserves; however all medical case histories shield patient identities and like it or not we often have to rely on the integrity and credentials of the investigators. What you are saying here, in effect, is that Clark is a liar (common phraseology around here ... she made up Maria, Harborview Medical Center backed Clark up and was part of the conspiracy, etc etc. and then Greyson and Flynn joined in and
accepted Clark's account at face value as well). Sorry, find it far fetched that the surgeon, the nurses, Clark's colleagues and an entire and well respected hospital in Seattle would sit idly by while Clark perpetrated a myth which is the counterclaim.
If Maria was non-existent and her account fabricated (even if she was real), the S.I. author would not have gone to the trouble of conjuring up numerous theories as to why she saw the sneaker by normal means and not during an OBE associated with her actual or literal brush with death experience. So I attack the Skeptical Inquirer author on those grounds and I ask again:

can one see a shoelace tucked under a heel and a hole worn in a toe of a sneaker from ground level when said sneaker is perched on a ledge three stories high? The most parsimonious explanation is, for this reason, the paranormal one.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
can one see a shoelace tucked under a heel and a hole worn in a toe of a sneaker from ground level when said sneaker is perched on a ledge three stories high? The most parsimonious explanation is, for this reason, the paranormal one.
Wholly depends upon whether or not Clark is telling the truth. That's why it's pointless to discuss the tale as if it is real evidence.

[SteveGrenard]

P: Wholly depends upon whether or not Clark is telling the truth. That's why it's pointless to discuss the tale as if it is real evidence.


Reply: Indeed. And this statement calls into question every case history ever published. If you cannot make a decision that you feel Clark is being truthful, that Harborview, the surgeons, the nurses and the entire staff of the medical center have no reason to refute Clark, then you call them all into disrepute. Is that your intention? Because if it wasn't, that is what you are saying by clear implication. With case histories and observers, not refuted by their institutions and backed up by other staff members (doctors and nurses), there has to be a line drawn which you should not cross unless you wish to implicate them all in some sort of conspiracy born of skeptic paranoia which is undeserved.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
P: Wholly depends upon whether or not Clark is telling the truth. That's why it's pointless to discuss the tale as if it is real evidence.

Reply: Indeed. And this statement calls into question every case history ever published. If you cannot make a decision that you feel Clark is being truthful, that Harborview, the surgeons, the nurses and the entire staff of the medical center have no reason to refute Clark, then you call them all into disrepute. Is that your intention? Because if it wasn't, that is what you are saying by clear implication. With case histories and observers, not refuted by their institutions and backed up by other staff members (doctors and nurses), there has to be a line drawn which you should not cross unless you wish to implicate them all in some sort of conspiracy born of skeptic paranoia which is undeserved.
Nice straw man, Steve. My refusal to accept Clark's anecdote does not mean that I am implicating anyone in a conspiracy, nor does it mean that I am calling them into disrepute.

Clark's story is not a case history. It is an anecdote. There is no way anyone can refute her story, nor can anyone validate her story. You've invented a scenario of all these people implicitly supporting Clark by virtue of not having denounced her. Fallacious reasoning, sorry -- appeal to ignorance, I think. A story is not valid just because it has not been refuted.

[SteveGrenard]

P: Clark's story is not a case history. It is an anecdote. There is no way anyone can refute her story, nor can anyone validate her story. You've invented a scenario of all these people implicitly supporting Clark by virtue of not having denounced her. Fallacious reasoning, sorry -- appeal to ignorance, I think. A story is not valid just because it has not been refuted.


I understand now that you have only read lay accounts of Clark's Maria case history, hence its denigration as a "story." It is presented in an peer edited volume as a case history: Greyson and Flynn: The Near Death Experience. 1984. C.C.Thomas Publishers, Springfield, Illinois.

I did not invent the surgeons and nurses that helped to conduct Maria's treatment; I did not invent the Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Washington where this case history ocurred. Its still there. You can see it anytime you go to Seattle or visit its website. I did not invent Maria's medical record which contained the details of this and other parts of Maria's care and treatment and which was examined by the medical staff there and secured in the Medical Records Department of Harborview. I did not invent the absence of any physician, nurse or administrator stepping forward to deny that Maria's case history ocurred as reported in writing by Clark. Given the publciity this written case history generated, how long do you think it would take for some physician at Harborview to read Maria's case history and then, if it was a fabrication or worse, didnt exist, publicly refute Clark? About two seconds! Yet you sit here on this forum years later and have the temerity to do exactly that w/o qualifications or evidence. Just unsubstantiated speculation.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
P: Clark's story is not a case history. It is an anecdote. There is no way anyone can refute her story, nor can anyone validate her story. You've invented a scenario of all these people implicitly supporting Clark by virtue of not having denounced her. Fallacious reasoning, sorry -- appeal to ignorance, I think. A story is not valid just because it has not been refuted.

I understand now that you have only read lay accounts of Clark's Maria case history, hence its denigration as a "story." It is presented in an peer edited volume as a case history: Greyson and Flynn: The Near Death Experience. 1984. C.C.Thomas Publishers, Springfield, Illinois.

I did not invent the surgeons and nurses that helped to conduct Maria's treatment; I did not invent the Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Washington where this case history ocurred. Its still there. You can see it anytime you go to Seattle or visit its website. I did not invent Maria's medical record which contained the details of this and other parts of Maria's care and treatment and which was examined by the medical staff there and secured in the Medical Records Department of Harborview.

I'll stipulate to the existence of Harborview Medical Center. I'll even stipulate to the existence of Maria and her medical records.

I did not invent the absence of any physician, nurse or administrator stepping forward to deny that Maria's case history ocurred as reported in writing by Clark. Given the publciity this written case history generated, how long do you think it would take for some physician at Harborview to read Maria's case history and then, if it was a fabrication or worse, didnt exist, publicly refute Clark? About two seconds! Yet you sit here on this forum years later and have the temerity to do exactly that w/o qualifications or evidence. Just unsubstantiated speculation.
Argument from ignorance, Steve, and another straw man.

The fact is that Clark's story hinges on her own testimony, and on that basis her story is anecdotal and cannot be accepted as evidence of NDE. I don't need special qualifications to see that.

Temerity? Yes, someone needs to have the temerity to call such legends into question.

[SteveGrenard]

You are still resorting to unsubstantiated speculation to avoid answering my question about the tennis shoes.

Fair enough. So long as we understand the basis for the non-response.

[anduin]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Well this doesn't bother me since Clark's case involved a patient whose identity was shielded. By comparison, Michael O'Neill, the man who e-mailed Randi about his experience on Crossing Over cannot be found either and his contact point is being protected by Randi who did not allow anyone who has quoted him to talk directly with him. O'Neill is NOT a patient and has been widely quoted (same quotes as furnished by Randi) in TIME magazine and over and over again on skeptic websites and in skeptic literature with absolutely no way to confirm any of his assertions. O'Neill should be on the top of a skeptic lecture circuit relating his account and answering questions, but where is he?
This is simply a 'tu quoque' fallacy that fails to address the point I made. This person cannot be found, is not available for interview and there is no way to determine any of the details. I happen to agree that the O'Neill argument is also useless, but that does not deal in the slightest with what I have highlighted. "Maria's" testimony is completely useless as evidence for NDE's.
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I first read the Maria case in a Chapter by Clark in a book edited by Charles Greyson, M.D. of the University of Virginia Medical Center and Charles Flynn, pHD of Miami Univ, Oxford, Ohio. Clark wrote her case up as a clinical case history. While I am appealing to their credentials, I will do so: Clark at the time was an Assistant Clinical Professor at the School of Social Work and was an Instructor the University of Washington, School of Medicine.
Their credentials are irrelevant to the strength of the evidence, just as Pons and Fleischmann had excellent credentials before the Cold Fusion debacle, but the evidence did not hold to scrutiny. Clark is an NDE believer who is profiting from this, we only have her testimony. I am afraid if I do not share your belief in people's good intentions, but this issue is too serious and important to rely on second-hand evidence.
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The book, I referenced above, is a multiauthored volume
dealing with the pros and cons of NDEs. If some crackpot or some magician had written up Maria's story for the National Examiner I would not give it the attention it deserves; however all medical case histories shield patient identities and like it or not we often have to rely on the integrity and credentials of the investigators.
This is irrelevant for the reliability of the evidence. The evidence is not reliable because there is no possible way to verify it. Period.
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What you are saying here, in effect, is that Clark is a liar (common phraseology around here ... she made up Maria, Harborview Medical Center backed Clark up and was part of the conspiracy, etc etc. and then Greyson and Flynn joined in and
accepted Clark's account at face value as well).
No, I have not said she is a liar, I am saying that fabrication cannot be ruled out. I have followed this case closely and I have not seen any evidence that Harborview has corroborated her story; perhaps you could direct me to where this has been documented? As for Greyson and Flynn, they do not need to be involved in a conspiracy, they only need to be shoddy researchers and believe Clark. Other NDE authors have done so, such as Kenneth Ring, and they have distorted the details of the story as told by Clark.
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Sorry, find it far fetched that the surgeon, the nurses, Clark's colleagues and an entire and well respected hospital in Seattle would sit idly by while Clark perpetrated a myth which is the counterclaim.
The problem is that we don't have the surgeon's testimony, the nurse's testimony, the colleagues' testimony, nor the hospital's testimony, do we?
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If Maria was non-existent and her account fabricated (even if she was real), the S.I. author would not have gone to the trouble of conjuring up numerous theories as to why she saw the sneaker by normal means and not during an OBE associated with her actual or literal brush with death experience.
Originally posted by SteveGrenard

So I attack the Skeptical Inquirer author on those grounds and I ask again:
What is this, the "Argument from bad debunking"? I don't know about the author of the article, but I know that this is the first thing that struck me from this report, we only have Clark's report to base any information on.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You are still resorting to unsubstantiated speculation to avoid answering my question about the tennis shoes.

Fair enough. So long as we understand the basis for the non-response.
I'm not speculating, Steve. This is an excercise in critical thinking and the use of intelligent logic. Clark's tale relies solely upon her own testimony regarding Maria's NDE. It is a fundamental logical fallacy to take it as valid evidence.


SB: Given the source of this investigation into the Harborview case, I am not surprised it glosses over some details making the tennis shoe example more valid. Its much more speculative than the case itself if one had to weigh both sides. They gloss over, for example, the fact that the patient had detected a hole in the toe and a shoelace tucked under the heel. They could not prove the patient was ever in the room whose ledge it was perched on and make a a leap of faith about seeing it from ground level, with this kind of detail, when it was on a ledge three stories up. If you were on ground level looking up at a 3-story high ledge and saw a shoe from that vantage point would you also, from that distance and at that angle be able to see a hole in the toe and how the lace was under its heel? I am not sure I could do it.


In this example, your argument -- and speculation -- rests upon the existence of the tennis shoe and Clark's testimony regarding it. We only have Clark's testimony that it ever existed, and she apparently did not keep it. Even if she did keep it and could produce the shoe, it still would not qualify as valid evidence.

Once again, accepting this story as valid evidence of NDE requires a fundamental logical fallacy.

[Titus Rivas]

Thanks for the comments.

Some of you skeptics seem to claim that we would need hard experimental evidence before we should take any NDE seriously as possible evidence of postmortem survival of consciousness. However, as Paul already pointed out, such experiments would be unethical. In fact I resent very much the unpleasant animal experiments that have already been done in the name of progress in PSI research. I certainly wouldn't want to add a record of irresponsible experiments on human subjects.

Anyway, is your view of science really so limited and strict that you would only accept experimental evidence? What about the naturalistic type of evidence of observation and reconstruction of sponateous events, which is used for example in history, archeology, paleontology (so crucial for evolution biology), clinical psychology, etc. I have read that in the English language the word science is equivalent to physics and chemistry (unlike terms in other European languages which denote any type of serious, rational empirical study into any physical, psychological, biological, cultural, historical etc. realm). For example, in Dutch we say taalwetenschap (= science of language) for linguistics.

Now, if we applied the naturalistic method to the analysis of the Pam Reynolds case, what (reasonable) criteria would you apply?

I know extraordinary claims are supposed to require extraordinary evidence, but if we take the PR case seriously, it certainly looks like extraordinary evidence, doesn't it?

Wouldn't you agree that when strict experiments are unethical, we should give all the more attention to non-experimental evidence, as Ian and Steve also seem to imply? We'd need any kind of serious evidence to safeguard the falsifiability of orthodox scientific theories. Without serious falsifiability, science stops beings empirical science. That's why dismissing anything out of hand that might pose a threat to one's theory used to be called dogmatism.

Titus:wink8:

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Wouldn't you agree that when strict experiments are unethical, we should give all the more attention to non-experimental evidence, as Ian and Steve also seem to imply? We'd need any kind of serious evidence to safeguard the falsifiability of orthodox scientific theories. Without serious falsifiability, science stops beings empirical science. That's why dismissing anything out of hand that might pose a threat to one's theory used to be called dogmatism.

Titus:wink8:
No. Accepting anecdotal evidence without relying upon experimental validation requires that we base the acceptance upon several unreliable assumptions. The problems of honesty, intended or unintended bias, erroneous recall, subjective interpretations, unfalsifiability, irreproducible results, and the vagaries of human imagination all make such evidence unacceptable.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Thanks for the comments.

...snip...

In fact I resent very much the unpleasant animal experiments that have already been done in the name of progress in PSI research. I certainly wouldn't want to add a record of irresponsible experiments on human subjects.

...snip...

Something just caught my eye - which "Psi" experiments have used animals and in what way were they mistreated?

[Pyrrho]

Relevant link:

http://www.sfu.ca/psychology/groups/faculty/beyerstein/research/articles/13MariasNDE.doc

[SteveGrenard]

D: Something just caught my eye - which "Psi" experiments have used animals and in what way were they mistreated?

Check out Karl Lashley's experiments on lab rats and memory.
He removed most of their brains and they still retained memories.

Heres a funny and interesting account of a salamander with a partially transplanted frog's brain as well:

http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/shufflebrain.html

[Titus Rivas]

The problems of honesty, intended or unintended bias, erroneous recall, subjective interpretations, unfalsifiability, irreproducible results, and the vagaries of human imagination all make such evidence unacceptable. But then, any type of reconstruction would be unacceptable within science as you define it. Would you really agree with that? Would you also agree (and I pose this question to all of you) that by this strict definition of what would constitute scientific (or scholarly) evidence, many questions such as a possible survival after death simply cannot be approached scientifically? And if so, would you also agree that anyone who accepts your definition of science should call himself an agnostic when it comes to such questions? But then if you do agree with that, 'scientific' skepticism should focus here on a supposed absolute unknowability of what may happen to consciousness during flat EEG. The confusing thing is that it doesn't. It takes pains to debunk concrete cases, whereas it might as well save all the energy by just declaring that spontaneous case studies can never provide any type of valuable scientific evidence.

What is it that I've missed? Or is it just a matter of strategy, debunking spontaneous cases individually, whereas skeptics really believe it is always worthless to document any case study whatsoever? I mean, a bit like the esoteric versus exoteric sides to religion. The initiates would know that skepticism is not really about debunking but about agnosticism, and the populace -too stupid to get point- is led to believe that skepticism is about dismissing just those things that don't fit in the materialist worldview.

Am I getting any warmer?

Best wishes,

Titus

[SteveGrenard]

The dismissal of case histories as anecdotes to be abhorred and rejected is a familiar skeptic/rejectionist and rhetorical tactic. They claim it as a hallmark of "critical thinking." It is something cynics use to hide behind the fact that they have no other truths or countervailing arguments to offer and it helps them to confirm their own biases. It is as silly as unsubstantiated speculation or the "Isn't it possible?" question.

Widespread acceptance of this line of reasoning would overturn all science going back thousands of years, particularly medicine which relies heavily on case histories from which to learn and to predict such things as epidemics or drug reactions or unintended effects of medications or procedures. Thankfully there are enough real thinkers out there to reject this nonesense before it stifles all advances.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The dismissal of case histories as anecdotes to be abhorred and rejected is a familiar skeptic/rejectionist and rhetorical tactic. They claim it as a hallmark of "critical thinking." It is something cynics use to hide behind the fact that they have no other truths or countervailing arguments to offer and it helps them to confirm their own biases. It is as silly as unsubstantiated speculation or the "Isn't it possible?" question.

Widespread acceptance of this line of reasoning would overturn all science going back thousands of years, particularly medicine which relies heavily on case histories from which to learn and to predict such things as epidemics or drug reactions or unintended effects of medications or procedures. Thankfully there are enough real thinkers out there to reject this nonesense before it stifles all advances.

Steve,

It is posts like these that really make me wonder what your agenda is. You are (supposedly!) knowledgable enough of science to know that what you are suggesting here is the exact opposite of how science progressed.

Science progresses from evidence. What is the falsifiable hypothesis? Where is the experimental data? Where is the evidence?

We have plenty of "truths and countervailing arguments". We don't hide anything. So what is your goal here? As far as I can see, only to sow doubt. You certainly don't bring any evidence to the table yourself.

Who are those "real thinkers" that prevents this "stifling" of all advances?

[SteveGrenard]

Claus: It is posts like these that really make me wonder what your agenda is. You are (supposedly!) knowledgable enough of science to know that what you are suggesting here is the exact opposite of how science progressed.

Reply: Science has progressed first and foremost based on observation, not on unsubstantiated speculation.


Claus: Science progresses from evidence. What is the falsifiable hypothesis? Where is the experimental data? Where is the evidence?

Reply: Substantiated case histories ARE evidence. This is what you are missing. If fifty people in a particular area come down with the symptoms of West Nile Fever, these are 50 case histories that provide evidence that West Nile Fever is present.
If there are fifty case histories detailing NDEs and they are all the same, these are 50 cases that provide evidence for NDES. Actually there are thousands of such cases. (ref: go to the IANDS website). Now do the experiment Claus but first let's hear how you would do that. It can't be done ethically, we decided that above. Have you read the whole thread? So we are left with case histories.

You live under the shelter of a belief that everything must be an experiment. LOL. The data is 50 people have presented themselves with the symptoms of West Nile Fever. 50 case histories. Same symptoms. Symptoms match those of West Nile.
No experiment. No controls. No hypothesis. Objective evaluation of confirmed case histories that lead to a self-evidencing conclusion. SO to hear you tell it, you wouldn't mind wading into the swamp where these cases are clustered and allow yourself to be bitten by hundreds of mosquitos. You remind me of the idiot doctor who said AIDS wasn't transmitted through the blood supply and to defend the blood supply, he went on television and allowed himself to be pricked by a needle just used to draw blood from an AIDS victim. I think his argument at the time was that implicating needle sticks and blood in the transmission of AIDS was anecdotal since it was only based on case histories. What a maroon. And worse, what an irresponsible stunt to perform. I wonder how many people he inadvertently killed by his actions? I wonder also if he got his mindset from being a member of CSICOP or some similar organization that spouts this line of crap.
Anybody remember CSICOP defending the blood supply at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic?


Claus: We have plenty of "truths and countervailing arguments". We don't hide anything. So what is your goal here? As far as I can see, only to sow doubt. You certainly don't bring any evidence to the table yourself.

Reply: I am waiting for Pyrrho or anyone to answer my question above re the tennis shoe. Instead of an answer, I get an argument that the case history could be a fake, dreamed up by its author, a respected professional, and published in a peer reviewed volume. Okay. Because of this response I am told it is not worth considering the question. If this isnt obfuscatory, I don't know what it. Perhaps I should have said: "Okay, let's make believe Maria's case history was real. Hypothetically, do me a favor, let's just say it is for argument's sake. Now can you answer the question? I shoudn't have to do this, however. I made a simple observation regarding a reported ability by someone who got this ability while allegedly out of body during an NDE; so because of this, it kills the question. Confirmation bias.I am told it should never be answered or can't be answered. Its pointless I am told. Its meaningless. There was more rhetoric given as to why it was pointless than the answer could have used up. Why was that? Because the answer was that only a paranormal explanation could provide the answer. The most parsimonious answer would have to be paranormal even though the SI authors tried hard inventing all sorts of rationales for it.

C: Who are those "real thinkers" that prevents this "stifling" of all advances?

Reply: Look in the telephone book, any telephone book. You are apt to find at least half of them in there.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Science has progressed first and foremost based on observation, not on unsubstantiated speculation.

No, Steve. It has progressed first and foremost based on observation, combined with falsifiable hypotheses, replicable experiments and the realization that hypotheses need to be re-evaluated.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Substantiated case histories ARE evidence. This is what you are missing. If fifty people in a particular area come down with the symptoms of West Nile Fever, these are 50 case histories that provide evidence that West Nile Fever is present.
If there are fifty case histories detailing NDEs and they are all the same, these are 50 cases that provide evidence for NDES. Actually there are tousands of such cases. Now do the experiment Claus but first let's here how you would do that.
It can't be done ethically, we decided that above. Have you read the whole thread. So we are left with case histories.

Yes, that's nice, Steve. What, in this case, is "substantiated"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You live under the shelter of a belief that everything must be an experiment. LOL.

Not at all. I fully realize that science is not perfect. But it gets better all the time, and not because we trust stories.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The data is 50 people have presented themselves with the symptoms of West Nile Fever. 50 case histories. Same symptoms. Symptoms match those of West Nile. No experiment. No controls. No hypothesis. Objective evaluation of confirmed case histories that lead to a self-evidencing conclusion. SO to hear you tell it, you wouldn't mind wading into the swamp where these cases are clustered and allow yourself to be bitten by hundreds of mosquitos. You remind me of the idiot doctor who said AIDS wasn't trasnmitted thrugh the blood supply and then on teleivison he allowed himself to be pricked by a needle just used to draw blood from an AIDS victim. I think his argument at the time was that implicating needle sticks and blood in the transmission of AIDS was anecdotal since it was only based on case histories. What a maroon.

Jonas Salk. You are sometimes incredibly ignorant of science, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I am waiting for Pyrrho or anyone to answer my question above re the tennis shoe. Instead of an answer, I get an argument that the case history could be a fake, dreamed up by its author, a respected professional, and published in a peer reviewed volume. Okay. Because of this response I am told it is not worth considering the question. If this isnt obfuscatory, I don't know what it. Perhaps I should have said: "Okay, let's make believe Maria's case history was real. Hypothetically, Do me a favor, let's just say it is for argument's sake. Now can you answer the question? I shoudn't have to do this, however. I made a simple observation regarding a reported ability by someone who got this ability while allegedly out of body during an NDE; so because of this, it kills the question. Confirmation bias.It should never be answered or can't be answered. Its poinless. Its meaningless. Wrong.

You must present your own evidence, Steve. That is what you cannot do, so you try to shift the burden onto others.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Look in the telephone book, any telephone book. You are apt to find at least half of them in there.
Your usual non-answer. Pah.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Relevant link:

http://www.sfu.ca/psychology/groups/faculty/beyerstein/research/articles/13MariasNDE.doc

The article states:

Despite the subjective realness of the NDE, however, modern neuroscience offers not only a wealth of reasons to doubt the possibility of disembodied minds


I haven't heard of any which are independent from the presupposition that materialism is correct (which of course begs the question). OK you linked to the article Pyrrho, care to name any of these reasons?



but it also provides much evidence that the compelling subjective phenomena of the NDE can be generated by known brain mechanisms (Beyerstein 1988, Blackmore 1991, 1993).



Which subjective phenomena? Certain of the subjective phenomena might be able to be so generated, such as the light, but this hardly consitutes compelling evidence that what is seen is not real.



Believers counter that the NDE seems too real to have been a dream or hallucination, but they forget that what we mean by the term "hallucination" is an internally-generated experience so detailed, emotional, and believable that it is indistinguishable from ordinary perceptions of reality (Siegel 1992; Beyerstein, in press).



If the "realness" of an experience gives absolutely no evidence that a given experience is real then that kinda makes it rather difficult to judge whether any of our experiences are real!

[SteveGrenard]

Substantiating a case history of WNV includes any person coming into a doctor's care or hospital casualty department with the following symptoms:


Fever

Extreme tiredness

Frontal headache

Muscle aches

Skin rash

Neck stiffness

Muscle weakness

Confusion

Encephalitis (swelling around the brain)

A history of having received one or more recent mosquito bites is unreliable and not necessary for substantiating WNV but
it would help. These are all observations and actually history given by the patient. Not a single experiment involved. Not a single hypothesis to falsify. Not a single piece of physical evidence (e.g. the dead mosquito with virus on board). If
we can't find the virus in these patients blood and tissue samples, are you willing to say it is not there? We have no
proof its WNV? Are you?

So Claus, I have 50 cases in the last week from an area around this local pond. They are all anecdotal. You would say these symptoms can be many things. Will you put your money where your mouth is and wade in this pond?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
[B]Relevant link:

http://www.sfu.ca/psychology/groups/faculty/beyerstein/research/articles/13MariasNDE.doc

Much can be learned from studying the orderly fashion in which these internally-constructed models shut down when the brain is traumatized, but because those who have been revived did not reach the irreversible state of brain death, any experiences they recall cannot be said to have come from "the other side."



Why not?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The dismissal of case histories as anecdotes to be abhorred and rejected is a familiar skeptic/rejectionist and rhetorical tactic. They claim it as a hallmark of "critical thinking." It is something cynics use to hide behind the fact that they have no other truths or countervailing arguments to offer and it helps them to confirm their own biases. It is as silly as unsubstantiated speculation or the "Isn't it possible?" question.

Mixing a person's genuine medical case history with another person's anecdote doesn't make the anecdote into a case history. It's convenient for you to confuse the terms, because it lends credence to dismissible legends. Stories are not sufficent evidence to believe in supernatural NDE.

Widespread acceptance of this line of reasoning would overturn all science going back thousands of years, particularly medicine which relies heavily on case histories from which to learn and to predict such things as epidemics or drug reactions or unintended effects of medications or procedures. Thankfully there are enough real thinkers out there to reject this nonesense before it stifles all advances.
Slippery slope fallacy. Medical studies do not rely solely upon "case histories" -- and here I'm using the term in its legitimate medical usage -- they also rely upon careful collection and study of data, based on the scientific method, not upon anecdotal evidence.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

As usual, you avoid the questions.

What, in this case (Pam Reynolds), is "substantiated"?

[SteveGrenard]

P: Mixing a person's genuine medical case history with another person's anecdote doesn't make the anecdote into a case history. It's convenient for you to confuse the terms, because it lends credence to dismissible legends. Stories are not sufficent evidence to believe in supernatural NDE.

Reply: I have no reason to assume this was not anything but a genuine medical case history. It was published by a member of the faculty of the Univ of Wa School of Medicine and a Critical
Care social worker at the Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.
It was published in a peer reviewed volume. Your characterizing this case as a "dismissable legend" is in serious breech of the known facts regarding this case. It was not just a bedtime story, it was a legitimate case history documented in the patient's medical record. Because you sir are not privy to that information does not make it any less so.





P:Slippery slope fallacy. Medical studies do not rely solely upon "case histories" -- and here I'm using the term in its legitimate medical usage -- they also rely upon careful collection and study of data, based on the scientific method, not upon anecdotal evidence.


Reply: I said medical science relies "heavily" on case histories.
You mistatributed and deliberately mischaracetrized my remarks into something other than what I said. Learning now from Claus are we? You said "solely." I said "heavily." I even gave examples. It really is shameful how you twist the facts and language to suit your own narrow minded agendas.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
[B]Relevant link:

http://www.sfu.ca/psychology/groups/faculty/beyerstein/research/articles/13MariasNDE.doc

One attempt to gather objective evidence of this sort, rather than the usual anecdotal, after-the-fact accounts, has been initiated by the British psychiatrist, Peter Fenwick (personal communication). He has had messages placed on ledges, above eye level, in the operating theaters of the hospital where he works. If a surgical patient should have an NDE/OBE, then his or her free-floating mind should be able to read the otherwise inaccessible message and recall it upon re-awakening. As yet, no one has been able to provide this kind of objective evidence,



I don't find it particulary surprising that people have failed to see such messages. Just imagine the situation. You're lying there in incredible pain, aware that you're on the threshold of death, and suddenly you find yourself apparently outside of your body somewhere near the ceiling. Of course, whether you would realise immediately that you were out of your body is debatable. What you will likely experience is complete confusion about what is happening. You will notice a body below, but will not immediately recognise yourself (think about what you look like in a mirror compared to a photograph). After a few seconds or so when you realise that it is in fact YOU below being operated on, or whatever, just imagine the profound emotional feelings and shock that will overcome you. One things for sure; you will be completely fixated by the image of your body below and the procedures being carried out on it. And then, remember, that this out of body stage only has a limited duration before a person finds himself/herself entering a darkness, going towards a light, approaching an otherworldly realm etc.

And it is not entirely clear that perceptions during these OBE's are like normal perception in anycase. The "vision" might arguably be described as an implicit awareness of ones environment. In such an out of body state it might well be that our "visual" perceptions are governed by the emotions. In other words that which we can identify with, that which has emotional resonance.

[Titus Rivas]

Pyrrho, am I right to think that a debunker who takes himself seriously should reject the possibility of acquiring any supposed rational inference about what happens to consciousness after death? I mean rather than claiming that it would be quite certain that consciousness dies with the body. According to your views, as I understand them, we can only learn something from strictly controlled experiments and all other stories should be dismissed out of hand as hearsay.
Would you agree that it is quite unwarranted to claim the scientific value of any hypothesis about what will happen after death, even if we're talking about skeptical claims of annihilation? Claims of annihilation cannot be tested through experimentation and fall therefore outside the scope of science as you define it. It's not a scientific hypothesis (in your definition) to state that death equals total personal destruction.

Titus

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I said medical science relies "heavily" on case histories.
You mistatributed and deliberately mischaracetrized my remarks into something other than what I said. Learning now from Claus are we? You said "solely." I said "heavily." I even gave examples. It really is shameful how you twist the facts and language to suit your own narrow minded agendas.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Answer the question, Steve. And send me that form to sign.

[SteveGrenard]

I ask one more time: would you agree to wade in the pond around which a cluster of WNV cases have anecdotally ocurred?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
P: Mixing a person's genuine medical case history with another person's anecdote doesn't make the anecdote into a case history. It's convenient for you to confuse the terms, because it lends credence to dismissible legends. Stories are not sufficent evidence to believe in supernatural NDE.

Reply: I have no reason to assume this was not anything but a genuine medical case history. It was published by a member of the faculty of the Univ of Wa School of Medicine and a Critical
Care social worker at the Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.
It was published in a peer reviewed volume. Your characterizing this case as a "dismissable legend" is in serious breech of the known facts regarding this case. It was not just a bedtime story, it was a legitimate case history documented in the patient's medical record. Because you sir are not privy to that information does not make it any less so.

The medical facts in this case, that is, the actual medical case history of the woman, is not in question. What is in question is Kimberly Clark Sharp's anecdotal account. It cannot be verified by perusing the patient's medical history. What you seem to regard as a key piece of evidence, the tattered shoe, cannot even be proven to ever have existed. All we have is Kimberly Clark Sharp's word, and that is just not sufficient. Publication in a peer-reviewed volume doesn't make it true.

P:Slippery slope fallacy. Medical studies do not rely solely upon "case histories" -- and here I'm using the term in its legitimate medical usage -- they also rely upon careful collection and study of data, based on the scientific method, not upon anecdotal evidence.

Reply: I said medical science relies "heavily" on case histories.
You mistatributed and deliberately mischaracetrized my remarks into something other than what I said. Learning now from Claus are we? You said "solely." I said "heavily." I even gave examples. It really is shameful how you twist the facts and language to suit your own narrow minded agendas.
I did not deliberately mischaracterize your remarks. I can see how you might think that, but such is not the case. Here's what you said:


SB: The dismissal of case histories as anecdotes to be abhorred and rejected is a familiar skeptic/rejectionist and rhetorical tactic. They claim it as a hallmark of "critical thinking." It is something cynics use to hide behind the fact that they have no other truths or countervailing arguments to offer and it helps them to confirm their own biases. It is as silly as unsubstantiated speculation or the "Isn't it possible?" question.

Widespread acceptance of this line of reasoning would overturn all science going back thousands of years, particularly medicine which relies heavily on case histories from which to learn and to predict such things as epidemics or drug reactions or unintended effects of medications or procedures. Thankfully there are enough real thinkers out there to reject this nonesense before it stifles all advances.
You attempted to argue a straw man by claiming the dismissal of case histories as anecdotes. The two are not synonymous. If we take your apparent definition of "case history", using the Kimberly Clark Sharp story as an example, we see that you seem to have confused the two terms. As I said, this is convenient for you, but I submit that your usage is incorrect. Maria's legitimate medical records are a case history. Kimberly Clark Sharp's retelling of her encouter with Maria is an anecdote, completely separate from the legitimate case history. You can make the anecdote part of the case history, but the anecdote does not thereby become a case history, nor does it become legitimate data or useful evidence.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Pyrrho, am I right to think that a debunker who takes himself seriously should reject the possibility of acquiring any supposed rational inference about what happens to consciousness after death? I mean rather than claiming that it would be quite certain that consciousness dies with the body. According to your views, as I understand them, we can only learn something from strictly controlled experiments and all other stories should be dismissed out of hand as hearsay.

Yup. Correct.

Would you agree that it is quite unwarranted to claim the scientific value of any hypothesis about what will happen after death, even if we're talking about skeptical claims of annihilation? Claims of annihilation cannot be tested through experimentation and fall therefore outside the scope of science as you define it. It's not a scientific hypothesis (in your definition) to state that death equals total personal destruction.

Titus
Given the laws of physics, and our observations of death and decay, annihilation is the most likely result. This hypothesis can be falsified by evidence that consciousness survives death, so, yes, it is a scientific hypothesis.

So far, no convincing evidence of such survival has been found.

[SteveGrenard]

P: Kimberly Clark Sharp's retelling of her encouter with Maria is an anecdote, completely separate from the legitimate case history. You can make the anecdote part of the case history, but the anecdote does not thereby become a case history, nor does it become legitimate data or useful evidence.


I read the case history in Greyson and Flynn but I have not read all and sundry popular retellings of this case history which you dismiss as stories. I base my remarks on the case history and case history alone. In order to validate your assertions one would have to carefully compare the case history with the popularized versions. I did not read Ring's account but you or someone implied it was modified as well. I have no proof of this and would need same to move further on this disucssion. In the meantime, I will reiterate my statement that this was a case history, one of many (not stories) published in the JIANDS and in other journals including recently in the journal RESUSCITATION and in the LANCET. I agree with you we shoud not work from popularized versions of case histories. I don't, but I can appreciate not everyone has access to all the original data and is only exposed to popular retellings.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Substantiating a case history of WNV includes any person coming into a doctor's care or hospital casualty department with the following symptoms:

Fever

Extreme tiredness

Frontal headache

Muscle aches

Skin rash

Neck stiffness

Muscle weakness

Confusion

Encephalitis (swelling around the brain)

A history of having received one or more recent mosquito bites is unreliable and not necessary for substantiating WNV but
it would help. These are all observations and actually history given by the patient. Not a single experiment involved. Not a single hypothesis to falsify. Not a single piece of physical evidence (e.g. the dead mosquito with virus on board). If
we can't find the virus in these patients blood and tissue samples, are you willing to say it is not there? We have no
proof its WNV? Are you?

So Claus, I have 50 cases in the last week from an area around this local pond. They are all anecdotal. You would say these symptoms can be many things. Will you put your money where your mouth is and wade in this pond?
I would. The rate of infection by WNV is very low, and the rate of serious illness in infected patients is low. My odds of wading in the pond and not contracting WNV are very good. If I were to wade in the pond and not contract WNV, it would not prove that WNV did not exist in the mosquitoes. Likewise, if I were to develop symptoms of WNV, it would serve to substantiate evidence that the mosquitoes carried WNV, although mosquitoes do carry diseases with similar symptoms.

Even though the list of symptoms indicates a probable WNV infection, without the virus or antibodies to the virus present in the patients' blood, or other evidence such as dead birds with WNV in their tissues to substantiate WNV infestation in the mosquitoes, you haven't proven that the patients actually have WNV. It's prudent to treat their symptoms, of course, and would be unethical to do otherwise.

Problem is, this is completely irrelevant to the NDE "cases" we've been discussing.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

As usual, you avoid the questions.

What, in this case (Pam Reynolds), is "substantiated"?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
P: Kimberly Clark Sharp's retelling of her encouter with Maria is an anecdote, completely separate from the legitimate case history. You can make the anecdote part of the case history, but the anecdote does not thereby become a case history, nor does it become legitimate data or useful evidence.

I read the case history in Greyson and Flynn but I have not read all and sundry popular retellings of this case history which you dismiss as stories. I base my remarks on the case history and case history alone. In order to validate your assertions one would have to carefully compare the case history with the popularized versions. I did not read Ring's account but you or someone implied it was modified as well. I have no proof of this and would ne