PDA

View Full Version : Debunking the Pseudo-Skeptics



Tempestinateapot
27th January 2007, 02:04 AM
Debunking the Pseudo-Skeptics and Debunkers of NDEs
Copied from: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/skeptic09.html

Many people who refer to themselves as skeptics of near-death experiences are actually pseudo-skeptics. A true skeptic, as defined by the philosophers of ancient Greece, is a nonbeliever - a person who does not make conclusions based on evidence that is inconclusive.

Critics of near-death experiencers who assert negative claims but call themselves skeptics often think they have no burden of proof. Such critics who take this stance think it is only necessary to present a case for a counter-claim based upon the plausibility of evidence rather than empirical evidence. Such pseudo-skeptics are actually believers that the survival of consciousness after death is impossible.

What Pseudo-Skeptics Do

Pseudo-skeptics of near-death experiences have done the following:

(1) Claim that science already knows everything, and since it doesn't include the reality of an afterlife, it can't exist. This is referred to as scientism.

(2) Claim that the assumptions underlying consciousness and death are empirical facts that science has already proven.

(3) Have already decided that an afterlife is impossible, even though evidence has not ruled it out, and they are not interested in participating in a debate anyway.

(4) Make claims such as "Consciousness cannot survive death" and they base it on scientific expertise they don't have.

(5) Are skeptical only about near-death experiences instead of applying their skepticism equally to normal and paranormal claims, and even to their own skepticism.

(6) Respond to claims that were not made, such as: "Since near-death experiences have a brain chemical connection, there is no afterlife."

(7) Argue that an afterlife contradicts established theories of nature, and because all other alternative explanations of near-death experiences have been exhausted, claims of the existence of an afterlife are fraud.

(8) Firmly believe that an afterlife is impossible regardless of any evidence.
(9) Refuse to see the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the existence of an afterlife by claiming that near-death experiences are just a hallucination.

(10) Debunk near-death experiences by associating them with something else such as: "If we suppose that an afterlife exists, then we might just as well suppose werewolves exist."

(11) Resort to personal attacks, such as, "These people are nuts!" instead of focusing on the issue at hand.


By this definition, pseudo-skeptics are not true skeptics because they have already made up their minds that near-death experiences are nothing more than chemical reactions in a dying brain which produces hallucinations from a dying brain. Such pseudo-skeptics make these claims without a shred scientific evidence.

But a true skeptic of the theory that consciousness survives death will keep an open mind and not take a position in favor nor take a position against it until it is proven either true or false.

CFTraveler
27th January 2007, 02:15 AM
Thanks for posting that. There are a lot of pseudo skeptics out there.
I call them 'scofftics'.

Zante
29th January 2007, 02:28 PM
While we're on the subject I just want to quickly mention the ever-controversial James ♥♥♥♥♥ and the like.

There's a lot of contention between these two schools of thought and it's very easy to get wrapped up in trying to prove something which, for most intents and purposes, cannot be proven without first-hand experience. It doesn't help that the ♥♥♥♥* are taking it upon themselves to try and "confront" people outside their own forums. To get to the point, they have rationalized the act of trolling and seem to think that they have a license for it now.

Understand from where it is these people are coming. They do not harbor a malicious intent towards us, they just simply are not capable of understanding things from our perspective. A common mistake they make is believing that we don't take the symptoms of drug abuse into account and that we are ignorant of the research into this phenomena by the likes of Dr Olaf Blanke.

The only way we can respond is by referencing a comment from Dr. Bruce Greyson...



"We cannot assume from the fact that electrical stimulation of the brain can induce OBE-like illusions that all OBEs are therefore illusions,"

Anything else will not be taken seriously by these people, your own opinions least of all. My advice is to avoid provoking them as they will not rest until their egos have been satiated. Many of them are just cynical and that is to be expected of the energy that Mr ♥♥♥♥♥ surrounds himself with. We can only wait for them to make themselves look silly. They're looking to start a war because they're competing for positions of authority, it's the same with any religious mentality.

Leave them be and consider them as being untouchable with regards to how close-minded their thinking is.

CFTraveler
29th January 2007, 04:08 PM
Zante wrote:
My advice is to avoid provoking them as they will not rest until their egos have been satiated. Who's provoking them?

Zante
29th January 2007, 04:26 PM
Perhaps that should be "do not risk provoking them". A while ago, while in a chat, I mentioned this concept to them and as a result they went on something of a "crusade" to the Astral Pulse to stir up trouble.

journyman161
29th January 2007, 08:16 PM
*shrugs* It happened here as well. And there is a thread somewhere about the veracity or otherwise of the million dollar offer - I have to get to work or I'd find it & post a link here.

When you see a hyena sleeping under a tree, you try not to wake it - poking it with a stick is not a good thing.

Tempestinateapot
29th January 2007, 10:04 PM
What I posted has not referred to the ♥♥♥♥♥ people at all. They aren't the only skeptics around. We have skeptics who are members of this forum (including myself). I don't buy into every New Age thing I read about. I just thought that was a good article on the difference between a true skeptic and one who pretends to be.

This is an open forum, and we say a lot of provoking things to each other. There are many perspectives presented in threads and posts here. It helps people to grow and learn by considering the opinion of another and weighing it.

Having said that, the ♥♥♥♥♥ people have already been here. It matters not what they read on our forum. Anyone posting that someone here needs to "prove" their claims by taking the ♥♥♥♥♥ challenge will be banned and their thread deleted. We've been down this useless road before, and Robert has made his feelings about it known.

journyman161
29th January 2007, 11:16 PM
CSICOPs are notorious for falsifying data to 'prove' their cases. One of the founder left because he couldn't take the way they misrepresented things to make it look like they were right. Also apparently rather heavily biased into the orthodox religion side of things but I'd have to check that further.

journyman161
29th January 2007, 11:27 PM
Some links to check out CSICOPs...

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/upd ... -007.shtml (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/jun/m03-007.shtml)
http://www.hpleft.com/starbaby.html - Dennis Rawlins got rather annoyed at the way they did things.

How CSICOPs like to do things
http://www.gamegene.com/esci_blog013sce ... ubted.html (http://www.gamegene.com/esci_blog013scepticsdoubted.html)

wjjw
30th January 2007, 03:27 AM
Brian Josephson also did a write up on this one, pointing out the 50 to 1 odds of a chance guess for the proclaimed "failure."
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

Zante
31st January 2007, 09:04 PM
One thing that gets to me is how Dr Olaf Blanke has supposedly been reported as stating that one of his subjects was capable of perceiving areas which lied "beyond their sensory range". It seems he mentioned it on a radio interview but never published it.

It's almost as though he's afraid of not being taken seriously : /

He's already identified the projected double but is instead calling it a "shadowy man".

The dramatic irony is killing me ><

CFTraveler
28th March 2013, 10:22 PM
I found this at a FB group that I peruse:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm

CFTraveler
14th September 2013, 03:38 PM
That is true, and it's why I cringe when in certain spiritual circles people start saying that we should go back to 'how things used to be' belief-wise. Shudder.

Sinera
14th September 2013, 05:06 PM
...the skeptics are the only thing protecting us from the wrath of the angry mob. '
Interesting point you raise here. Need to give it some thought. Really refreshing perspective.

And maybe it's also a good 'trick' to get along better with pseudo-skeptics again and avoiding disliking them too much (while I still can dislike their attitude or fake arguments).

CFTraveler
21st April 2014, 05:01 PM
http://ripplesinapoolofhighstrangeness.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/me-vs-carl-sagan/
Nice wordpress article.