|
VICTOR J. ZAMMIT: A Lawyer rebuts
a negative psychologist on NDEs'
(Questions about the validity of the Out of Body
experiences come up all the time. Some people are confused
because of the debunkers’ erroneous claim that, ‘science
now proves NDEs are not valid.’ Accordingly,
below is my relatively brief but substantive rebuttal of
the major claims made by psychologist/lecturer and writer
Susan Blackmore Ph.D. She is a member of the Debunkers Association-
formally known as CSICOP- a negatively entrenched, debunking
organization. Accordingly, as a lawyer I state that Susan
Blackmore's NDE argument completely fails on two most fundamental
grounds: her proven entrenched anti-paranormal partiality
and her lack of 'technical comptenence' as NDE analyst.
Below in italics are the questions put to me, thenafter
are my replies. For any more questions/comments email victor@victorzammit.com
)
1# A number of hard lined skeptics cite their
anti-NDE, anti-afterlife heroine erroneously saying, “
…oh, Susan Blackmore proved that science does not
support NDEs as having anything to do with the afterlife.”
As a matter of fact, Ms Blackmore herself states,
“I have not claimed that any of my work proves
the Dying Brain Hypothesis.” Clearly, she is
stating that her NDE argument contains only CONJURE, SPECULATION
and GUESSWORK– NO science, NO empiricism, NO objectivity
at all. This concession would have made many anti-NDE, anti-afterlife,
anti-paranormal CSICOP members squirm. NDE expert Greg Stone,
professionally trained in physics and psychology, says that
her NDE research is “first and foremost, a personal
opinion in support of the skeptical viewpoint, not a statement
of scientific evidence.”
2.# Have there been any formidable rebuttals
of Blackmore’s claim that the neurological "Dying
Brain Hypothesis" better explains the evidence than
the more paranormal "Afterlife Hypothesis" ?
Yes, a number of formidable NDE experts have rebutted
the Dying Brain Hypothesis. These experts came to the conclusion
that Susan Blackmore’s work is purely speculative
– see Greg Stone’s A Critique of Susan Blackmore’s
Dying Brain Hypothesis. He shows her argument is irrelevant
to the afterlife and has absolutely nothing to do with legitimate
hard core science. She superimposed her debunking subjective
negativism onto the NDE model.
3.# But Dr Susan Blackmore is impartial about
NDEs.
First, Susan Blackmore Ph.D is (or was at the time
of her writing) a ‘fellow’ of CSICOP –an
actively anti-afterlife, anti-paranormal organization. CSICOP
is unofficially known as The Debunkers Association.
The culture of CSICOP is that members have to unqualifiedly
and in absolute terms believe and formally accept that the
afterlife and the paranormal do NOT exist and cannot exist
- AND be actively lecturing against the existence of the
afterlife and the paranormal.
The negatively entrenched Ms Blackmore has never
ever produced any research paper in favor of the existence
of the afterlife and the paranormal. Inevitably she has
a deeply entrenched negatively skewed perception of the
evidence for NDEs and for the afterlife. Her conclusions
inexorably are a priori that NDE and the afterlife do not
and cannot exist. She can never be empirically impartial
– this is a huge empirical problem for her. This issue
is not dissimilar to the analogy where a Ku Klux Klan Wizard
is claiming to be impartial in writing about whether or
not the African American is inferior to the white man.
4.# But she says she is a ‘scientist.’
Blackmore is not a pedigree scientist. She is a
writer and sometime psychology lecturer – someone
who deals with abstractions and theories – a million
miles away from brain surgery operations and face to face
experience with patients. She is inevitably very restricted
in her knowledge. Unlike the brilliant specialists: like
Dr Spetzler a highly respected and formidable brain surgeon
and other highly qualified scientists such as Dr Peter Fenwick
a neuro-scientist and cardiologists Dr Sam Parnia, Dr Pim
van Lommel who as a result of their high quality NDE research
and experience came to accept the mind/brain duality. Further,
these great specialists substantiate their findings by citing
actual cases. Blackmore does not cite one case - she just
uses her 'intuition' - which is unscientific, un-imperical
and inevitably scientifically unacceptable. Blackmore is
not medically qualified and is no match for the above-mentioned
highly qualified in medicine and biology. If you were a
patient with brain problem – would you go to journalist/writer/teacher
Blackmore or to professional brain surgeons and medical
scientists?
5.# But surely her NDE research is well accepted?
Given her proven negative partiality, deletions
and omissions and lack of any empirical and theoretical
equanimity when dealing with NDE - no court, no scientist,
no empiricist from any University or credible institution
in the world would accept that Ms Blackmore is able to be
impartial about NDEs. Where entrenched partiality is proven
even on a prima facie basis, the results automatically will
be invalid and rejected.
6.# But skeptics say all the time that she
is an authority on NDEs.
You are referring to the closed minded skeptics
and debunkers and her colleagues at csicop. They can delude
themselves - as they do everyday. They can deceive and fool
themselves as often as they like – but no objective
academic authority will accept she is an authority on NDEs.
Further, debunkers, materialists, cynics and the hard core
skeptics who accept something they claim to be scientific
when clearly it is not, believe it because they want
to believe it. Just as much as Fundamentalist Christians
want to believe that Jesus came down to earth to
save us from eternal hellfire.
7. # Does she not deal with mind/brain separation
and afterlife matters in her writings?
She raises the issues but does not deal with them
empirically. Contrary to NDE researchers who have meticulously
amassed evidence across many cultures she just repeats with
obstinate determination and with her negative prejudice
that there is no such thing as mind separate from the physical
brain. In fact as the above mentioned Greg Stone states
in his article, contrary to the proper role of an impartial
investigator, not once does she pursue the possibility that
what the NDEers state about the afterlife could be true.
Further, she uses the strongest determination to negate
the afterlife hypothesis. This restriction is a huge insurmountable
problem which makes her writing, for the objective observer,
a waste of time, money and energy.
8.# "... but she never said the afterlife
does not exist .."
To me she does. She repeated rejects any notion
of the paranomal and in her writing on NDEs says words to
the effect there is no reason to accept the afterlife...
However, because of her technical incompetence as a writer
or an empiricist she miserably fails to take into account
that NDEs are not an isolated phenomenon. There are TWENTY
ONE other areas of objective evidence of mind/brian duality
and the existence of the individual afterlife that I presented
in LAWYER PRESENTS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE AFTERLIFE www.victorzammit.com.
Incidentally, after eight years on the NET, no debunker,
no scientist, no empiricist no theoretician nor anybody
else in the world has been able to rebut the objective evidence
for the afterlife - IN ADDITION to the evidence I presented
for the afterlife in NDE research.
9. " ... Blackmore says that the veridical
experiences of NDEers are caused by, "
... prior knowledge, fantasy and lucky guesses and the remaining
senses of hearing and touch."
She does NOT account for NDEers describing in minutest
detail what was going on during an operation. She negligently
avoids dealing with the matter. When she says "oh,
they get lucky, or fantasize" on every occassion- that
is NOT science, or objectivity or emprical observation -
that is a materialist, a debunker and a closed minded skeptic
refusing to deal with the specificities of the what the
NDEer actually witnessed. And that is totally inadmissible
as a rebuttal. Nor can she state 'prior knowledge'
when the experience had NOT taken place before the operation.
This shows Blackmore's lack of depth, lack of understanding,
lack of skills and competence to pursue what the NDEers
are ACTUALLY experiencing. Dr Michael Sabom's empirical
work completely demolishes this attempt to rationalise.
10. # Does she not have the prerogative to
write about the field in her own way?
A true empirical writer is in no position to willfully
omit evidence for an alternative view just because that
alternative is inconsistent with her own personal, negative
beliefs. That would NOT be empiricism, it would NOT be objectivity,
it would NOT be science. That would be self serving inadmissible
and invalid nonsense.
11.# Ms Blackmore states “Science tells
us that death is the end and as so often, finds itself opposing
religion.” Is this not a clear statement of a truth?
As Greg Stone puts it, Ms Blackmore here “misrepresents
both religion and science.” Science is a method of
learning about the physical universe by applying the principles
of the scientific method, which includes making empirical
observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations,
and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways.
Scientists who have not investigated the afterlife are in
no position to make a pronouncement that “death is
the end”.
Ms Blackmore is using her position as a psychologist
to mislead, misinform and misdirect the public. She deliberately
ignores the fact that many scientists of the highest caliber
used scientific method and came to the conclusion the afterlife
exists. (see chapter 2 A LAWYER PRESENTS THE EVIDENCE FOR
THE AFTERLIFE www.victorzammit.com
).
12. # Are you saying she deliberately omits
critical evidence relevant to NDEs?
Yes, absolutely. Ms Blackmore’s mind consciously
or otherwise deletes critical evidence – her mind
just will not allow her to accept the huge volume of confirmed
information which is inconsistent with her own personal
negative cherished beliefs. Psychology and Neurolinguistic
Programming confirm that. Greg Stone deals with this issue
most eloquently and convincingly – as he says, it
is her prejudice, not the research which dictates her conclusion.
MOST FUNDAMENTAL OMISSION: the fact that Blackmore
did not deal with those patients who were blind and had
a NDE – relating accurately what was going on during
their operation, shows that Blackmore is either 1) incompetent
as an analyst or 2) she does not understand what is admissible
evidence or 3) she is too negatively entrenched to include
information fundamentally inconsistent with her own subjective
negatively prejudicial beliefs. These are all consistent
with other informed critics of Blackmore's negatives conclusions
in other of her psi research.
13. # What about her argument that it is the
dying brain that causes NDEs ?
An internationally renowned surgeon relatively recently
talked about the case of one of his patients, Pam Reynolds.
During an operation for a brain tumor her eyes and ears
were sealed, her body temperature was lowered, the blood
was drained out of her brain, there was no electrical activity
in her body at all, her brain was ‘flat-lined.’
From a physiological point of view her brain was dead for
over an hour. But during this time that the monitors were
showing flat lines she had a powerful NDE including verifiable
observations of what was happening around her. This completely
destroys the argument that the NDE is caused by the dying
brain shutting down.
14.# Why do you think you can rebut a psychologist
- you're not a psychologist, she is.
In addition to my law degree, I have a Major in
Psychology with an adjunct major (three years) in Scieintific
Method and Statistics from the University of New South Wales
- one of the leading Universities in the world in the teaching
of Psychology and Law. I was going to do a Masters in psychology,
but found there was very little, if any, science in it.
So I switched to Law and studied evidence at the
highest level and practised law at the highest level. In
afterlife matters, it is critical to know what is admissible
evidence, what is not. What Susan stated is not admissible
empirical or scientific or objective evidence. It is a subjective,
personal view about her own restricted cherised beliefs.
15. # But Ms Blackmore claims to be a Buddhist.
How is it that she ignores the afterlife?
Whilst Susan may be a nice lady she appears not
to understand something very important about the religion
of Buddhism. There is a huge irreconcilable problem for
Ms Blackmore; she states she’s been a Buddhist for
some 20 years but when she denies the afterlife hypothesis
she is acting inconsistently with all the tenets of Buddhism.
The religion of Buddhism is based on the separation of the
mind from the brain and the afterlife. Again, this is most
embarrassing for someone who claims to a practitioner of
Buddhism but has trouble accepting the afterlife aspect
of Buddhism.
16# What about Blackmore’s statement
“The problem with evolution is, and has always been,
that it leaves little room either for a grand purpose to
life or for an individual soul.”
This is a totally journalistic, speculative and
unscientific assertion not backed by a shred of evidence.
Again, it reveals her deep seated irrevocably entrenched
anti-afterlife position.
Part 2 by Greg Stone, psychologist
Here are some observations made by psychologist
and science (physics) trained Greg Stone about Blackmore’s
NDE article:
“(She) misrepresents both religion and science.”
“She offers the unsupported and blatantly
false statement that “science tells us” death
is the end.”
“Dying to Live turns out to be, first and
foremost, a personal opinion in support of the skeptical
viewpoint, not a statement of scientific proof.”
“Blackmore never presents the actual Afterlife
Hypothesis; she presents a version intended to be refuted
– a straw man argument.”
“Skeptics make the mistake of claiming scientific
proof when she offers only opinion.”
“The dismissal of the key issue (separation
of mind/body) casts doubt on the integrity of the (her)
work ..”
“ … We are presented with amateur psychology
in lieu of scientific proof.”
“… she needs to distinguish core factors
– such as separation from the body – from the
varied content of perception. When this critical difference
is overlooked (in her NDE research) the validity of the
work is undermined.”
“When it comes to the study of humans, such
reductionism results in absurd conclusions”
“She assumes incorrectly, that NDE phenomena
must be purely medical, psychological or physiological with
no spiritual component.”
“Throughout the book, one finds this pattern
repeated. Evidence that clearly supports the Afterlife Hypothesis
is presented, then, without explanation, the opposite conclusion
is advanced.”
“Bias and prejudice undermine scholarship.”
“Prejudices erode and damage the quality
of her NDE research.”
“Non-sequitur conclusions diminish her case.
She takes evidence A and concludes B.”
“She favors scientists’ assumptions
over firsthand accounts.”
“… she has no intention of considering
the Afterlife Hypothesis.”
“… when evidence points to the Afterlife
Hypothesis, it is blatantly ignored.”
“The bias toward philosophical materialism
prevents consideration of the alternative hypothesis.”
“Contrary to skeptics’ claims, she
fails to weigh the evidence in light of the two opposing
hypothesis.”
“One must at least attempt to come to grips
with the details and not summarily dismiss the phenomena
as brain-induced hallucination.”
“Her (descriptive) dismissal of evidence
that stands in opposition to her theory makes no sense …”
“Not only does Blackmore blatantly toss out
primary research and substitute her own prejudices, she
makes the outrageous statement, “For there is nothing
else.” This begs the question, how does she know “there
is nothing else?”
“When making a decision on which hypothesis
is supported by the research, without doubt, the Afterlife
Hypothesis wins out.”
“In the face of data that clearly contradicts
her theory, Blackmore simply contends the Afterlife Hypothesis
is false.”
“If one follows the arguments in the book,
however, it’s clear the sole purpose if to debunk.”
“ …we arrive not at scientific conclusions
but rather at her personal view of the world.”
“Blackmore’s final attempt to dismiss
the evidence by attributing it to ‘lucky guesses’
is an insult … is an arbitrary method of eliminating
research that contradicts one’s pet theory.”
“She offers no proof that NDE perceptions
are imagination …”
“If, as the data suggests, spirit exists
separate from the body and survives body death, it is Blackmore’s
desire to deny the existence of spirit that leads to exaggeration,
falsification, and fantasy. The Dying Brain theory is the
result of her passionate desire to debunk the Afterlife
Hypothesis.”
“She fails to understand the ‘reality’
of the subjective – energy patterns that make up the
mind (not the brain), which encompass the spirit and account
for much of the content of the NDE.
“She falls back on prejudice, “the
brain did it.”
“Her simplistic, reductionist model fails
to account for natural everyday consciousness, let alone
the NDE reports of perception from the outside the body.”
“Skeptics may be surprised to discover she
holds this viewpoint which directly contradicts their debate
platform.”
“(Her) ‘we can never know’ theory
simply fails to cross the threshold into an understanding
of the subjective and the objective, and the relationship
between them.”
“Drugs bring confusion not enlightenment”
– (referring to her claim she had a NDE by taking
ketomine.)
“Blackmore, in my opinion, ignores the research
and takes a tortuous route into pure speculation of a most
tenuous nature. She speculates only …”
“Most of those reporting NDE know the difference
and state they are perceiving from outside their body very
vividly. Not memory. Not imagination. First hand, in- the-present
-observation.”
“One might suggest her theory derives from
the confusion arising from the drugged state.” (when
she took the drug ketomine).
“Her theory falls apart on this point; the
seashore example is a ‘cheat.’ ”
“She fails to account for OBE without drugs,
or injury, or near death.”
“She fails to account for their vivid perceptions
which differ from recall or imagination.”
“She turns away from actual research data,
from the reports, and from logic in constructing her ‘model.’
She makes false claims for her model.”
“She tells us nothing new and employs false
standards.”
(Regarding her claim that NDE’s are, inter
alia, ‘memories’): “Why would one have
‘memories’ of something one never experienced?
(She has not answered:) “Why do NDErs consistently
report being outside their body instead?”
“Again, the perceptions of NDEers contradict
her explanations.”
“Thus her conjecture does not fit the data.
Not only it is not scientific proof, it is conjecture that
does not conform to the facts at hand.”
“In an amazing intellectual sleight-of-hand,
Blackmore goes on to claim a bird’s-eye viewpoint
is a prediction that supports her Dying Brain theory.”
“The ability to predict a factor that supports
the Afterlife Hypothesis does not support the Dying Brain
hypothesis.”
“Her research fails to correlate OBE with
imagination, yet she states the OBE is imagination.”
“The remainder of her NDE research only furthers
the basic errors seen in the earlier chapters. These include
a failure to consider the assumptions of the Afterlife Hypothesis,
a failure to confirm to the data on hand and the presentation
of conjecture regarding brain theories that don’t
fit the NDE reports.”
“Skeptics claim Blackmore provides scientific
proof that NDEs are merely phenomena, proof spirit does
not exist. This is simply false. Dying to Live presents
conjecture, assumptions, speculation, but NO proof. Furthermore,
her concencture does not match the evidence she presents.”
“Everytime the evidence and the reports clearly
support the Afterlife Hypothesis, she makes a non-squitur
leap to the Dying Brain Hypothesis. Should we blame her
for not understanding the Afterlife Hypothesis? No. This
is NOT her are of expertise.”
Susan Blackmore Ph.D replies:
“I have not claimed that any of my work proves
the Dying Brain Hypothesis.”
“My account is far from complete.”
“Am I as horribly biased as Greg Stone suggests?”
“I found that many of my assumptions were
wrong …”
“As happens with many NDEers, my (NDE) experiences
and my research have taken away the fear of death …”
(Read her full page response in Greg Stone's article
mentioned above)
-- Victor Zammit, September 2005
<<
Return to Index | 