IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok! | Main | Signs »

Comments

I honestly think Dr Woerlee cannot get the brutal explanation for why other NDE researchers and educated laymen such as those of us who post here do not use his arguments. We are familiar with NDE research and know how screwy his arguments really are.

Kris, I have read your comments on Woerlee on the Amazon-site, and I must admire you! Your argumentation is as sound as it can be - yet, Woerlee goes on thinking that he is the only person in the world who truly understands the NDE. Apparently, all other NDE-researchers are plain stupid... yeah yeah.

One thing, also I would like to know when and where Keith Augustine distances himself from Woerlee's absurd opinions.

Regards - Rudolf

Hey read my latest response to Woerlee.

Keith ditched the earplug on this blog actually

And thanks for your kind words! I am just an educated laymen on this subject and I honestly feel like I went against one of the truly big guns and won. Honestly I was afraid of screwing up and making all separation hypothesis supporters look bad, but I think I won that one.

Rudolf/ Kris, what's the url for the amazon discussion?

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2PDWUDNGPXJT3/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0061777250&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful

I think I won this one simply cause Woerlee defends the impossible

I have looked again at the amazon blog! Truly, Kris, you are doing a formidable job!
Woerlee is clearly on the defense.
Thumbs up!

Regards
Rudolf

Kris is indeed doing a formidable job, but unfortunately it is one of ignoring the evidence in favour of his, and others belief system.

Kris and his followers seem to accept the statements of others rather than view the evidence for themselves.

Curious that none of these people seems inclined to examine the evidence step by step for either the Pam Reynolds or the Dentures cases.

In the case of Pam Reynolds, the evidence is clearly demonstrated in the chapter on this matter in the book by Sabom called Light & Death.

In the case of the man with the dentures, the evidence is listed piece by piece on my website together with PDFs of the published transcripts. These are in Dutch, but Google Translate is very useful. See:

www.unholylegacy.woerlee.org/man-with-the-dentures.org

When you read the evidence on the man with the dentures case, you cannot but be surprised how different people come with different explanations. Very curious. Stranger yet, all scientific articles in my JNDS article that explain the phenomena observed in the man with the dentures case are ignored and dismissed by Smit and Rivas with the explanation that they are too detailed and boring. This qualifies as strange science when scientific arguments are dismissed and replaced with a "God of the Gaps" belief system employed in the article of Smit.

Moreover, the character of the article published by Smit and Rivas is of such a nature as to be potentially damaging to the academic reputation of the JNDS.

I weary of the arguments of Smit, Key, and Wood, for they also demonstrate little understanding of the physiological facts about which they speak. True, my views are not those of most of the NDE community. They are those of a physiologist and physician with years of experience dealing with unconscious people. The sad truth for most NDE believers is that most of my colleagues and other scientists simply dismiss NDEs and OBEs as hallucinations. I do not. I study them seriously because they enable fascinating philosophical questions to be answered.

So study the facts if you dare.

I will not react to comments on this piece, as I have a busy schedule.

Excuses, I made a slight mistake in the web address. It should be:

www.unholylegacy.woerlee.org/man-with-the-dentures.php

Gerry

I plan to chill from the argument a little but in a day or two I will simply put Woerlee in checkmate.

I will simply let people read the discussion between myself and Woerlee and come to their own conclusions.

In a comment appended to his online discussion of the dentures case (which can be accessed at the bottom of the page linked to "found on his website" in the main post), Dr. Woerlee responds to the article by Smit and Rivas. He writes in part:

"Aside from the question of whether Smit and Rivas had permission from the IANDS to post their article on the internet, serious readers will notice that this article fails to address any of the points I raised in my article in the JNDS or on this website. Instead their article, which took a year to write, contains little information except for scurrilous ad hominem commentary which can only succeed in diminishing any academic respect the JNDS may enjoy. I am happy with criticism, but then let it be based upon the facts and not a personal vendetta. This is not science."

First, Rudolf Smit tells me he obtained permission to post the article online.

Second, I've read the article three times, and I don't see any "scurrilous ad hominem commentary." I do see several points where the authors express surprise or disappointment that Dr. Woerlee allegedly overlooked some crucial details of the nurse TG's testimony, but this hardly qualifies as a "personal vendetta." And when they suggest that Dr. Woerlee is driven by a desire to defend a materialist worldview - well, I think that's patently obvious. Just look at his website. (There's nothing wrong with having an agenda, but at least own up to it.)

Third, the paper by Smit and Rivas does respond forcefully to Dr. Woerlee's main contentions. I found their replies to points 2 and 3 extremely cogent and persuasive. (On point 4, they admit they are not sure how to explain the patient's experience, and on point 1, I felt they could have gone into more medical detail.) The paper includes lengthy excerpts from TG's testimony that directly addresses Dr. Woerlee's conjectures. Given these long and highly relevant quotations from the original source, it's simply not correct to say that the paper contains "little information."

I don't think anyone can determine exactly what happened in that emergency room back in 1979. But when I look at the dentures case in combination with scores of other NDEs in which veridical information was obtained, I find the strictly physiological-psychological explanation unsatisfactory.

I should add that I've used Google Translate to obtain a (very imperfect) English translation of TG's remarks, as Dr. Woerlee suggests, and I'd advise others who are interested in this case to do the same. Go to Dr. Woerlee's web page (linked in main post and in his comment), download the two PDFs, then use Google Translate in its "translate document" mode.

The links to the PDFs are found under the heading "The basic articles" just above "References," near the bottom of the page.

Gotta say I'm not too impressed with Google Translate. Here's a representative section of TG's interview, as translated by computer from Dutch to English.

[begin quote]
"And so he sets out his teeth that I rnond get and put on a shelf of a cart with all bottle- s it. And he still hears the clink of the bottles.
Interviewer: Did he say that he could see? TG: He said he saw it. He beschreefdat I on a salad made. He thought it was a drawer, it was a tableautje pull, but as a salad beschreefhet really. I had indeed filed his false teeth, it lay between various syringes we had finished lie, we needed for resuscitation. And on that shelf that Karre- tje lay his teeth and beschreefhij so. And then I go by asking "Yes, but have you seen?" "Yes, yes, I h £ b I've seen it and felt it, because it was very much pain! And then I had something to cut it, because you reminds me very much pain, I live hear. Something like that."
[end quote]

Pretty unintelligible. Some parts are better, but overall I'm not gleaning much from this material. As the saying goes, it loses something in translation ...

"They are those of a physiologist and physician with years of experience dealing with unconscious people. The sad truth for most NDE believers is that most of my colleagues and other scientists simply dismiss NDEs and OBEs as hallucinations. I do not." - Gerry
--------------------------------------------

Gerry, I'm curious. Have you studied or noticed the connection between near death experiences and the holographic universe theory? How people who have NDE's oftentimes describe them in terms that seem to be very "holographic?" A guy named Dr. Oswald Harding wrote a book about it, Dr. Ken Ring wrote a chapter about it in his book, Life At Death, and Dr. Melvin Morse devoted several pages to it in his book Where God Lives. I seem to recall that Michael Talbot also mentioned the connection in The Holographic Universe (book).

Anyway, I've always found it strange that regular normal people, many who have never heard or read about the holographic universe theory, come back after their experiences and say things that have a very holographic flavor to them?

People who have NDE's routinely talk about overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness, feeling like they are everywhere in the universe at once, time and space not existing, buildings that are "made out of knowledge", 360 degree vision, seeing colors they've never seen before, hearing sounds that they haven't heard in this physical universe, and during the life review seeing their whole lives flash by in an instant (bolus of information)and feeling the emotions and feelings of the people they interacted with (the life review is a holographic experience par excellence), and how the other side will feel even more real to us than this side does, and feeling the feelings and hearing the thoughts of the people they interacted with. A couple of NDE's that I've read Kelly K's and Victor Solow even mentioned that they saw or came upon a large net like structure that connected everything - which brought to mind the inside of the holodeck in Star Trek The Next Generation.

Anyway, I was just curious if you had ever heard about or studied the connection between NDEs and the holographic universe theory?

This is a "for instance" from a brand new NDE just posted on the NDERF.org site. The guy's name is Mike Illitch JR. It was just posted today. Here is an excerpt from his NDE that I believe has a "holographic" flavor...

"I had a knowledge or oneness with everything it seemed...everything connected...a oneness I had never known. Also colors were brighter and more distinct, vivid and enriched...some were colors we don't have on Earth or I've never seen before."
http://www.nderf.org/mike_i_jr_nde.htm

It's interesting he says it was MORE distinct because just recently there have been some articles in New Scientist and other science journals or magazines about the holographic universe and the director of the lab, a guy named Hogan, says that in a holographic projection (our universe) there would be a certain inherent blurriness - but in the original hologram this blurriness wouldn't exist! I believe what people are experiencing when they are out of their bodies is the original "implicate" universe that our universe is projected from.

"Hogan realized that in order to have the same number of bits inside the universe as on the boundary, the world inside must be made up of grains bigger than the Planck length. ‘Or, to put it another way, a holographic universe is blurry,’ says Hogan."
http://blogs.monografias.com/sistema-limbico-neurociencias/2010/02/19/the-holographic-universe-when-it-pays-to-be-first/

I never could figure out why so many near death experiencers said that it seemed even more real and that they had even more consciousness than here and that it was "clearer" than what we experience here.... Until I read that New Scientist article and Hogan talked about the blurriness in a holographic projection! All of a sudden I had an "Ah-Ha!" moment and all the pieces of the puzzle fit into place.


Oh yeah, the "more colors thing?" That's because without the limitations of the physical body we will be able to see the ENTIRE light spectrum instead of just a small part of it. Many near death experiencers have remarked on the "more colors" and it didn't take me long to figure out that they are seeing the entire spectrum of light instead of just a small portion of it.

I find all this very evidential by the way. Even more so than the OBE stuff that people are constantly arguing about.

Art, I don't think Gerald Woerlee is planning to post another comment on this thread. He ended his first comment by saying that his schedule is too busy (which I can certainly understand).

From Rudolf Smit

Quote from Michael:
Third, the paper by Smit and Rivas does respond forcefully to Dr. Woerlee's main contentions. I found their replies to points 2 and 3 extremely cogent and persuasive. (On point 4, they admit they are not sure how to explain the patient's experience, and on point 1, I felt they could have gone into more medical detail.)

As a matter of fact, Michael, in a draft version of the paper we did go into greater detail as regards point 1. But the reviewers and the editor thought it became too technical and lengthy, which is why a much more concise version was adopted. However, further on in the paper we say: "We could have said much more about Woerlee’s opinions regarding the dentures anecdote, and we particularly invite inquiries from any readers interested in a more detailed discussion of the matter of Mr. B’s condition while he lay in the field."

Quote from Michael:
The paper includes lengthy excerpts from TG's testimony that directly addresses Dr. Woerlee's conjectures. Given these long and highly relevant quotations from the original source, it's simply not correct to say that the paper contains "little information."

How right you are, Michael! Why have we included these excerpts? Quite simply because Woerlee grossly misrepresents the statements from nurse TG. I do not need to repeat them, because just read the paper and you will see what I mean. But a little bit of history may be in order. True, in the first transcript TG's statements as for the moment when the dentures were taken out are a little bit ambiguous. Based on that ambiguity Woerlee alleges that the patient was conscious at that very moment. He was and is wrong, period. And he knows it, because in a second article in my journal "Terugkeer" nurse TG offered an unambiguous clarification, namely that the Thumper was started after the dentures had been taken out, and after the mayo tube had been inserted into the windpipe of the patient. Woerlee simply ignored this, because as he says now (somewhere, in one of his many posts that abound in the various forums) that the first option makes more medical sense. Sorry, this is wrong. We, i.e. Rivas and I, made inquiries and the response we got was unambiguous: first things first, that is: remove dentures, then insert mayo tube, then place ventilation mask, and finally start Thumper. Which is exactly what TG had done. Woerlee now alleges that TG did not correctly remember his own actions. This is very odd, given the fact that elsewhere Woerlee had initially praised TG into heaven for his correct rendition of the whole case... but apparently when TG's statements do not suit him [Woerlee] then all of a sudden TG seems to have suffered from memory loss... (oh goodness...)

Therefore: Woerlee was wrong, and is wrong and remains wrong, whatever he says as regards this specific point.

By the way, just to make sure, we contacted again TG and asked for another confirmation. He nearly exploded, and expressed his serious regret that he had ever become involved again in this matter. But he confirmed once again that everything he had told had happened as he had told before, and also that he was fed up with that anesthesiologist. I can hardly blame him. It is indeed a big shame the way Woerlee has been treating this whole affair.

Finally, why Woerlee considers our paper replete with ad hominems is a bit of enigma to me. It is akin to the pot calling the kettle black, taking into account what Woerlee had said on Skeptiko Forum (using his nickname Swiferobi) “This book [Jeffrey Long and Paul Perry’s (2010) Evidence of the Afterlife] is not science. It is simply fodder for the uncritical followers of the NDE sect.” In other words, everyone not condoning his views is an uncritical follower of [religious] sect! It shows Woerlee's true colors so to speak. Apparently Woerlee later realized what stupid statement he had made, because he neatly edited it out of his posting.

O yes, the Google "translation" you showed is indeed sheer gobbledigook. If you so wish I can make a proper translation.

Regards to all, Rudolf

Hi, Rudolf

in a draft version of the paper we did go into greater detail as regards point 1. But the reviewers and the editor thought it became too technical and lengthy, which is why a much more concise version was adopted.

Could you post this draft version of the paper online, or, at least, your arguments regards point 1?

If you so wish I can make a proper translation.

I don't know about Michael, but I would like this.

Best wishes.

Hi Vitor,

Mail me - you'll find my mailaddress at the bottom of the title page of the paper.

Regards - R

"Stranger yet, all scientific articles in my JNDS article that explain the phenomena observed in the man with the dentures case are ignored and dismissed by Smit and Rivas with the explanation that they are too detailed and boring."

I don't think this is fair. Smit and Rivas were writing a rejoinder, which is usually shorter than the article it is replying too and is most often required to be so. They simply did not have the room to reply to every article in your bibliography.

Thanks Troy - you are hitting the nail on its head. If indeed we had to respond to everything that was brought up by Woerlee we should have used all pages of the journal. But there was no need to anyway: we concentrated on the crucial matters.

I don't think that more issues will be devoted to the dentures case. All that could have been said has been said. For us the case is closed.

Regards - Rudolf

In a few hours I will post my response to Dr Woerlee on Amazon :)

Well I just responded to him :)

I more than welcome good skeptical arguments, but it has long been clear that Woerlee has his own 'reality filter' on these topics. I wrote back in 2004 regarding his misrepresentation of a Peak-in-Darien experience reported by Barrett:

http://www.dailygrail.com/Essays/2004/7/Blinded-Light

For instance, Woerlee says of the case:

"this unfortunate woman interpreted the bright and blurry images of out-of-focus people elsewhere in the room as 'bright forms.'"

Without mentioning:

(a) She did not just report "bright forms", she reported seeing her deceased father and sister, even though she had not been informed her sister was dead. (from Barrett's report: "she said with rather a puzzled expression, 'He has Vida with him.'")

(b) That Barrett himself noted in his report that her visions were not likely "to have been due to...misinterpretation of some object actually present to sight - as when a dressing-gown is mistaken for a woman".

Regardless of how one interprets the evidence presented, I simply cannot see how any objective reporter could read Barrett's report and then in good faith write of this experience that it was simply a case of interpreting "bright and blurry images of out-of-focus people elsewhere in the room as 'bright forms."

p.s. Thanks Michael for posting my Gardner essay.

Hey Michael

Could you delete my comment post which has my email please. I don't want the spam bots to get it :(

Keith is a parochial thinker, so I wouldn't rely too much on what he considers plausible or implausible with regard to Pam Reynold's ability to "hear" the conversation.

I suggest also possibly reappraising what it means to hear. Sure, during normal consciousness we can say we heard or didn't hear a sound or conversation.

But the Pam Reynolds case is NOT an example of normal consciousness, and so what we normally mean by "hearing" may also not apply in her case either.

For me the question is not whether Pam Reynolds could hear the conversation, but rather, was the conversation an auditory object that it was possible for Pam Reynolds mind to distinguish at ANY level of consciousness in addition to the clicking, which was another auditory object.

I assume most people reading this have played catch at one time or another. But have you ever marveled at how extraordinary it is to catch a ball? To put your hand in the precise place where the ball, traveling very fast, will be at such a time so that you can close your hand around it and catch the ball involves a host of calculations that you are not aware of making at all. But those calculations are accurately made or else you would not catch the ball. If you tried to consciously perform the mathematics and to precisely figure out the point in space where the ball would pass so that you consciously know where to put your hand, the ball would be on the ground for several hours before you were ready to catch it. Yet our minds somehow figure all that out in the blink of an eye without seeking approval from what we call normal everyday consciousness.

The point is, we don't know HOW we are able to do the things we do, but we still do them anyway. And you can't really argue that a lack of an answer regarding the how means that the extraordinary explanation is true.

That too is a form of argument from ignorance. You don't know how X is possible, therefore it is not.

That's also what skeptics do when they think the evidence points exclusively to the production hypothesis, when it does not.

The Pam Reynolds case is intriguing, but not convincing to me.

What I would like to see is a demonstration that it was impossible for Pam Reynolds ears to detect and transmit two distinct auditory object-signals to her brain given the known facts of the auditory objects involved in the case and the technical specifications of the human ear with regard to those two specific objects, instead of using the vague terminology about what "she" could or could not have "heard."

That I would find REALLY intriguing.

I used Keith more as an icing on the cake argument then anything else. I certainly did not need his testimony as the facts alone compel the conclusion that hearing for Pam Reynold's should have been impossible, but clearly she heard. Dr Woerlee needs to give us a mechanism. Until he does so basically all his arguments fail. After all his argument is that the NDE is explicable. Without a mechanism for the fact of Pam Reynold's hearing he is shown to have a false position. So basically the mainstream view wins by default.

Unless Dr Woerlee wants to argue the definition of hearing I think I will use the traditional view of it. After all the one counter argument he offered did postulate normal hearing.

However I am not going to play semantic arguments unless Dr Woerlee pursues that route, assuming he even responds to me.

One thing I don't understand is how Dr. Woerlee says he doesn't view NDEs as hallucinations, but at the same time does not see them as a form of survival of consciousness. Most of his writings seem to support the hallucination theory, not to mention his book "Unholy Legacy" has a fictional conversation between two people ultimately concluding an afterlife would be undesirable. So from there, Woerlee essentially argues that NDEs are brain-based, but says they aren't hallucinations, so what are they then? I don't really think this is a place where there is really a gray area.

Dr Woerlee strikes me as someone who wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to call IANDs closeminded, but then publishes there . He wants to say other present arguments without evidence, when he does the same thing. He wants to find value in what his own world view would show to be valueless.

"He wants to say other present arguments without evidence, when he does the same thing."

I agree. What did he say in that Amazon review? "Suggestive pseudoscience"? But then how does he manage to escape the same charge? He doesn't seem to be suggestion poor himself.

I think Woerlee is committing a form of modal fallacy. He seems to think that if he CAN explain x as y, then x MUST BE or IS y.

>> I think Woerlee is committing a form of modal fallacy. He seems to think that if he CAN explain x as y, then x MUST BE or IS y <<

Worse still, in many cases X cannot be Y. The Pam Reynolds case is a clear example:

Speakers molded for her ears shot off 100 decibel clicks, as loud as a large orchestra playing in front of you.

But maybe, says Woerlee, the pause between the clicks was enough for Pam to process what was going on.

Wrong. The speakers made over 11 clicks per second. One Mississippi, two Mississippi… oops, we’ve already heard twenty-two 100-decibel clicks. There simply isn’t a long enough pause.

But she did indeed hear, admits Woerlee, so it MUST have been *biologically* processed because hearing occurs ONLY because a person has functional ears - spirits don't have ears, so they cannot hear, or so Woerlee argues. This is obvious question begging, of course, but Woerlee seems unaware of any way to form a coherent model of dualism. Thankfully, Chris Carter does exactly that in his NDE book.

Kris! Your latest argumentation on Amazon is truly brilliant!

Kris - just a small correction. Pam Reynolds's surgeon was not dr Spitzer but dr Spetzler. But don't worry about this small error.

I was somewhat provoked by the wilfull ignorance and gloating tones exhibited by some of the readers of this forum (onbehoorlijk, onbeschoft, en onnozel). Very inappropriate to people trying to understand a fascinating phenomenon. So I posted a rejoinder to Key and Smit on Amazon which I do believe proves my points.

Secondly, there is the matter of the article by Smit and Rivas. Such an article would not be acceptable in any academic or scientific journal. As I have stated, it is an article of a shamefully low standard which does not even attempt to address any of the points made in my article. Instead it is of a level appropriate to a popular golly, gee, wow book on NDE phenomena. All the four points they listed in the beginning of the Smit-Rivas article are addressed in my article, and based upon the information in their transcripts.

So I have posted my article in the JNDS at my website together with the original transcripts. The article is referenced to the transcripts of Rivas and Smit, as well as to extensive medical literature. Most of the literature is downloadable and public on the internet. This article is in a format approriate for publication in a scientific journal. It is neutral, and only deals with the facts in a way to as to promote discussion.

I expect readers to read the article, to check whether the medical studies support the facts, and to examine the original transcripts. This is science. Up till now there has been little of this demonstrated by the main protagonists here, some of whom refuse to study the medical literature referred to, preferring preconceptions instead.

The address of my JNDS article is at:

www.unholylegacy.woerlee.org/man-with-the-dentures.php

Enjoy yourselves and try to be rational.

From Rudolf Smit

It seems Dr Woerlee feels cornered because he is becoming more and more abusive, but worse, he accuses me of something Rivas and I would never have dreamt of doing so! See what he says on Amazon:

"1. Were the dentures removed before or after stating the cardiac massage machine? TG gives two stories.
In the first report, TG clearly states that the dentures were removed after starting the Thumper (p15 in Autumn "Terugkeer" 2008).

This is a very clear statement. But in a second statement TG, apparently recants, stating that the dentures were removed after positioning the man under the Thumper, and only after the mask for artificial respiration was positioned on the man's face was the Thumper started (p8 in Winter "Terugkeer" 2008).

Two very different stories of his memories of an event 30 years ago. And it's all in the transcripts which I have posted on my website. This second statement is a curious change of mind. Was it due a "will to please" to satisfy the naggingly strident wishes of Smit and Rivas after an article of mine in response to the Autumn "Terugkeer" of 2008? Certainly this was a very strange about-turn. The first statement makes medical sense, while the second is not something any cardiologist would do - the unnecessary extra time delay with cardiac massage reduces the chance of success. "

This is maddening because it is sheer slander! How does one dare suggest that we, Rivas and I, pushed the nurse to recant. And that he had a "will to please". This is so extremely untrue!

What follows now is the truth and nothing but the truth:

When at the time we received Woerlee's commentary on TG's report, we saw his interpretation regarding the moment the dentures were taken out. And we said, gosh, we have to make sure, because there is indeed a small ambiguity. So we asked for a clarification from the nurse, but we never ever pressed the nurse to "recant" so as to satisfy our desire! It was the nurse himself who quite voluntarily stated in writing that of course the Thumper was started after he had taken out the dentures and after he had inserted the mayo tube.
Later on he confirmed this again, as I already wrote on this blog a few items ago.

What you have done here, mr Woerlee, is slanderous to the extreme: i.e. questioning the integrity of the nurse, Rivas an myself.

At the time I was the editor of Terugkeer magazine, the journal of Merkawah/IANDS the Netherlands. After we had tracked down the nurse who resuscitated the dentures man, and all that followed, I found it proper to also ask Woerlee's opinion to be published in our Journal. So he did - and now see to what it all led.

Now I cannot help but enormously regretting it to ever have involved Dr Woerlee in this case.

O yes, Woerlee wonders why we never consulted all the papers he referred to in his article. Why should we, when the premises were already wrong from the very beginning. Besides, we have extensively consulted experts - as a matter of fact, I have a stack of paper about this topic half an inch thick. In short, we did our home work.

A clarification:

(Woerlee) "The first statement makes medical sense, while the second is not something any cardiologist would do - the unnecessary extra time delay with cardiac massage reduces the chance of success."

As I said we have consulted experts also on this matter. In a former contribution (see above a few items ago) I copied their response: first things first, etc.

Whether it does not make medical sense to Woerlee, is totally irrelevant. Because it happened as reported in TG's second statement. Besides, the patient did live after all, did not he?

BTW, one of the cardiologists we consulted expressly stated that the use of the Thumper was never popular in his hospital. They preferred manual pressure on the chest, because then they could easier feel the reaction of the patient.

I think your blog ate my previous comment.

This is getting comical now.

To even write the above article Dr Woerlee is dependent on two things.

1.) The nurses memory being correct
2.) The nurses recollections being accurately presented

Obviously if either point is not correct then no further research needs be done. However so that he can write a rebuttal he needs to assume one and two.

Now lets notice what he has done.

Agreed with the nurse, except when the nurse's testimony disagrees with his argument. Of course this invalidates point one so the rational thing for him to do would be to simply say he does not think we can know what happened. But he won't do that.

He needs for you to be honest when presenting the details, but then dishonest enough to bully to the nurse. Of course if you were dishonest enough to bully the nurse, why waste your time bullying the nurse? Simply make up whatever you want the nurse to say. If I suspected someone was falsely reporting other's reports to me I would not believe any of it, but what I do I know, that is only the sensible position.

If Dr Woerlee had an ounce of sense he would simply state this case was from 30 years ago and the nurses memory might be wrong. Instead he chooses to do the above.

Looking over his website I see he really wants to promote atheism. I see he has some critiques of Islam and Christianity, which I would be very surprised if he did something like read relevant scholarship on the subject. Needless to say I do not think he will ever soil his hands with arguments in favor of the resurrection, such as those used by N.T Wright, Dr Mike Licona or Dr William Lane Craig. Just for shits and giggles I tempted to argue for the resurrection of Dr Woerlee wants to argue against it.

I found it odd indeed he would defend atheism as a moral philosophy as atheism can never rise above relativism and communist atheist murdered over 150 million people in the last century. Oddly enough I think his book is published by Prometheus Press, which has books defending such charming practices as pedophilia.

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2009/01/prometheus-books-and-pseudoskeptical.html

I will say seriously, one day I want to be go a bar with Dr Woerlee, Dr Richard Carrier and I think Keith Augustine. I think it would be more comedy gold then anything by Dave Chappelle.

minor correction for bad grammar. I should have said " I want to go to" not " be go a "

Gerry,

You wrote,

"I was somewhat provoked by the wilfull ignorance and gloating tones exhibited by some of the readers of this forum (onbehoorlijk, onbeschoft, en onnozel)."

The Dutch words translate as "undue, rude, and foolish."

I think the discussion on this thread has been vigorous, but I wouldn't call it rude or foolish. And while I've seen some gloating and oneupmanship, which I don't particularly care for, I haven't seen "willful ignorance."

Please remember that you've made some pretty strong statements yourself. You called Jeffrey Long's book a nadir in NDE literature that will hurl readers into a new dark age of superstition. You had equally harsh words for Pim Van Lommel's book.

When you go on the attack in this fashion, you have to expect some blowback. It would be unreasonable to expect your critics to keep an unfailingly civil tongue while you harangue them with all the rhetorical weapons at your disposal.

"As I have stated, it is an article of a shamefully low standard which does not even attempt to address any of the points made in my article."

I agree that the article doesn't address all your points (which probably would have been impossible, given space constraints), but it does address many of them in detail. For instance, TG seems quite clear about when he inserted the tube. His initial ambiguity was entirely cleared up in his subsequent, more extended remarks.

"Enjoy yourselves and try to be rational."

"Rationality" is something of a loaded term. It means different things to different people. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, and Hegel all thought of themselves as rational, yet all came to different conclusions. A "rational" person 100 years ago would have scoffed at the findings of quantum physics, the theory of continental drift, or the idea that America would elect a black man as president. What seems rational to one person may seem "foolish" to another, and what is "rational" in one era becomes outmoded in another. Perhaps materialism will eventually be seen as just another superstition. Or perhaps spiritualism will. Or perhaps both worldviews will be superseded by something new.

Generally, when people say, "You should be rational," what they mean is, "You should agree with me."

Let's take a particular instance of logical argumentation. You've written more than once that an NDEr could not see or hear anything except by means of the physical senses, because that's the only possible mechanism of perception. As Kris points out, this is question-begging. The point at issue is precisely whether it is or is not possible for people to perceive things by some means other than normal sense modalities. So this argument is clearly fallacious and hence not "rational."

You sometimes add that if paranormal perception were possible, blind people could use their psychic abilities to see. But this doesn't follow logically at all (and so is not "rational"), because blind people, for the most part, are not having NDEs or OBEs. What would follow is that, on the rare occasions when blind people do have NDEs or OBEs, they could be expected to report visual perceptions. And as you know, there is evidence for this, as presented in Ken Ring's book "Mindsight."

Now, I know you don't think much of that book, because you've come up with conjectures to explain away the various cases. But conjecture is not certainty, and a strained, improbable conjecture is not necessarily preferable to a more straightforward reading of the evidence.

My point is that your own arguments do not always meet the criterion of "rationality," if this is defined by adherence to accepted rules of logical reasoning, and moreover, that "rational" people can and sometimes do disagree with you. Our disagreement is not necessarily evidence of incorrigible irrationality, willful ignorance, or medieval superstition.

In my younger days, when I was an Objectivist, I made the mistake of believing that anyone who differed with me on important issues was irrational. It took me a few years to learn that this attitude was itself irrational - that it was actually a psychological defense mechanism that permitted me to avoid dealing with arguments and evidence for which I had no good answers.

In general, I would say that whenever we are most sure that we have found "the truth," we should be most on our guard. It's precisely at that point that we stop questioning our own assumptions.

By the way, Google Translate is pretty much useless as far as the TG transcripts are concerned. Excerpt:

"TG: He said he saw it. He beschreefdat I on a salad made. He thought it was a drawer, it was a tableautje pull, but as a salad beschreefhet really."

Now that's irrational! :-)

Michael Prescott is calm, cool, collected, and formidable - as usual.

Gerry, I mean this respectfully, but sometimes your writing style needs improvement. You often engage in the very same things you accuse other people of. You're often insulting and condescending, to the point where I wish to stop reading. It's the same with people that I agree with. There are several authors that I usually agree with, but whose style turns me off.

Gerry, my sincere advice is for you to tone it down and relax a little.

I have just wrote my last response to Dr Woerlee. Before this I felt Dr Woerlee was a rational man simply taking a extreme minority view. After this conversation though I am have with reluctance concluded Dr Woerlee is simply too irrational for serious minded people to dialog with. I will not waste my time anymore.

I love beschreefhet salads!!

From Rudolf Smit

I now discovered that Woerlee had copied complete pages of Terugkeer, including the frontpage, on his website in the form of pdf's. And that while it was expressly stated on the inside of the cover that "nothing in this publication may be multiplied, copied, put in microfilm, etc in whatever way, without the express permission of the publisher, i.e. the executive committee of Merkawah Foundation."

In this case that would have been me, who was the Editor at the time, and thus representing the Executive Committe. Woerlee never ever asked me permission to place this on his website. This is a violation of copyright, I would say.

As for the Google translation, it is so bad that on the basis of that gobbledigook I find it hard to locate the original Dutch text.

Regards - Rudolf

That is just another case of Dr Woerlee wanting to have his cake and eat it to. He is on a ideological crusade for atheism and he clearly feels the ends justify the means.

"This is a violation of copyright, I would say."

Yes, it would appear to be. I have to say, though, that there is value in having these documents online, at least for people who read Dutch.

"I have with reluctance concluded Dr Woerlee is simply too irrational for serious minded people to dialog with"

Again, I would be wary of labeling those who disagree as irrational. I don't think this is helpful when done by either side. It might be better just to say that we have irreconcilable differences with an opponent.

"Rationality" is a term that's a lot like "virtue" - it means so many different things to different people that it has little value except as a rhetorical flourish.

An exception would be if "rationality" is narrowly defined in terms of the rules of logical discourse. It's possible to say that someone has made an illogical ( = "irrational") move in an argument, for instance by using equivocation or circular reasoning. But to say that someone's essential worldview or characteristic mode of thinking is irrational is usually, IMO, a mistake. Better simply to agree to disagree.

I think Dr Woerlee is too irrational cause he keeps making basic logical fallacies. I am not saying he is irrational cause of his world view but because of his blatant rational fallacies.

"The speakers made over 11 clicks per second. One Mississippi, two Mississippi… oops, we’ve already heard twenty-two 100-decibel clicks. There simply isn’t a long enough pause."

It certainly seems like it would be impossible, but I'm not an expert on human hardware and I simply cannot say that it is because I do not know.

During normal everyday experience we hear a cacophony of sounds mixed together and the human brain is able to separate different auditory objects from one another.

I know how it seems, but in my vew that is not enough. You also have to show that Pam Reynolds hearing a conversation over those clicks was imposssible because it is impossible for the ear drum to react to the sound waves produced by those two different auditory objects. If the human ear drum cannot react to both those auditory objects at the same time, then it would be physiologically impossible for her to have become aware of the content of the conversation given ANY level of materialist-model consciousness because the ear drum could not have reacted to sound waves produced by that conversation.

This is at least a theoretically demonstrable way of proving she couldn't have heard the conversation.

I should also point out that's what Dr. Woerlee has to do to make HIS case. He can't just assert it's possible. he has to point to the data that shows it IS possible for the human ear drum to react to two auditory objects at the same time: 100 decibel clicks @ 11 clicks per second in addition to a conversation occurring in the background.

If the clicks are so loud that they completely dominate the ear drums capacity such that the background conversation cannot produce any effect on the ear drum, then the question is settled. There's no way Pam could have heard the conversation at ANY level of materialist model consciousness, if the facts show that is the case about the human ear in general, assuming Pam Reynolds does not have some type of mutant super-ear drums.

The comments to this entry are closed.