Skeptiko - Science at the Tipping Point

Interviews with author and out-of-body experience expert Graham Nicholls explores misconceptions about OBEs. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Graham Nicholls, author of Navigating the Out of Body Experience: Radical New Techniques. During the interview Nicholls discusses some misconceptions about out-of-body experiences: Alex Tsakiris: Your answer is very much in line with Dr. Rupert Sheldrake there, so you guys are on the same page, but I just don’t know how we can walk that fine line of --okay, don’t worry, “science” will figure this out eventually. There are a number of well known out-of-body experiencers who talk about a much more rich spiritual landscape that they feel like they’ve traversed and have come back and tell us about. They’ll tell you about lower levels; they’ll tell you about different kinds of beings, including what we would call evil or demonic beings up to beings we would associate with a lot of religious traditions. They’ll tell you directly that they’re related to some religious traditions. So I guess my point is I think we’re obligated to really take that stuff much more seriously once we cross over and say yes, this really is happening. I don’t know how we can really have such a wall and say it’s all going to be explained. Graham Nicholls:   I don’t feel there’s a wall. I feel I’ve explored a lot of those kinds of ideas.  I’ve found that those things just didn’t hold up. Alex Tsakiris:   Didn’t hold up in terms of as you went and tried to explore them yourself and validate them, you couldn’t personally validate them. Is that what you’re saying?  Graham Nicholls:   But not just me personally. Also the people I work with… I’ve tried to really dig beyond the preconceptions and step outside of the box a bit and saying, “What might actually be going on,” rather than just going with the presumption that it’s all spiritual and demons and Angels and that kind of thing. If I saw those things or if I saw a consistency across cultures with everyone I worked with, I would take those things onboard. But the thing is I don’t see that so it doesn’t give me a strong reason to take them onboard. Graham Nicholls' Website Play It: Listen Now: Download MP3 (38 min.)   Read It: Alex Tsakiris:   Hi Graham. It’s so great to have you back on Skeptiko. Graham Nicholls:  Hi Alex. It’s great to be back on. Alex Tsakiris:   So here we are and I was looking over your new book. Fascinating, fascinating. One of the things that really struck me is on one hand it’s a very practical book. It says right in there that the aim of this book is to help you have an out-of-body experience, which is fascinating. We want to talk about that because you really take a rather novel approach to kind of throw in a whole bunch of different techniques at folks. You actually have a really sound scientific basis for why you think that varied approach might work for people. But at the same time, and this is the other part of the book I want to talk about, the book is very much about the science of out-of-body experience and the science-related questions that it raises. So first, am I getting that right? Are there really these two aspects to the book? Graham Nicholls:   Sure, yeah. Very much so. I wanted to move it away from the heavily esoteric angle that’s common in a lot of books. And I also really wanted to base the techniques on something solid and just go out there and see what actually works rather than just repeating what so many books and so many other people have been saying for over 100 years. I wanted to see if this stuff will really actually do what people say and so we really have silver cords and energy bodies and all of these kinds of things that are talked about so commonly. So yeah, that was really the aim. Alex Tsakiris:   Okay, good. So I tell you what. Let’s leave aside for a second the scientific questions about out-of-body experiences,

Interviews Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Erlendur Haraldsson, Robert Almeder, and Stanley Krippner discuss the relationship between mind and body, and the end of Materialism.  Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris and Dr. Richard Grego for interviews with Dr. Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson, Dr. Robert Almeder, and Dr. Stanley Krippner from the American Psychology Association conference. During the interview Grego comments on Almeder’s presentation: Alex Tsakiris:   Okay, where should we go next? Probably because you said we want to keep Krippner to the end we should probably play Robert Almeder, here goes that clip: Robert Almeder: “Aristotle claimed his philosophical that humans were distinct from animals and humans were rational but the animals were non-rational because they didn’t show an understanding and means to end relationship, evidenced in the fact they didn’t use tools. And Jane Goodall conclusively refuted that on the camera where everybody saw the animals using their tools that they created.” Alex Tsakiris:  I love the Jane Goodall reference. I think it really brought home this idea that science can’t really be pinned down the way that scientism often does.  Jane Goodall’s videos changed science, changed the scientific consensus. Not in a way that we normally think of as testable or anything like that but by just making it self-evident. Rich Grego:  Yes, absolutely. And again, this has happened over and over again in science.  It seems like science will make this claim that somehow the status of current science is this all-encompassing total description of the way reality must be, but if you look at the history of science, it’s sort of an obviously unfounded claim. Play It: Listen Now: Download MP3 (53 min.)  

Interview with St. Josephs College sociology professor Dr. William Bengston examines his extensive scientific research into hands on healing. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Dr. William Bengston about his book, The Energy Cure: Unraveling the Mystery of Hands-on Healing.  During the interview Bengston describes his experiments with hands-on healing: Dr. William Bengston:   …starting from these clinical that, for example, malignant growths respond quickly and benign growths don’t respond so quickly, I thought to myself, ‘How are we going to get a handle on this? How are we going to go from spontaneous clinical experience to very controlled conditions?’ I wanted an absolute air-tight, no question about it, experiment that if it worked you didn’t have a viable counter-hypothesis… So, we looked at treating cancer in mice. At the time we started this, the longest lifespan for a mouse with this particular type of cancer was 27 days. No mouse in literally thousands of experiments had lived longer than 27 days after injection with this particular mammary cancer. And you knew exactly how many mice would die and what particular day after injection because it’s again, very well documented, found in labs all over the world. …So I put my hands around the cages of the mice for about an hour a day. I suspected at the time that healing, if it were to work, would be something analogous to radiation. But instead, the cancer started to grow and I thought it was failing. So the tumors grew and I said, “Let’s call it off. Why put the mice through this?” But I got talked into going a little longer. The tumors kept growing bigger and bigger. Then they developed this ulceration on the tumor and I really thought it wasn’t working. The ulceration grew and the tumor imploded and the mice were completely cured. Alex Tsakiris:   And this was unprecedented medically in this particular experiment with these particular mice, right? Dr. William Bengston:   Never happened before for any reason. So the world’s longest living mouse after being injected with this particular cancer was 27 days.  In our experiment the mice went through this process of growth then ulceration then implosion, and the mice were cured. I used to say they remitted but that’s the wrong word because remitted means a reduction in symptoms or temporary disappearance. These mice are cured for life. So we watched them and we leave them for two years and they live out their normal lifespan hanging out, being completely happy. Alex Tsakiris: Let’s finish this story, Bill. So, the world changes. You received the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Cancer treatments around the world are revolutionized and this has become the most highly researched area of medicine, right? I got all that right? Dr. William Bengston:   Uh, except for the entire scenario. This isn’t something where because we’ve cured a bunch of mice, therefore the cancer industry folds their tent. William Bengston's Website Play It: Listen Now: Download MP3 (68 min.)   Read It: Alex Tsakiris: Today Today we welcome Dr. William Bengston to Skeptiko. Bill is a Professor of Sociology at St. Joseph’s College in New York where he specializes in research methods and statistics and is the author of The Energy Cure: Unraveling the Mystery of Hands-On Healing. Here’s the real interesting part: Dr. Bengston is an amazing healer himself. For the past 30 years he’s compiled a series of carefully controlled scientific experiments that challenge not only our ideas about healing and medicine but about energy, about belief, about science in general, and how we practice it, and a whole bunch of other stuff that I hope we can get to. Bill, welcome to Skeptiko. Thanks so much for joining me. Dr. William Bengston:   Thanks for having me on, Alex. Alex Tsakiris:   So, Bill, your work is really quite amazing. It’s paradigm-busting in a number of ways.

Interview examines how scientific assumptions about materialism and consciousness have constrained us. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with biologist and author Dr. Rupert Sheldrake about his new book, Science Set Free: 10 Paths to...

Interview examines the scientific evidence underlying an atheist worldview and why atheists are reluctant to defend it. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with The Thinking Atheist, Seth Andrews. During the interview Andrews explains why atheists don’t support scientists who believe ESP has been scientifically proven: Alex Tsakiris:   There is this silly sideshow conversation that always dominates center stage– “science versus religion, Christianity versus Atheists.” But the science question behind this really boils down to one question — is your mind purely a function of your brain?  Because if it isn’t then we get into all these other topics that start sounding very spiritual. Seth Andrews:  To say that the reputable science community is advocating that there must be a conduit of spirit out there that is irresponsible, I don’t think that’s accurate. I don’t think it’s reflected by mainstream, especially secular scientists, who are the majority. I think if you spend that much time playing “What if,” you’ll drive yourself nuts. Alex Tsakiris:   That is exactly why I wanted to do this interview in two parts, because I have to tell you, in the dialogues I’ve had, we always get to this point, which is we have to dig through all the opinions that we might have, beliefs we might have, get down to the science. Getting down to the scientific evidence and understanding it the best we can. So that’s my point. If you’re not familiar with Dr. Richard Wiseman – great — go see what he has to say about ESP. I’m telling you about the near-death experience science and I’m telling you that overwhelmingly hypoxia has been dismissed as a possible explanation. So, go check out the science and then come back so we can have a real debate. Seth Andrews:   So you’re a believer, then, in extra-sensory perception. You believe in ESP personally? Alex Tsakiris:   Personally? Seth Andrews:   I’m not sure why a yes/no question is so complicated for you. I’m just curious. Alex Tsakiris:   Because I don’t what you mean by “personally.”  I don’t have any personal experience with ESP. I think the evidence is overwhelmingly suggestive that it does happen, that there is some form of extended human consciousness that does occur in this way. That’s what the evidence shows. I don’t know what that means. Seth Andrews:   I’m still stuck on ESP. I’m still stuck on it. Alex Tsakiris:   Great, go check out the science. Seth Andrews:   I’m still stuck on it. I honestly think—I mean, I lump ESP in with astral projection, with visions, with crystals, with—I myself think that this is a profound waste of time and energy. But to me, superstition and religion, they go hand-in-hand. Superstition and science do not. I don’t place them side-by-side. They are not bedfellows. They are not partners. Alex Tsakiris:   Science is a method. It is not a position. It’s a set of tools, Seth. It’s just a way of inquiry. Seth Andrews: I think you and I are simply approaching the term “science” from different perspectives. The Thinking Atheist Website Play It: Download MP3 (68 min.) Read It: Alex Tsakiris: Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I’m your host, Alex Tsakiris, and on today’s episode I have a dialogue with The Thinking Atheist, Seth Andrews, whose popular YouTube channel has nearly 100,000 subscribers and millions of views. Now, as you know from listening to Skeptiko, it’s hard to book these kinds of interviews. Despite their claims to the contrary, Atheists and skeptics don’t really like to get into debates about science and about the evidence behind their beliefs. So I was delighted when Seth agreed to come on and come onto my new concept. I had this idea for a two-part format where we’d use the first interview to kind of map out our ideas, map out our thoughts, and then use the second part of the interview to really get into the debate. So here then is my first inte[...]

Interview examines new methodology for estimating probability of psi and paranormal experiences. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with paranormal dream researcher Andrew Paquette. During the interview Paquette explains his new methodology for understanding spontaneous psi experiences: Alex Tsakiris: The underlying assumption that you’re countering and that’s that spontaneous first person accounts can’t be wrestled into some kind of scientific methodology, right? Andrew Paquette: Yes. One of the things I decided to do was take an extremely adverse way of evaluating spontaneous psi. I’m basically looking at out-of-body experiences and precognitive experiences and trying to arrive at a statistical measure for them. I’m letting alone the spiritual material and after death communications and so on, and just dealing with where I have a lot of verified examples. Alex Tsakiris: Are the applications for this methodology in other paranormal research? I immediately think of, for example, medium communication. Andrew Paquette: Absolutely. I’m really hoping other researchers notice this because there are so many studies that completely ignore the spontaneous experiences because of the kinds of complaints I was talking about and I described in the paper. This methodology basically fixes that problem. Alex Tsakiris: So, what are the chances of this making a difference?  I have a problem accepting that the lack of a methodology is what’s really been holding us back here. I’m kind of torn. On one hand I think it’s great and I think it’s important to have these stakes in the ground that can say, hey, here’s something we can anchor to. Here’s something we can go forward with and start adding more data to the pile. Then on the other hand I just wonder if it’s going to make any difference? I think of Ian Stevenson, and his work on reincarnation. I’ve talked to a lot of folks in different fields who say, “Gee, I’ve really looked at that research and I was very persuaded because the methodology is obviously very sound.”  So, that would give us hope that something like what you’ve presented could become that for researchers. And then on the other hand, we have to acknowledge that the vast majority of the Western scientific community doesn’t a care what kind of methodology Ian Stevenson used because they think all that reincarnation stuff is. So what do you think the real chances are that this methodology can give us somewhat of a breakthrough in these areas? Andrew Paquette: Well, I think that anytime we add knowledge to a situation that’s always an improvement, however slight it might be. There are always going to be people, for one reason or another, who just cannot accept the data that they have. As far as I’m concerned, you only go for the ones that you can reach and that’s perfectly fine. Now, I do think that this is going to reach some people because there will be readers of this who will appreciate the value it has for studies of spontaneous experience. So what I’m hoping will happen, and I think is at least quite possible, is that you’ll start seeing other studies that use a method like this in order to validate spontaneous experiences, which will mean you will see more of them in the literature. And it also means that you will probably see a greater level of resistance to arguments that they’re just anecdotes, which I’m sure you’re sick to death of by now. Andrew Paquette's Website Play It: Download MP3 (42 min.)

Interview examines the shortsightedness of the culture war between science and religion. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview composer and lecture series co-director Peter Bannister. During the interview Bannister considers whether Christianity has lost it’s mystery: Alex Tsakiris: Modern Christianity is wed to materialism in some fundamental ways that make it hard to pull it out of there. So this is the problem I have with the dialogue with some of my Christian friends. It gets down to doctrine. I keep pushing saying, “This doesn’t make sense. You can’t really have this doctrine. You can’t really have this belief set as rigidly as that,” but their fallback is, “Well, come on, I am a Christian.” And I think there’s a direct parallel with the scientists. I think the scientists, whether they say it explicitly or not, is saying, “well, come on, I am a materialist because at the end of the day if I can’t measure it I’m out of business.” Peter Bannister: I think you’ve made some perceptive points, particularly about the  marriage of convenience, or Faustian pact between Christianity and I would say Rationalism. But what’s curious if you do the history is that that’s a relatively recent phenomenon.  I think that there is a very close tie to the rise of a certain type of science and a religious rationalism which insists that the doctrine really is about questions of proof and questions of discursive knowledge, propositions, dogma in the worst sense. There are a lot of historians who say that really is a very shortsighted view of what the broader tradition really is about which is much more mysterious and a little bit more fluid than that. But the people don’t actually know this tradition very well because nobody’s ever really told them.  The truth that we’re after is much more relational than propositional. A lot of people in Christianity and some other wisdom traditions and faiths are saying, “Hang on. One of the big problems in the world today is that we’ve got hooked up with this notion of dogma. It’s dogma in the sense of an effort to control.” I think control is really the key thing because as soon as you have a doctrine which you say corresponds to reality in a sort of one-to-one way that gives you a method of control. Alex Tsakiris: That’s the bridge we have to cross.  Science is a religion. Atheism is a religion.  And now we’re all on the same playing field. Peter Bannister: Because it’s our ultimate concern. I think, a very good definition of religion. It’s what is your ultimate concern?  If you go back to the idea of who do we want around this table, obviously the entry fee, as you say, is a certain ability to let go or to say, “Okay, we all bring ourselves to this but we bring ourselves to this in an open way.”  My hope—and you might say I’m naïve in this—is that there is a groundswell of people who have this openness and who are genuinely interested in following and examining the data in an open and intelligent way. And I think there is a big need for the construction of a community like that. Peter Bannister's Website Play It: Download MP3 (48 min.) Read It: Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome Peter Bannister to Skeptiko. Peter holds graduate degrees in music from King’s College, Cambridge, and philosophical theology from the University of Wales. He’s an award-winning composer and performer and is co-directing a very interesting lecture series at the American Church in Paris promoting an increased and enhanced dialogue in the relationship between science and faith. Welcome, Peter, thanks so much for joining me on Skeptiko. Peter Bannister: I’m delighted to be with you, Alex. Alex Tsakiris: Well, I’m very excited to have you on, as well. You have such a diverse background and I love the way you’ve initiated this dialogue, particularly from your position. So you’ll have to tell us a little bit about the American Church in Paris,

Interview examines government knowledge of the connection between extended human consciousness and the UFO Phenomena. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with UFO researcher, and author, Grant Cameron. During the interview Cameron explains how his research led him to uncover the connection between ESP, telepathy and the UFO phenomena: Alex Tsakiris: One of the things that we like to do on Skeptiko is to keep pulling on a string and follow it as far as we can. That’s led me to you because when you look at human consciousness and you start looking for explanations for things like telepathy, precognition, out-of-body experiences, and other altered states of consciousness it eventually leads to this UFO thing, and the numerous reports of mind control and telepathy associated with it. So when I heard you say government insiders who really know about the UFO have told you that you can’t really understand this UFO phenomena without having an expanded view of consciousness I was intrigued.  Tell me how you came to this conclusion. Grant Cameron: …We tracked this guy down and he turns out to be Dr. Eric Walker, who was former President of Penn State University. For 15 years he was the Chairman of the Board of the Institute for Defense Analysis, which is the top military think tank for the United States military. He was the co-developer of the homing torpedo. He was friends with Vannevar Bush. He had this incredible, unbelievable background of military and connections with Presidents and stuff like this. So when we go to him, we’re interviewing him as UFO researchers. We’re not thinking about the mind and consciousness; we couldn’t care less about that, no connection whatsoever. We’re talking to him and we’re trying to find out about this supposed UFO group that runs the whole thing, the MJ-12. We’re asking him questions about MJ-12. “Did you have contact with the aliens? How did the thing operate? How did you cover-up the UFO thing?” And suddenly in the middle of one of these interviews in 1990 he suddenly cuts off the conversation talking about hardware, about bodies and all this, and he suddenly says, “How good is your sixth sense? How much do you know about ESP?” And Walker says, “Unless you know about it and how to use it, you will not be taken in.” …Then in 1993 there’s a related story about a conversation that takes place with Ben Rich. Ben Rich was the guy who ran “Skunk Works”, where the U2, the SR-71, the Stealth fighter, the Stealth bomber, they were all developed by what was called Skunk Works. Ben Rich ran it and he would get a number of questions about was this UFO technology? He’s giving a lecture in 1993. He’s dying of cancer. He gives a lecture at UCLA to a bunch of engineers and he’s talking and he says, “We’ve got the technology to take ET home.” He gives his lecture, he finishes the lecture, he’s walking out, and one of the engineers who was interested in UFOs runs after him. He asks, “How are these things propelled? How are UFOs propelled?” And Ben Rich turns around and says to him, “Let me ask you a question. How does ESP work?” Grant Cameron's Website Play It: Download MP3 (68 min.) Read It: Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome Grant Cameron to Skeptiko. Grant is a highly-regarded UFO researcher who’s made some fascinating connections between what we know about the UFO phenomena and the kind of extended human consciousness we talk so much about here on Skeptiko. Grant is in the process of publishing two new books and regularly blogs at www.presidentialufo.com. Welcome, Grant, thanks for joining us. Grant Cameron: Thanks, Alex, for having me on. Alex Tsakiris: So Grant, one of the things that we like to do on Skeptiko is to keep pulling on a string and follow it as far as we can. That’s what I think led me to you because when you look at human consciousness and you start looking for explanations for things like telepathy, precognition,

Interview examines research into synchronicity, coincidence, spirituality and the paranormal. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Robert Perry, author of, Signs: A New Approach to Coincidence, Synchronicity, Guidance, Life Purpose, and God's Plan. During the interview Perry explains his research: Robert Perry: CMPE which stands for a Conjunction of Meaningfully Parallel Events. It’s basically an extreme form of synchronicity. Most of our paranormal events that we’re studying now, they’re inner experiences with hopefully a veridical component but in the end they seem to say something about our abilities or our ultimate nature being perhaps immaterial. But with CMPEs their statement seems to be more about something other than us that seems to giving us messages. Alex Tsakiris: I’m just not quite sure that we can make that last leap because there’s this whole idea of time and that maybe time is not linear. But also in terms of you and I being co-creators of our reality. So we get back to this idea of what’s reality and how is reality being created and experienced and again, what’s our relationship to time? Robert Perry: We shouldn’t act like anything is substantive yet however I think that there is a contemporary bias, even among those of us who are into the paranormal; a bias against sort of agents that are beyond the human. Maybe, if we take NDEs seriously for instance, it looks like that experience involves a certain amount of initiative from the Other Side. Maybe something coming to the human level from the Other Side is part of how life works. Robert Perry's Website Play It: Download MP3 (44 min.) Read It: Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome back to Skeptiko Robert Perry. Robert’s here to talk about his book, Signs: A New Approach to Coincidence, Synchronicity, Guidance, Life Purpose, and God’s Plan. He’s also here to tell us about a pilot study he’s done about this work along with Dr. Bruce Greyson that is suggestive that he really is onto something here. So Robert, thank you for joining me. Welcome back. Robert Perry: Oh, it’s a great pleasure and I’m very honored to be here. I love the show and listen every week. Alex Tsakiris: Super. And I really appreciate you’ve made some great contributions on the forum and on the comment section of the website. I always look forward to reading your posts. It’s great to have you back on. So I have to say, this book you’ve written, it’s amazing. It’s kind of startling when you get into it because you claim to have uncovered a rather remarkable new paranormal phenomenon that you’ve coined, “CMPE.” So there’s a lot here to wrap our arms around. Why don’t you start by telling us what you think you’ve uncovered here? Robert Perry: Okay. Basically, a CMPE stands for a Conjunction of Meaningfully Parallel Events. I call it “a sign” for short because I use that word in a very nonstandard way. Hardly anybody else calls it those. CMPE seems to be the handle of choice. It’s basically an extreme form of synchronicity. Now, synchronicity tends to be an extremely subjective thing. There’s almost no rules for what constitutes a synchronicity, but the pattern that we typically associate with synchronicity is two events coming together and sharing some striking similarity. The classic case is Carl Jung’s scarab story where a patient is telling him about a dream in which she’s given a gold scarab. As she does, a gold scarab beetle is tapping at the window of Jung’s office. So there you have two events, foretelling the dream, the appearance of the scarab, and they both share one striking parallel which is a golden scarab. Alex Tsakiris: Right. And more on the day-to-day synchronicities that we’re all familiar with, you’re going to take it way beyond that. Robert Perry: Right. It’s a much more extreme version of that basic pattern. You still have two events that just happen to come together in time.

Interview with author and past president of the International Association of Near Death Studies examines research into negative near death experiences. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Nancy Evans Bush, author of, Dancing Past the Dark: Distressing Near-Death Experiences. During the interview Bush discusses how negative near death experiences are researched: Alex Tsakiris: On one hand I understand the need to talk about these negative near death experiences, the need to put it on the table and process it. But I don’t think that’s the only thing that you’re objecting to because I think you’re also objecting to the way researchers approach “near death experience hell.” Nancy Bush: There is so much on every side of this issue -- we are surrounded by people whose knees are jerking. There are automatic responses that people make. The convicted Atheists say, “Oh, it’s just these people are deluding themselves with the supernatural,” and the convinced metaphysicians say, “Oh, if only they’d believe then it would be different.” And the doctrinally religious say, “Well, if they’d just believe my stuff then that would take care of this.” I think the most frustrating aspect of this whole study is simply trying to get people to sit quietly and just listen to the experiences. Let go of their preconceptions for a few minutes, and just sit quietly and think, “Huh. What could this mean?” Alex Tsakiris: There’s a fine line here because I think we all appreciate that we’re embedded in this materialistic culture that constantly tells us that this is impossible, this is ridiculous, you’re crazy. So I think when people break through that, then there’s a certain need to go just as far as they can with this. But to an extent it leaves us with the question of what can we really say? We can say that materialism is clearly a failed proposition but I’m not really sure what else we can say beyond that. How do we venture forth into this great territory of what lies beyond? Nancy Bush: I think for me one of the frustrations is the numbers  of people who given a little bit of information will jump in and say, “Oh, I get it. I had one of these experiences. I can tell you what it means.” But I think we are still following breadcrumbs through the woods. Nancy Evans Bush's Website Play It: Download MP3 (39 min.) Read It: Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome Nancy Evans Bush to Skeptiko. Nancy is the former President of IANDS, the International Association for Near-Death Studies and she’s also the author of Dancing Past the Dark: Distressing Near-Death Experiences. Nancy, welcome and thanks for joining me today on Skeptiko. Nancy Bush: Thanks, Alex. Alex Tsakiris: So Nancy, this is quite an interesting, fascinating book that you’ve written. I know that it’s caused a little bit of a stir inside the near-death experience community and the scientific community. In broader terms I’ve heard about this book. It’s kind of popped up and a number of people brought it to my attention. First of all, you have to congratulate someone on that. You’ve obviously struck a nerve with this book. Tell us a little bit about why you sought to write it and what you were hoping to do with the book. Nancy Bush: When I was in my late 20s I had an experience during the birth of my second baby and it was an experience I could not account for;  I could not explain; I could not understand, because essentially it was—this was years before near-death experiences were known about. I had no context for understanding what it was or how to make sense of it. It did not fit with my theological life. It did not fit with anything. And because it was an experience essentially of being annihilated there was no place to put it. So I buried it. Alex Tsakiris: If I can just interject, when you say you were annihilated, there were these little beings you encountered in this deep, dark void as part of your near-death experience.

Interview with author and Professor of Religious Studies examines how paranormal experiences have fueled the work of famous science fiction and comic book authors. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Rice University Professo...

Interview with investigative journalist Steve Volk examines the role of skeptics in science. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Philadelphia-based journalist and author of Fringe-ology, Steve Volk.  During the interview Volk discusses the limits of science: Alex Tsakiris: The limit of Materialism, as it applies to science, is the “something else” that a lot of consciousness research alludes to. As soon as we have a X factor, a something-more-factor, then everything in science is turned on its head.  So, whether it be experimenter effect, or psi effect, or consciousness effect, we have this huge swath of science that we may have to reexamine and say, “ok, but did you measure the X factor correctly.” Steve Volk: The entire scientific enterprise is based on this idea of being able to measure reality, to know reality, and involves there being something material, external and measurable outside of ourselves.  So, whenever we get into realms where we can’t actually perform those measurements, we can’t actually perform those tests, it shows the limits of science.  Instead of a science that can explain everything… well, the idea that maybe it won’t is a  huge threat. I actually do think that Skeptics like Richard Wiseman understand what’s at stake and that’s why they fight so hard… the Skeptics, at times, make arguments that are simply designed to mislead. Steve Volk's Website Play It: Download MP3 (40 min.)  

Interview with psychologist and renown near-death experience researcher discusses how our language and system of logic limits our understanding of near-death experience accounts. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with renown near-death experience research and author of, Paranormal: My Life in Pursuit of the Afterlife. During the interview Moody discusses the role of logic and nonsense in studying the near-death experience: Alex Tsakiris: Is it rigor and the logic that we’re missing or is there something fundamental to our experience in this body, in this world, that prevents us from understanding things differently? For example, we get these stories from near-death experience researchers where people come back and say, “I had a knowing that I’m unable to really bring back and internalize.” Are we limited by a system of logic or are we fundamentally unable to know certain things in this existence that we’re in? Dr. Raymond Moody: What a wonderful distinction.  As to the second part of your question whether there is some kind of unknowability in the world that we are just constitutionally unable to comprehend certain things, obviously I don’t know. By definition you wouldn’t be able to know that. But, I think that the first part of your question, is our logic limiting us in some fundamental way, I think it is, Alex, and I think just from our two conversations together I think I can prove it to you. What I can show is that these misconceptions about what we call “nonsense” create a kind of collective cognitive deficit in people that is hidden because everybody has it, right? If everybody has it there’s no way that people have of detecting it. The way that this manifests itself is that when people hear a sentence like, “There is life after death,” and unthinkingly they treat that just like a literal meaning, true or false proposition, right? So they try to process it by the rules of Aristotelian logic. Their minds go berserk, as you and I have seen many times probably and know people whose minds have gone berserk over this topic. Dr. Raymond Moody's Website Play It: Download MP3 (50 min.) Read It: Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome Dr. Raymond Moody to Skeptiko. In 1975, psychiatrist and Professor of Philosophy, Dr. Raymond Moody published Life After Life and coined the term, “near-death experience.” I guess it’s fair to say the world changed a little bit. I don’t think that’s an exaggeration. It’s hard to measure the full impact of Dr. Moody’s work on medicine, on science, religion, and our culture as a whole but it’s certainly clear that this ground-breaking research has continued to challenge our understanding of the deepest questions that we all have, that keep us up at 2 o’clock in the morning. Dr. Moody, it’s a great pleasure to have you on Skeptiko. Thanks so much for joining me. Dr. Raymond Moody: Well, I’m just so happy to be with you today, Alex. I can already tell this is going to be fun. Thank you. Alex Tsakiris: I feel quite fortunate to be able to interview you for a second time here and particularly on this book. You’ve written a memoir titled, Paranormal: My Life in Pursuit of the Afterlife. I think it’s quite an amazing thing and brave undertaking that you’ve taken us through here on this journey.  That is really the first question that I have for you, Dr. Moody. Clearly you’ve been somebody who has been in the public eye for a long time. You’ve seen it; done it. Every TV show you can imagine, every radio show, you’ve done all that. But this had to be something a little bit different. What has it been like for being that open and that “out there” in terms of telling people about your whole life? Dr. Raymond Moody: You know something, Alex, I’ll tell you the truth. As you know, I’m a psychiatrist and not only that I was a forensic psychiatrist for a while in a maximum security unit for the criminally insane.

Parapsychology researcher from Iceland explores the past life memories of children. Join Skeptiko guest host and paranormal dream expert Andy Paquette for an interview with parapsychology researcher and author of, The Departed Among the Living: An Investigative Study of Afterlife Encounters, Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson.  During the interview Haraldsson discusses whether or not these memories are evidence for reincarnation: Andy Paquette: How are these past life memories of these children typically received by their families? Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson: Generally they are inturpreted as though the child is talking about memories from a past life -- so there is a reincarnationistic inturprestation thay they give to the cases.  Sometimes it is so that the child says, "this happened in my previous life", but quite often the child is talking about something that the parent knows never happened to them, hence they assume that the child is talking about something that happened to them in a previous life. Dr. Erlendur-Haraldsson's Website Play it: Download MP3 (25:00 min.)  

172. Dr. Melvin Morse On Why Doctors Don’t Listen to Near-Death Experience Accounts