Skeptiko - Science at the Tipping Point

Interview with Dr. Robert Kuhn reveals why he’s reluctant to accept evidence for near-death experience (NDE) science. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Dr. Robert Kuhn, host of popular television show Closer to Truth.  During the interview Kuhn discusses the evidence for survival of consciousness after death: Alex Tsakiris: Let’s talk about survival of consciousness a little bit -- life after death -- and in particular near-death experience research. It’s a topic we’ve covered a lot on this show.  If there’s consciousness with no brain, then the mind/body debate is really over. Why isn’t this an area you’ve dug into? Dr. Robert Kuhn: That’s a legitimate question and obviously we’ve touched on it because we do deal with life after death in terms of the religious expressions of it. So that’s something I can focus on, because it’s not a question of physical fact as NDE would be, which I am very skeptical of. Alex Tsakiris: Who would be someone you would point to as being an NDE skeptic? Dr. Robert Kuhn: To me, the number of people would be legion. The burden of proof is on the other side. Alex Tsakiris: The burden of proof of what? The NDE evidence is pretty clear.  For example when they’ve studied this in the cardiac ward they know there’s no brain electrical activity and yet there’s this conscious NDE experience. I mean, that’s really the crux of the mind/body issue. Dr. Robert Kuhn: I would find that not compelling at all if that’s the evidence. Alex Tsakiris: What do you mean? Dr. Robert Kuhn: I personally believe that there is more likely than not a need for something beyond the material world as we understand it today to explain consciousness and mind. I would not, though, use as evidence for that the existence of the NDE. Closer to Truth Website Play It: Download MP3 (41:00 min.) Read It: Alex Tsakiris: Let’s talk about survival a little bit. Life after death. It’s a topic we’ve covered a lot on this show because the evidence for it really cuts to the core of this argument we’ve just been talking about. If there’s consciousness when there’s no brain, then it’s really debate over. And that, of course, brings… Dr. Robert Kuhn: Well, I don’t necessarily agree with that but to be very rigorous in the analysis it does not follow that if there is more to consciousness than the brain, it does not follow that there has to be a guaranteed life after death. It can follow; it is not excluded, of course. It is a fact in that direction… Alex Tsakiris: Let me be clear. What I was saying is that if there’s consciousness with no brain, then the mind/body debate is really over because you don’t have a body anymore and you do still have a mind. That debate is over. I agree with you; survival of a personal consciousness that exists, reincarnation and all the rest, is a whole other leap as you said that requires some gaps. But I think the topic that we’ve dug into because it directly addresses these issues is the near-death experience. I was very interested to read a blog post of yours titled, “Is There Life After Death?” If I can, I want to read you a quote from that and chat about it a little bit. You say, “As for NDEs, I’ve never given the claims credence. They seem more like stress-induced brain physiology caused by lack of oxygen or other such chemical insults or trauma brought about by whatever has caused the near-death in the first place.” Tell me about that because I’ve got to tell you, I’ve interviewed some of the world’s leading NDE researchers, physicians, researchers at leading universities, and boy, none of them are saying that. It seems to me like all the evidence points in the other direction. So tell me what you’re thinking there. Dr. Robert Kuhn: Well, I don’t claim to be an expert. I’ve not done any personal research myself, but from what I’ve observed and from my knowledge of brain science in general,

Interview with Buddhist meditation teacher Shinzen Young explores different views of God. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Buddhist meditation teacher Shinzen Young.  During the interview Shinzen discusses letting go of our sim...

Interview reveals how a near-death experience changed everything neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander thought he knew about consciousness, spirituality, and life after death. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander.  During the interview Dr. Alexander discusses letting go of our simplistic view of consciousness: Alex Tsakiris: Can we really then hope to get out of the consciousness loop that we’re in now? Or is there something fundamental to the way that we’re constructed that’s going to keep us limited in how much we can really? Dr. Eben Alexander: What I think is going to happen is that science and spirituality, which will be mainly be an acknowledgement of the profound nature of our consciousness, will grow closer and closer together. One thing that we will have to let go of is this kind of addiction to simplistic, primitive reductive materialism because there’s really no way that I can see a reductive materialist model coming remotely in the right ballpark to explain what we really know about consciousness now. Coming from a neurosurgeon who, before my coma, thought I was quite certain how the brain and the mind interacted and it was clear to me that there were many things I could do or see done on my patients and it would eliminate consciousness. It was very clear in that realm that the brain gives you consciousness and everything else and when the brain dies there goes consciousness, soul, mind—it’s all gone. And it was clear. Now, having been through my coma, I can tell you that’s exactly wrong and that in fact the mind and consciousness are independent of the brain. It’s very hard to explain that, certainly if you’re limiting yourself to that reductive materialist view. Dr. Eben Alexander's Website Play It: Download MP3 (52:00 min.) Read It: Today we welcome Dr. Eben Alexander to Skeptiko. Dr. Alexander has been an academic neurosurgeon for more than 25 years, including 15 years at Harvard Medical School in Boston. In November of 2008, he had a near-death experience that changed his life and caused him to rethink everything he thought he knew about the human brain and consciousness. Dr. Alexander, welcome to Skeptiko. Dr. Eben Alexander: Thank you. It’s good to be here. Alex Tsakiris: Well, your story is really quite amazing. For those who haven’t heard of it and aren’t aware of what you went through, do you want to tell us a little bit about your experience? Dr. Eben Alexander: Yes. It really struck out of the blue. I’d been quite healthy up until that time. In fact, I was in reasonably good shape because my older son had been putting me through a big workout, anticipating a climb of a 20,000 foot volcano in South America. Alex Tsakiris: Wow. Dr. Eben Alexander: Luckily I was in pretty good shape. At 4:30 in the morning, November 10, 2008, I got out of bed. I was getting ready to go up to work. I was working in Charlottesville at the time and I had severe sudden back pain, much worse than I had ever experienced. Literally within 10 or 15 minutes, it got me to a point where I could not even take a step. I was really in tremendous agony. My wife, Holly, was rubbing my back. Then my younger son, Bond, came in and saw I was in a lot of distress and he started rubbing my temples. I realized when he did that that I had a severe headache. It was like he took a railroad spike and put it through my head. But I was already really going down very quickly. I didn’t know it at the time. I found out much later that I had acute bacterial meningitis and it was a very unusual bacteria. One that the incidence of spontaneous E. coli meningitis in adults in the U.S. is about 1 in 10 million per year. So it’s really rare. We never found out where it came from. But at any rate, it was in about 2 to 2-1/2 hours it drove me deep down and in fact, my last words really were to my wife, “Don’t call 911. Trust me, I’m a doctor.”

Skeptics and Beliver square off in a discussion about Skepticism, science and some controversial past Skeptiko interviews. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for a discussion with Monster Talk podcast hosts Blake Smith, Ben Radford, and Karen Stollznow.  This episode is also published on the Skepticality podcast. Monster Talk Podcast Website Play It: Download MP3 (109:00 min.)

Long-time NDE researchers and author P.M.H. Atwater reveals what she’s learned from the nearly 4,000 near-death experieners she’s studied. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with NDE researcher and author, P.M.H. Atwater.  During the interview Atwater discusses the after-effects associated with NDEs: Alex Tsakiris: Once we accept that near-death experience science overwhelmingly suggests that consciousness, in some way that we don’t understand, survives bodily death, I think you make a very good point about looking beyond NDEs at the broad range of spiritual experiences and trying to somehow understanding how they all fit together. PMH Atwater: What I always look for is the pattern of after-effects, how that affects the individual’s life, how long-lasting is that, how that affects the lives of others. It’s always the after-effects. I spend a lot of time in the book on after-effects, both with adults and children. On the physiological end, there are definitive changes to the brain/mind assembly, to the nervous system, to the digestive system, and skin sensitivity. P.M.H. Atwater's Website Play It: Download MP3 (39:00 min.) Read It: We’re joined today by NDE researcher and NDE experiencer, PMH Atwater. PMH, thanks for joining me today on Skeptiko. PMH Atwater: It’s my privilege. Alex Tsakiris: A lot of folks will recognize your name. You’re certainly one of the leading NDE researchers and have been for a long time. You have a new book out called, Near-Death Experiences: The Rest of the Story. I want to talk about that book but I first want to talk about a couple other things. Let’s start with a little bit of background. I was amazed, I guess, in just the sheer number of NDE accounts that you’ve carefully recorded in your research. It’s over 4,000. Is that correct? PMH Atwater: Nearly 4,000. Alex Tsakiris: These are pretty in-depth, careful interviews that you do with these people. PMH Atwater: They’re not just interviews. I want to be clear about that. I call it “having sessions,” because I don’t ask interview questions. I say very little, that is to say to lead the person on and to telling me whatever they want to tell me. But then I spend a lot of time watching them and studying them as they speak. If anybody walks by, does that change their tone or what they’re saying? If a loved one is near, does that alter their response in any way? So I’m doing a lot of observation work. Alex Tsakiris: Yeah, that’s fascinating. It’s obviously a very wise methodology to follow and I’m glad that you’re explaining how careful you are in doing that. I guess even that becomes so complicated because there are two aspects of this. There’s the aspect that this is a profound spiritual experience for a lot of folks, this near-death experience. But the other aspect of it is that I think a lot of folks, as you explain in your book, feel some very mixed feelings about coming out and being public about this because they know that there’s still a certain stigma attached with talking about such a strange experience. So I have even more appreciation for this careful process you go through in working with these folks. PMH Atwater: Yeah, well, just call me obsessed. [Laughs] Yeah, it’s a magnificent obsession, I guess. My husband calls me “the monk in the monastery.” My office is in the basement of our home so when I go over my data and think and what-have-you, I am the monk in the monastery. I am. I truly am. I will not know what time of day it is, who I am, who you are; all I’ll know is what I’m doing. I have that kind of a laser focus. Alex Tsakiris: Well, that’s going to make it even more intriguing to dip into this article that recently came out and caught my attention. It was a rebuttal, a reply that you wrote to an article that appeared in a Scientific American. The title of the article, written by this guy named Steven Chu, who--by the way,

How reliable is the reporting of science journalists who are also part of the "Skeptical community"? Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for a review of his work investigating psychic detectives: Alex Tsakiris: A couple of years ago, I did a fairly lengthy investigation of psychic detective case with Ben Radford.  It’s taken two years, but next week I’m going to have a chance to do an interview with Ben Radford again, and hopefully close the loop on some of that work that we did. Background on this case: 78. Psychic Detective, Noreen Renier and Skepticality Response 69: Psychic Detective Smackdown, Ben Radford 58. Psychic Detectives and Police 57. The Psychic Detective Challenge Play It: Download MP3 (15:00 min.) Read It: 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 we’re going to look at a topic that I haven’t touched on in quite some time, and that is psychic detective work. The idea, of course, of psychics and law enforcement working together to solve crimes. In particular, we’re going to focus on how that work is reported in the media. Hey, by the way, what do you think of the title of this episode? The title again is “Science Journalist Ben Radford Believes Psychic Detective.” Let me tell you how I put that together. See, I took the first part, which is true—Ben Radford is a science journalist, so I took that, Ben Radford, science journalist. And then I took the part that I wished was true, “Believes Psychic Detective,” and I added that onto the end and I got a good title. A title that I wanted. Now, of course, some of you would object to a title like this because if you’ve ever heard Ben Radford or read much of what he’s written in various science sites, then you know that he’s a hard-core skeptic. He’s a guy that goes out of his way to debunk these psychic detectives. Hey, but then again it’s been shown that 87% of what these skeptical science journalists generate is just plain wrong. Okay. I don’t know if that’s really true. I just kind of made that figure up. I mean, it sure feels true to me, but I don’t know if it’s really true. And for those of you who have listened to this show for a long time, you might have figured out by now what I’m really getting at here. See, a couple of years ago, I did a fairly lengthy investigation of psychic detective work with Ben Radford. It’s taken a while. It’s taken two years, but you know, next week I’m going to have a chance to do an interview with Ben Radford again, and hopefully close the loop on some of that work that we did. In advance of doing that, I wanted to kind of reintroduce you to the work that we did back then because I think it really paints a broader picture of some of the problems that we’ve talked about on this show. Really, it points back to the big picture change that we’ve made on this show in terms of saying, “Hey, you know what? It’s not about the data. It’s about all the other stuff other than the data.” I know that’s a little abstract, so let me bring it down to a concrete example here, with this case that I did with Ben Radford. After spending a good month and hours and hours of interviews with police detectives, who you’ll hear in a minute, and the psychic herself, who you’ll hear in a minute, and presenting this information to Ben in the most concrete, straightforward way, we were then faced with Ben turning around and completely misrepresenting—directly misrepresenting—what was said by the detectives in another broadcast. I think what that really calls into question is this broader issue of who can we trust? Can we trust the gatekeepers of science, the self-appointed gatekeepers of science, who are the skeptical science journalists like Ben Radford? So with that as a bit of an introduction, let me replay for you one of the points that was raised during this long, drawn-out,

Lucid dreaming expert Robert Waggoner explains how to become aware of our dreams while we’re dreaming, and how paranormal dreams can lead to a journey of self-discovery. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with author, and lucid dream ...

Professor Michael Flannery explains how the theory of evolution was hijacked, and why Alfred Russel Wallace had it right all along. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with author, historian and evolution theory expert, Professor Micha...

Author and Satanist Winter Laake explains how his experiences with the occult have shaped his views on life and the afterlife. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Winter Laake author of, The Satanic Paradigm. During the interview Laake discusses the hypocrisy of Christianity and Satanism: Alex Tsakiris: I want to venture into is something that you alluded to when you were talking about the failed proposition that is Christianity, at least from your view, and the hypocrisy of it -- the emphasis on self-denial that gets in the way of personal freedoms and self-development. But I wondered, can’t some of those same problems be reflected back on Satanic practices? So, even if you practiced Satanism, and you try and live for the moment, or live for yourself, you’re going to die. You’re probably going to get sick and die. No one escapes that. Crowley didn’t escape that; Anton LaVey didn’t escape that. In the end, we all face the same fate.  So aren’t there some of the same contradictions that we see in Christianity? Winter Laake: It does in a sense, and that is where I feel that a lot of scientists are now trying to even break that foothold. They’re seeking singularity which is coming by about 2040 or 20/50 where it will be plausible to not die. I think we will see it in our lifetime. But yes, the hypocrisy exists probably even more so in any Satanic or occult practices. To a lot of people it’s a phase they’re going through. They are very destructive and dangerous people, some of them. They are not nice people. Christians can be pretty ruthless, too, but Satanic practitioners on different levels can be very, very dangerous. Probably more so than Christians.  A lot of Satanists don’t like to say that. They want to glaze it over and say, “oh, we’re all nice and get along,” but that’s not necessarily the truth. There’s a lot of hatred. There’s a lot of anger that’s self-created. I personally don’t have that. I have a Mephistophelian kind of concept of where I’m at with things. But yes, hypocrisy is alive and well. It’s in our nature. I think people are a summation of their decisions and I think if they make the asserted effort that they can achieve anything they wish. Winter Laake's Facebook Page Play it: Download MP3 (48:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Today’s guest is a successful author, a consultant on Hollywood horror films. He’s also a psychic and sometimes psychic detective. But Winter Laake is best known through his association with the occult, black magic, witchcraft, and Satanism. Winter, thanks for joining me today on Skeptiko. Winter Laake: Thank you. Alex Tsakiris: As I was just mentioning a minute ago, it’s great to have you on. It’s exciting because I think some of the ways that you approach some of the same topics we’ve been talking about is quite unique and quite interesting for our audience. So let’s start though, with some of the basics that certainly won’t be basics for a lot of people. What is Satanism? What is a little bit about your book, The Satanic Paradigm, and how does this all fit in the larger context of what we often call “the occult?” Winter Laake: Satanism is a huge topic that engulfs many different arenas. You have the antiquity dating back to the Hellfire Club, which were basically practicing Satanists and before, even going into medieval ages and probably since the dawn of man. Mankind, in my opinion, is inherently evil and they are going against their nature by trying to pretend or put a face on that they’re good. Alex Tsakiris: Whenever you talk about evil, now you’re getting into this duality of good and bad that is so much a part of the religious paradigm that you kind of were alluding to. And yet at the same time, one of the things that intrigues me with what I’ve encountered about Satanism is this pull for materialism, as well. So I read Anton LaVey, who maybe you want to tell folks a little bit about,

OBE expert Graham Nicholls explains how his out of body experiences have led him to an understanding of the spiritual. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Graham Nicholls author of, Avenues of the Human Spirit. During the intervie...

Jim Harold explains why mainstream media outlets stick to conventional “giggle factor” reports of the paranormal. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with author, and host of the Paranormal Podcast, Jim Harold.  During the interview Ha...

Professor of Psychology and well-respected researcher Dr. Stanley Krippner explains how his research supports the reality of precognitive dreams. Join Skeptiko guest host and paranormal dream expert Andy Paquette for an interview with legendary psychology researcher Dr. Stanley Krippner..  During the interview Dr. Krippner discusses whether or not the evidence for paranormal dreaming is well established: Andy Paquette: You’ve been studying dreams for the most part for the majority of your career. Do you feel that the case for precognitive dreaming is proven? Dr. Stanley Krippner: No, I don’t think anything in science is proven. Science is always open-ended. There’s always a chance of revising scientific theory based on new data. Andy Paquette: Of course, that would work both ways, as well, wouldn’t it? So what you’d really be talking about is what does the currently available information indicate? Dr. Stanley Krippner: That’s right. Andy Paquette: And in your case, from what you’ve seen, what do you think the currently available information indicates? Dr. Stanley Krippner: I think you can make a strong case for precognitive dreams. Stanley Krippner's Website Play it: Download MP3 (35:00 min.) Read it: Alex Tsakiris: Today we’re joined by Andy Paquette, who is a former Skeptiko guest and is also the author of Dreamer: 20 Years of Psychic Dreams and How They Changed My Life. Now, Andy is joining us today because he recently attended the 2011 Study of Dreams Conference in The Netherlands, where he was also a presenter. While he was there he was nice enough to snag a couple of interviews for us and he’s here to share them with us. So Andy, welcome and tell us what you’ve been up to. Andy Paquette: I just got back from  a few very beautiful, sunny days in Kerkrade, which is a little tiny town in The Netherlands that basically has as its centerpiece this enormous old monastery that I think was built about 1,000 or 1,100 years ago or something like that, where we had the IASD Conference. It was the first time I’d ever been there and one of the things I wanted to do, if for no other reason but just to see what would come of it, was to see if I ran into anyone who agreed to being interviewed for Skeptiko that I happened to think might be interesting to interview for Skeptiko. And as a result of being there and having things to do and not having things to do at certain times, I finally ran into a couple guys who I thought were worth interviewing. There’s Dr. Stanley Krippner who is somewhat of a target because I wanted to interview him from the beginning, and two guys I hadn’t heard of before but who were doing a presentation on quantum mechanics as an explanation for certain types of dreams. Since that’s a topic that crops up on Skeptiko fairly often, I thought, ‘Well, let’s talk to these guys and find out what’s going on.’ I’m just going to admit this to everybody: I didn’t know anything about quantum mechanics. I’ve read about it; I’ve seen some of these explanations, but somehow they all went over my head. I figured I’d just talk to these guys and get it all sorted out once and for all and for all those people on the forum who likewise didn’t really understand the argument so they’d know what it was, also. So that was the main thing I wanted to do. Alex Tsakiris: Great. Why don’t you set up first and tell us a little bit about who Stanley Krippner is and then we’ll go ahead and play your interview with him. Andy Paquette: Okay. Dr. Stanley Krippner has been researching dreams for about 50 years. I said that in the interview and he didn’t argue with me. I think that’s about the right number. I believe he started in the 60s or so. I think he’s the founder or the president of the Saybrook Institute in the United States which studies dreams. He’s done a lot of work on paranormal dreams. He’s written lots and lots of books.

Author of The Bond explains how our scientific understanding of human connection leads to spirituality. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Lynne McTaggart best-selling author of, The Bond.  During the interview Ms. Mc Taggart dis...

Author and Newsweek’s religion editor Lisa Miller offers mixed messages about what lies beyond death. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Lisa Miller, religion editor at Newsweek magazine and author of, Heaven.  During the interv...

Bestselling author and investigative journalist Jim Marrs discusses how disinformation is used to shape history. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Jim Marrs, author of, Trillion Dollar Conspiracy.  During the interview Mr. Marrs...