Dr susan blackmore (NDE Experience)

One of the most dedicated researchers of near-death experiences is Susan Blackmore, a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of the West of England, a parapsychologist, and Zen Buddhist. She is the author of several books including: Dying to Live, In Search of the Light, and her latest, The Meme Machine. Her theories concerning NDEs are very impressive and well worth understanding. She is a formidable skeptic, not only of the "afterlife theory" of the NDE, but on many other paranormal phenomena.

Susan is also one of the few researchers who actually had a NDE herself.

please view this link....WORTH READING !!!


http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts09.html

I am a great fan of Susan Blackmore and have been aware of her work since I first started investigating.

this is the only article i have seen of hers,but wld be interested in reading more,if you have any to share..


what do you personally make of this one ?

Here's her website Angel

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

thanks very much,i will take a peek at this when kids gone to bed,so im not distracted.

SHES ONE CRAZY LOOKIN DOOD !!

Thoroughly enjoyed the read,thankyou for giving the link,bit too much to digest,so will go over it again no doubt

I saw her at a conference once. Looks a bit differant now.

must be a very confident lady,i didnt mean my comment in a negtive way.

i have reserved one of her books at the library today,cant wait to read it...you know newcastle upon tyne only have ONE book written by susan out of all their libraries !!

cant remember the whole name,but its one on consciounce (sp?)..i cant even spell it,pmsl

You should read "Dying to live" which is her book on near-death experiences.

Although now dated, it is still a seminal piece of work.

Hasn't there been some controversy recently over how Blackmore has portrayed the results of her early experiments as far more significant and watertight than they actually were?

Still, despite the apparent cynical edge to some of her opinions, she's made some very useful contributions to the field.

No - no controversy at all. Her stuff is sound.

As I said above though, it is now dated as brain science has moved on over the last 15 years or so....

The controversy is over the highly dubious work of people like van Lommel, Ring, Sabom, Parnia & Fenwick - all of whom are either factually incorrect, logically flawed, or both....

Well, there's evidence to the contrary here:

http://www.dailygrail.com/node/5799

Errrr I would not take that link as a reliable source on the matter (websites are unregulated after all).

I have heard these claims before - but they are largely nonsense as they have nothing to do with her theory. The thing is - no one can replicate PSI findings - and so it is unlikely to be real.

Blackmore has been publishing for over 25 years so I fail to see how any of the discussion in that link can account for that. What it hints at is a publication bias assuming that what she did not publish were results that went against her model.

This is utter nonsense. Dont forget - statisitically we all expect 'hits' to occur by chance alone which many skeptics feel is exactly what the paranormalists have been doing for years (on average one in twenty). I note that link says nothing about this!

I think you've missed the point - I'm certaintly not doubting Blackmore's overall contribution, and particularly not her later work.

Rather, and as my original post stated, there's evident discrepancies between Blackmore's public opinion and her admissions to peers over the validity of some early experiments. Whether she's been working in the field for 2500, 25, or 0.25 years has no bearing on the matter.

I simply think it's an interesting point in light of how people with an agenda or belief of any sort can tend to adapt, whether consciously or not, evidence to suit their own views.

With respect i think you have missed the point - because the claims on that unregulated website are simply untrue. There is no discrepency.

If a reason in an argument is untrue then it cannot support the conclusion.

It does matter how long one has been working in relation to the point about statistics I made. If you were to run 100 ESP experiments right now - you may get one run which is above statistical chance - the question is, does that mean ESP exists? The answer is - no! If you work in a field long enough you will get hits - but you may also fail to replicate your own hits.

This is what is known as a false-positive. Sorry if I was not clearer on this matter in my initial response

I dont think Blackmore has any angenda and the link - which is simply false information - does nothing to establish the fact. Do you have any peer-reviewed evidence to support your supposition?

Maybe the agenda is on the side of those trying to undermine science? Think about it.....

I should stress, before this turns into a slanging match, that the opinion in the link isn't my point of view. I was simply pointing out an interesting piece on Blackmore's attitude.

The link claims Blackmore has apparently presented two conflicting opinions on her evidence. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise then I'm happy to read it - I'm not quite naive enough to believe everything I read on "unregulated" websites, but then neither am I naive enough to believe everything I read on public forums.

With all due respect I can't see anything in your replies that supplies evidence against Blackmore presenting conflicting views on her experiments.

You simply have to read her papers to see that she has been consistent over 25 years - thus that link is simply nonsense.

Use Google scholar and track down her papers. All the evidence you need is there. She published many papers in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease as well.....go for it (note - peer-reviewed papers ).

When doing her PhD she was a believer in the sense it was on memory and ESP and she thought there was something in it. Over the years she became more skeptical - but her publications have always been consistent on that and her position (one I have heard at conferences as well) has always been the same.

On a side issue - that link seems to be about her work on ESP / Psi and not NDEs - which increases its redundancy anyway in terms of the present discussion.

Also - dont forget (as the website does) she has been a journal editorial board member for years and wil have reviewed much of the evidence coming out of labs for years - she was unconvinced by that as well - so I dont think she is just referring to her own experiments but those of the field in general

matt.h wrote:

I should stress, before this turns into a slanging match, that the opinion in the link isn't my point of view. I was simply pointing out an interesting piece on Blackmore's attitude.

I accept that - but the link is simply false so I am not sure how it adds to anything.

Quote :

The link claims Blackmore has apparently presented two conflicting opinions on her evidence.

In reality it merely shows how the person who wrote it does not understand the research.

Quote :

If you have evidence that suggests otherwise then I'm happy to read it -

I do - its all available as well - see above post.

Quote :

I'm not quite naive enough to believe everything I read on "unregulated" websites, but then neither am I naive enough to believe everything I read on public forums.

If you stick to the real evidence then there wont be any problems

Quote :

With all due respect I can't see anything in your replies that supplies evidence against Blackmore presenting conflicting views on her experiments.

and that's your fallacy - you need to bring evidence that she has (based on her papers which you clearly have not read). As at the moment all you are doing is propogating a falsehood. See the references link (via Google etc and her website) for all the evidence you need. Happy reading.

Please dont feel I am having a slanging match - no offence intended - but i simply had to respond to something which was so factually incorrect - I accept it is not your error (but the person who's website it is). I think we have covered this now. Take it easy...

There is also something else that is worrying about the link, the way it is written, and its clear agenda.

Let me illustrate this with a general example. Imagine I run an experiment today which provides results consistent with Theory A. Then imagine in five years time I run a similar set of experiments which are now consistent with Theory B (a totally different theory). This is not being inconsistent at all - but the progression of science itself. This is what science is all about - new results, new ideas and new ways to see the world. I wonder if that website would view such instances as being 'inconsistent'?

Okay, my last post on this matter as we're going way off topic and clearly not going to agree!

My initial post was based around the final paragraph in the link that stated...

"Carter writes that after Berger's critique, "Blackmore was willing to concede in an academic journal that 'I agree that one cannot draw conclusions about the reality of psi based on these experiments.' But her writings in the popular press have not reflected this admission."

Your argument has been based around discussion of approaches to experiments, statistical analysis etc. However, my original comment was about Blackmore's own reaction in the aforementioned "academic journal" which seems to contravene her previous position, for which she used as a basis her own work on Psi. I fail to see my "fallacy" in not providing evidence from her papers, as this is a question of Blackmore's conduct in public and reaction to examination of her papers rather than a question directly of the papers themselves. I think this is where we have differed in our arguments.

The point, which I still don't feel you've countered, is that she has appeared to show a double standard regarding her early results in the general media and her admissions to the academic community.

Perhaps her initial comments were made years ago, and that her recent admission is a result of revised opinions over a substantial period of time and development in technique - through the scientific process as you point out.

However, I'd like to see evidence of that before I accept that the linked article is "false". I don't think referring me to Blackmore's own website is going to provide that.

matt.h wrote:

"Carter writes that after Berger's critique, "Blackmore was willing to concede in an academic journal that 'I agree that one cannot draw conclusions about the reality of psi based on these experiments.' But her writings in the popular press have not reflected this admission."

And this is in error. What she said was - you never know? She has never ruled out the possibilitiy of the paranormal - no true scientist does - but when dealing with probabilities it makes it unlikely. Dont forget (as you seem to have done) Blackmore has left the field in disgust and simply does not care anymore about the field and how it distorts the truth. She simply became far too tired with it all.

Only a fool would claim that a single study - or set of them - proves Psi or disproves Psi. Think about it.....

Quote :

Your argument has been based around discussion of approaches to experiments, statistical analysis etc. However, my original comment was about Blackmore's own reaction in the aforementioned "academic journal" which seems to contravene her previous position, for which she used as a basis her own work on Psi.

If you read the full context - you will see that the website and your analysis is incorrect. Please go back and read my above comments. This is not inconsistency and she learly has not been inconsistent!!!! She found no evidnece for Psi - full stop. Maybe you could dig out some references of hers that did?

She is basically saying she found no evidence for it - which makes her think that it is unlikely to be real - however, this alone does not make it unreal.....I cant see the problem with that.

Quote :

I fail to see my "fallacy" in not providing evidence from her papers, as this is a question of Blackmore's conduct in public and reaction to examination of her papers rather than a question directly of the papers themselves. I think this is where we have differed in our arguments.

It is a fallacy because the point you are trying to propogate is incorrect in the proper and full context.

Quote :

The point, which I still don't feel you've countered, is that she has appeared to show a double standard regarding her early results in the general media and her admissions to the academic community.

You have not proven this 'double standard' at all - you just keep re-stating it. Where is this paper you talk of? Why not go to the primary source first? I have. Thus, I hjave refuted your point many times. It's all about context - and not building straw-men arguments

Quote :

Perhaps her initial comments were made years ago, and that her recent admission is a result of revised opinions over a substantial period of time and development in technique - through the scientific process as you point out.

She has not revised her opinion in the way intimated in the web link.

Quote :

However, I'd like to see evidence of that before I accept that the linked article is "false". I don't think referring me to Blackmore's own website is going to provide that.

You mean you are choosing to ignore the evidence? Fine. I should point out at this stage that I know Sue very well. We disagree on many things - but that website's view, and your uncritical acceptance of it is fallacious. I have referred you to the primary sources and how to find them. From the original papers of Sue you can do a forward search and locate all the proper debate that followed (which was implied in my earlier comments) - so you can read all the relevant information that has been reviewed from all sides. None of it is as portrayed on that website which seems to rely purely on a single book.

One other point - the website really just shows how other people "so-called experts" are incapable of placing comments in their proper context.

Sue leaves the door of possibility wide open and she always has. However, with no reliable evidence all that door is doing at the moment is letting in a draft of nonsense.....