Being a "Skeptic" Means You'll Never Suffer Disadvantage For Your Lies.

Earlier this year I did a series exploring the interesting fact that materialists are allowed to get away with lying and distorting the truth, what some would call "reality", by virtue of their being champions of "reality". Some of them have made a career of it, some becoming rather wealthy from it.   In this case "reality" means some species of materialism.  When that materialist assertion is made in the guise of journalism it compounds the problem because journalists, like scientists,  pretend to be answerable to enhanced mechanisms of review insuring a higher level of reliability in what they say than we mere non-journalists.  In reality those mechanisms are frequently bypassed and platitudes less expensive and time consuming than careful fact checking and strict editing are substituted.  In no other area of journalism is that as true as when something purported to wear the mantle of science or even just something that can be passed off as sciency is being written about. And that last venue of journalistic fraud, the merely sciency, has become an article of faith within the industry that journalism is. There are scientists who tear their hair out as they read or hear science reporters making a total hash of the science in a way that misleads their audience.  But other scientists - I'm trying hard to cut down on the number of quote marks I'm using -  seem to have no problem with it, especially when they are also part of the march away from reality.

To a great extent, I suspect, it is tied in to the cult of cynical manliness that replaces other values in journalism and the larger commercial and popular culture.  Values such as careful reporting of facts, of, you know, REPORTING THE TRUTH NON-IDEOLOGICALLY.    Ironically, a lot of it is cowardly acquiescence to an open campaign of intimidation practiced, first by CSICOP and its successor organizations in ideological atheism.  This post looks at a recent example.

Dr. Eben Alexander wrote a book which became a best seller about his experiences during a long coma caused by a severe case of bacterial meningitis.  The case of meningitis is medically documented and Alexander, as a neurosurgeon at Harvard Medical School, among others and a surgeon in some of the most respected hospitals in the country is more than a reliable judge of his own case.  And, in the appendix of the book, he presents the evaluation of another doctor,  Scott Wade, who was involved with the case*

What he said he experienced is known as a near death experience, an entirely internal experience of which the person having the experience is the only possible expert.  I have never had that kind of experience and know of only one story in our family or among my friends that is sort of indicative of something like that, it happened when my great-grandmother was dying**.

I have no stand on the "reality" of near death experiences except that, since it's a personal experience,  the person having one is the only possible expert on it, what they choose to say about it is nothing that anyone has to believe but it is also nothing anyone else can refute.  In other words, I take that lost and unstylish stand in this world of pseudo-skeptical coercion, that, short of clear and obvious and actually harmful irrationality, people have a right to their own thoughts and experiences.

As Dr. Alexander's book hit the best seller list, the predictable happened, the big guns of the modern atheism industry started on the attack.  Sam Harris was one of the early ones, whose debunking effort preceded his reading the book.  And even some of the minor guns came out, such as the lovable Dr. Oliver Sacks, who agreed with the far less than lovable Harris.  That neither of them were involved with the case and had no direct evidence to base their assertions on didn't prevent them from making what goes as definitive statements on what "must have been going on".   That both of them have ideological positions, in which they are as invested and interested in as any TV preacher or celebrity psychic, is not to be considered in judging the validity of their pronouncements.  Being an atheist means never having your motives explored. Being based on nothing but conjecture, their statements aren't the most useful for exploring that little explored filter on our culture.  But a far more elaborate debunking effort is useful for it because it asserts to be reporting of fact and is presented by a major publication as such.

Luke Dittrich, a writer at Esquire magazine, wrote what was clearly intended as a debunking of Alexander's story and it is being marketed as such by Esquire's Editor in Chief, David Granger.  No doubt it will become part of the armamentarium of pseudo-skeptics to try to keep people from talking about such things.

I had not read Alexander's book or anything about it but, while looking for something to listen to while I snapped a large amount of green beans last Saturday, I happened across this Skeptico podcast of Alex Tarkiris talking with Robert Mays, the author of a long article in which he documents what appear to be scandalously shoddy journlistic practices by Dittrich.  If the article is accurate it seems very possible that Dittrich misrepresented what Dr. Laura Potter said about Alexander's case.  She was the emergency room physician who originally handled Alexander in the earliest part of his hospitalization, on which Dittrich bases most of his debunking campaign.   He apparently failed to get other doctors who handled more of the case to talk to him.   Maybe they didn't want to be involved, no doubt knowing that they could expose themselves to a damaging ideological campaign of the kind that can destroy a career if they got on the wrong side of the "skeptics".   If they said anything supporting what Wade and Alexander said about his conscious state during the coma - the reality of which has become important for the "skeptics" to attack - their competence would be attacked, very likely damaging their reputations and careers.   I suspect that Dr. Potter didn't realize how dangerous it was to do more than issue a no-comment to Dittrich, but after his article came out, Potter seemed to regret having done so.  She did send out an e-mail that said:

“I am saddened by and gravely disappointed by the article recently published in Esquire. The content attributed to me is both out of context and does not accurately portray the events around Dr. Eben Alexander’s hospitalization. I felt my side of the story was misrepresented by the reporter. I believe Dr. Alexander has made every attempt to be factual in his accounting of events.”

Considering his status as a reporter, that Dittrich failed to talk to other witnesses to the periods and events which Dr. Potter says he misrepresented, is a rather serious lapse.  He didn't talk to Alexander's wife, Holley, or Michael Sullivan, the Alexander's next door neighbor, who were with Eben Alexander during events Dittrich asserted couldn't have happened.  Unlike Dr. Potter, they were with him continuously while Dr. Potter may not have been because she was in and out of the room as any emergency room physician has to be.  In one instance that could make all the difference in his debunking effort, whether or not Alexander cried out to God is the issue.  He claims that Dr. Potter said she had intubated Alexander an hour earlier so he couldn't have cried out.  If he had asked other people who were there, such as his wife he would have gotten a report less useful to his debunking.

“It happened before they sedated him, while the doctors were trying to get vital signs and spinal fluid and all that. I said to Michael [Sullivan], ‘He spoke!’ and Eben kept writhing. Dr. Potter might not have heard it. She was in and out, checking scans, spinal fluid, so it’s very likely that she wasn’t there.”

A lot of what Dittrich says can't be checked by those of us without access to witnesses, some of whom have dispute what he claimed,  but in one case what he said can be clearly seen to be a total distortion, turning what was said to mean the opposite of what was said.  He reported that the Dahli Lama dressed down Alexander, shaking his finger at him and asserting his unreliability.  As Robert Mays points out in his article, the Esquire editors put what he claimed in capital letters, making His Holiness sound like the eternal CSICOP tape loop:

THE DALAI LAMA WAGS A FINGER AT ALEXANDER. WHEN A MAN MAKES EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS, HE SAYS, A "THOROUGH INVESTIGATION" IS REQUIRED, TO ENSURE THAT PERSON IS "RELIABLE," HAS "NO REASON TO LIE."

But Dittrich's account of what the Dahli Lama said about Eben Alexander's account is clearly a misrpresentation.  You can hear that yourself because the video of those comments is available, if a bit hard to hear due to the combination of his English interspersed with his speaking Tibetan with the aid of a simultaneous translator. [Note:  It was part of a college convocation which is why Alexander is wearing an academic robe.]  If Dittrich had taken the time to actually listen to it numerous times and watch, using headphones and full screen as I did, he couldn't have failed to hear that the Dahli Lama said that Alexander had no reason to lie about his experience and had no history of lying so his account had to be taken seriously.  I saw and hear nothing like what Dittrich described, what I heard and saw were favorable to Alexander's account.  As Mays transcribes it (as it appears on the video, not in the order it appears in the article. which I indicate with elipsis):

...Then [at 44:25 in the video] His Holiness turned to address Dr. Alexander...

... [44:25, DL gestures to EA] As for your own, as your explanation, on the basis of your own sort of experience, quite sort of, ah, amazing. (emphasis added) ...

 ... Here Dittrich picks up the story: [45:50] His Holiness explained that phenomena are categorized into "evident phenomena" that can be studied by direct observation, "hidden phenomena" that can be inferred based on observed phenomena, and then the third category is "extremely hidden phenomena" which can be accessed only through our own first-person experience or the first-person testimony of someone else.

[46:54] "Now for example," the Dalai Lama says, "his sort of experience." He points to Alexander. "For him, it's something reality. Real. But those people who never sort of experienced that, still, his mind is a little bit sort of..." He taps his fingers against the side of his head. "Different!" he says...

[47:46] "For that also, we must investigate," the Dalai Lama says. "Through investigation we must get sure that person is truly reliable." He wags a finger in Alexander's direction. When a man makes extraordinary claims, a "thorough investigation" is required, to ensure "that person reliable, never telling lie," and has "no reason to lie." (emphasis added)...

... [46:54, DL gestures to EA] Now for example, his own sort of experience: for him it's something real. But those people who never sort of experienced that, still, his mind is a little bit sort of different. It's possible like that. [translator] So when we touch upon the third category of phenomena which is really extremely hidden and obscure, then, for the time being, for the other people -- there's no real access, direct or inferential, so the only method that is left is to really rely on the testimony of the first-person experience of the person himself or herself.

[47:46] [DL] And for that also you see, we must investigate. Through investigation we must get sure that person is truly reliable and his experience is something not just illusion of these things. [48:02] Through then thorough investigation, that person is reliable, never telling lie – and in this particular case this is no reason to tell lie – therefore, [translator] so then one can take the testimony to be credible. [translator] So the point I'm trying to make is that with respect to science and its scope for discovering knowledge, we need to make a distinction about the fact that there might be certain types of phenomena which are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. (emphasis added) ...

... And His Holiness goes on to show his acceptance of the validity of Eben Alexander's experience:


[49:12] [DL] Among the scientists so far as I notice, the later part of the twentieth century, they [created] a sort of knowledge or field, they carried a sort of research about the brain – quite subtly. [49:30, pointing to EA] At a more deeper level there is still more mysterious things. (emphasis added)

You can listen for yourself and compare the accuracy of Dittrich's report of what the Dahli Lama said with what you can hear and see for yourself.   I would encourage you to read both his debunking effort and Mays rather detailed debunking of the Esquire debunking - taking into account that Mays is obviously a less skilled writer than Dittrich - I would assert that he's obviously been a more careful reporter in this case.  And, unlike Dittrich,  Mays has been entirely up front about his ideological intentions.  I'm not surprised that he is a more careful reporter on this topic.  He, as anyone who writes seriously on topics on the "Skeptics" index of prohibited ideas, he knows he will be the subject of attacks and ridicule and dishonest debunkery of the kind that atheists are seldom subjected to in the allegedly serious corporate media.

The media takes materialism, "Skepticism", atheism, as a sort of Underwriters Lab style guarantee of reliability and they almost never bother to do even the most basic level of fact checking of claims made in that framing.  And, heavens knows, their vehemently, at times viciously, asserted ideological position is never to be taken into account when testing what they say.  That is the opposite of how they treat people holding other beliefs.  Religious people, people who accept even the possibility that there are things which don't fit into the most primitive style of materialism are automatically held to be suspect, even when there is no rational reason to suspect them of lying.   I am sure that Dr. Eben Alexander, Dr. Scott Wade, and any doctor or scientist who support them have far more to lose in their professional lives than they will ever gain from it.  I would expect Dittrich will be invited to join in "Skeptical" events and groups.  And his rather large lapses of journalistic practice have yet to even be noticed by his employers.

I am not more than mildly interested in "NDE's" other than to assert peoples' superior right to their own experience as compared to ideologues and putative journalists pushing an ideological agenda.  It is that last thing that hooked my attention enough for me to listen to the podcast and read the articles.   Does a journalist who is pushing a pseudo-skeptical, and you can read that to mean "atheist" agenda get to take the liberties that Dittrich seems to have taken in his debunking effort?   Does he get to ignore possible eye-witnesses on an alleged basis of their unreliability while ignoring the possible ideological distortions caused by materialism, "skepticism" or atheism of other witnesses?   And that doesn't include the writers biases and those of his editors and publishers and fellow journalists.   Those are as evident as the blanket requirement that people who write for magazines either suppress any beliefs they have in anything on the "skeptics" list of prohibited ideas - including religion - to merely being open to considering their possibility.   If someone submitted an article supporting even some of Alexander's book to Esquire, I am certain it would have been rejected, probably the topic of derisive laughter around the office and at the bar after work.  The author would find it difficult to be published elsewhere.

* As an Infectious infectious diseases specialist I was asked to see Dr. Eben Alexander when he presented to the hospital on November 10, 2008, and was found to have bacterial meningitis. Dr. Alexander had become ill quickly with flu-like symptoms, back pain, and a headache.  He was promptly transported to the Emergency Room, where he had a CT scan of his head and then a lumbar puncture with spinal fluid suggesting a gram-negative meningitis.  He was immediately begun on intravenous antibiotics targeting that and placed on a ventilator machine because of his critical condition and coma.  Within twenty-four hours the gram-negative bacteria in the spinal fluid was confirmed as E.coli.  An infection more common in infants, E. coli meningitis is very rare in adults (less than one in 10 million annual incidence in the United States), especially in the absence of any head trauma, neurosurgery, or other medical conditions such as diabetes.  Dr. Alexander was very healthy at the time of his diagnosis and no underlying cause for his meningitis could be identified.

The mortality rate for gram-negative meningitis in children and adults ranges from 40 to 80 percent.  Dr. Alexander presented to the hospital with seizures and a markedly altered mental status, both of which are risk factors for neurological complications or death (mortality over 90 percent).  Despite prompt and aggressive antibiotic treatment for his E.coli meningitis as well as continued care in the medical intensive care unit, he remained in a coma six days and hope for a quick recovery faded (mortality over 97 percent).  Then, on the sixth day, the miraculous happened—he opened his eyes, became alert, and was quickly weaned from the ventilator.  The fact that he went on to have a full recovery from this illness after being in a coma for nearly a week is truly remarkable.

*  Shortly before she died in the early 1950s, my grandmother and mother reported that she said,  "I thought it would be Willie who came for me because he's been there so much longer (her youngest son who died of an acute illness, probably a burst appendix, in 1911) but it's Papa who's come."  She then kissed her daughters and my mother and shortly after that died.  That was more than two decades before the "near death experience" was named.   I wasn't there but I do know that my grandmother and mother both believed it's a serious sin to bear false witness.  I don't know them to have lied.