Four Errors Commonly Made by Professional Debunkers
Grossman (Neal)
Source: Journal of Near Death Studies, 2008, 26, 231-8
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsColour-ConventionsDisclaimer

Author’s Abstract

  1. In an editorial previously published in this Journal (Grossman, 2002), I coined the term "fundamaterialist" to characterize a person whose attitude towards materialism is the same as the fundamentalist's attitude towards his or her religion. In each case, the attitude is one of unwavering certainty towards the chosen ideology.
  2. For fundamaterialists, materialism does not appear to be an empirical hypothesis about the real world; it appears to be a given, an article of faith, the central tenet of his web of belief, around which everything else must conform. As all philosophers know, it is always logically possible to hold onto any a priori belief, no matter what the evidence to the contrary, by making enough ad hoc assumptions; so I am not at all surprised that Keith Augustine, in his recent articles in this Journal (2007a, 2007b, 2007c) was able to sustain his faith in materialist ideology even in the face of near-death experiences (NDEs).
  3. This letter will not be a response to anything Augustine wrote, but rather is directed more to the scientists who might be "taken in" by some of the fallacious reasoning that he and other debunkers customarily employ. I will discuss four such fallacies, three briefly, the other at greater length.


See Link

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2019
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Jan 2019. Please address any comments on this page to File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page