March 19, 2017 — Dr. Robert Davis and Dr. Maree Batchelor

[ChrisJohnsen]

Forgive this bizarre question. You aren't actually Don Ecker, are you? Don't ask me where I got that idea.

Why would Don Ecker, of all people, post under a fake name? I post under my real name, not an anonymous handle and I've actually participated in an episode of The Paracast. Gene knows who I am. We've been mixing it up for years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Gene Steinberg]

IMO, a 7-minute voice sessions isn't a fair test of Dr. Batchelor's alleged abilities. It was clear from the episode voice-only wasn't her preference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's a radio show. A real test would involve a full hour.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Why would Don Ecker, of all people, post under a fake name? I post under my real name, not an anonymous handle and I've actually participated in an episode of The Paracast. Gene knows who I am. We've been mixing it up for years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I will attest to that. Friends can disagree.

 

[Randall]

When I tuned in and heard the words, "Higher dimensional life frequencies." I thought to myself, "Well here we go with more new agey pop-culture quantum woo nonsense, but surprisingly, and much to the credit of Gene and the calibre of the guests, this show did nothing but get better and stay on-track, with quality probing questions that were responded to with what sounded to me like honest answers that IMO gave these guests a level of credibility rarely seen in this area of inquiry. If I were to offer any constructive criticism it would only be to fine tune the delivery so as to keep the quality of the questions up while also keeping it well into the green on the congeniality meter.

On the content of the show itself, what I really liked about the guests is that they made it clear that the terminology they were using was based on their own completely subjective interpretation and for all practical purposes is symbolic or analogical rather than objectively real or of the same meaning as when used in mainstream science, and because of that we don't need to concern ourselves as much with the technical accuracy of the terms as the subjective experience. The guests made some absolutely fantastic points in this regard that validate the value of subjective experience.

For once, when I translated the convenience terms e.g. vibration, dimension, and so on into more neutral and IMO accurate descriptors, I could see, or at least assume I could see a certain coherency, and I would add, that the experience of loss that Dr. Batchelor describes, seems to be a catalyst that can open the door to this layer of subjectivity. Most people have paved it over with their day to day material responsibilities, papered their walls to keep their gut reactions hid, and given everything a shiny gloss coat that reflects everything back to them but their inner selves. But that layer is there for those brave enough to get dirty and do a little personal archaeology on their worldviews.

That being said, I still believe that life after death is impossible, but what I'm saying here is that these subjective experiences are real, and there may be connections between them and the paranormal, including alien visitation, that deserve serious consideration. Being somewhat of an analyst of things paranormal, I think some of the ideas I've heard presented in this episode could be better refined, but all in all, this was an excellent episode. It engaged me deeply in the guests and the subject matter. In closing, I imagine Chris could have linked-in there with some of the comments on consciousness and the responsible use of ethenogens to explore this fringe area.

The ATP with Erica Lukes is also worth checking out. If you don't have an ATP membership, sign up! https://www.theparacast.com/forum/r...sources/after-the-paracast-march-19-2017.291/

 

[Nix]

If Gene was being too skeptical, it's not his fault, I think it only reflects the attitude of the listeners. Most of the questions in the forum were highly skeptical and adversarial. That tends to set the tone for the discussion.

Personally I think Dr Batchelor has some amazing stories to tell; her transformation after the family tragedy, about her visit to India, breakaway civilisations of blue hybrid "gods", and a whole raft of bizarre patient testimonies including a patient who claimed to "see the matrix" - complete with drones flying around, and another patient who was apparently infected with nanotechnology.

Imagine her in a round table with J C Johnson and the Alien Hunter! That would be a pay-per-view Paracast death match I would pay to see.

Sometimes I think too much skepticism up front means we jump straight to analysis, and don't give the interviewee space to tell their story. But I appreciate Gene's work just getting these people on air -- it's all good.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

There are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

I can't prove it.... but I KNOW it

I went to the doctor's and they couldn't diagnose me with anything and when I speak to people about my fairy knowledge they smile and feel better about themselves.

I am now I'm contact with the holographic reality of consciousness. BEHOLD my superpowers.

 

[William Strathmann]

Bravo, Gene, for interviewing your two guests solo. And thanks for presenting my questions. I appreciated the fact that you pressed the issue with Dr. Batchelor about how anyone determines the source of such phenomena as she claims. At least she admitted that she has no objective basis for her practice, other than what she is convinced of as its source, and she also seemed to agree that it rather is very much "results" based for patients, and so who cares what the source is. She is convinced of off-world galactic beings who are, like so much of the paranormal-ufo world, impervious to empirical methodology.

 

[EricTheRed]

Gene did his usual solid job, particularly in the face of two guests who were quite determined to have their cake and eat it too: They wanted their New Age beliefs to have scientific credibility. Batchelor’s epistemology seemed to boil down to ‘I have special gifts that give me specialized access to knowledge. Trust me.’ I got the distinct impression Gene wasn’t convinced that this was a valid way to establish the reality of alleged non-human intelligences. I’m in agreement.

I felt like banging my head against a wall after repeatedly hearing about “frequencies,” “energies,” and “higher dimensions.” Batchelor’s use of these terms mirrors their standard usage in New Age discourse, which function both a figure of speech or rough metaphor, while also supposedly referring to fundamental natural forces. The problem for the former usage is that frequency/etc. doesn’t reveal, it obscures; it offers pseudo-description in place of more precise observation. For example, most everyone knows what you mean when you say you ‘have common interests’ with someone else. This phrase certainly gives you more specific information than ‘We’re on the same frequency’, which could mean several things and not necessarily a shared interest.

In the second category of usage, frequency and energy depart from scientific meaning and seem to become universal causal terms that extend well beyond their scientific meaning. Frequency and energy (and vibration) explain or describe almost anything, which therefore means they explain or describe essentially nothing.

During Gene’s session with Batchelor she said “The earth can actually send frequencies up through your feet.” What could she possibly be talking about here? I can well appreciate this phrase as non-literal and poetic language, the kind of thing you’d say to induce greater bodily awareness and induce mental states as in a guided meditation. However, she appears to believe that there actually exists some literal physical force, which the New Age gives the name of frequency, that was moving from the earth to Gene’s feet and body. What could this be other than New Age word magic?

This frequency is also connected, so we’re told, to these non-human intelligences in their interactions with us. And then there’s a third sense of frequency that appears to be a metaphor for various unspecified psychological and/or physical qualities.

Such obscurantist New Age verbiage lies right there on the table and apparently goes unnoticed, or at least certainly not commented on, by Batchelor or Davis. Their verbal gestures toward skepticism and science don’t assuage the suspicion that they don’t see these terms and their lack of scientific definition as any kind of problem. Thus their talk of science and skepticism is mostly or in part mere rhetoric.

Davis didn’t strike me as being sufficiently aware of a couple of key things.

1. Davis didn’t seem to be aware of the fallacy that the truth of an objective hypothesis, in this case that some non-human intelligence is interacting with experiencers, is not given validity based on how one feels about it. Several times he noted that people had life changing experiences, adopted a more spiritual view of life or spiritual practices, felt “unconditional love” or “united with the universe”—so what? If these experiences benefitted people, I’m happy for them.

But truth doesn’t depend on how we feel about it. If it makes me feel good to believe I’m a billionaire, well then I am one. Given how many times Davis repeated the claim that many experiencers had a positive response, I got the impression that perhaps he was compensating for the lack of any empirical support for the hypothesis of what inspires these experiencer claims in the first place.

2. Davis seems much too easily impressed with Batchelor’s alleged channeling ability. He himself spoke of experiencing ‘jerking movements’ and other things. It was very odd though that he failed to emphasize, which you would do if you were committed to presenting your information with a scientific approach, that somewhat unusual physical and psychological effects are commonplace in therapeutic, religious and other settings. Why these commonplace bodily and psychological effects he mentioned should be upgraded as a unique class of evidence for Batchelor’s alleged channeling power of non-human intelligences is a question left unanswered.​

In his eagerness in trying to convince us that Batchelor is “the real deal,” Davis used the example of love, stating that we can’t prove it but that we know that it exists. Yes, but this is not a valid analogy with what is presented as true in these channeling sessions—that some intelligent entity or force outside the mind is involved. In other words, this is an objective claim. We can either prove it or not. Inner experience alone can’t be used as proof because inner experience can come from other sources, namely psychological.

Having said all this I don’t mean to declare any dogmatic rejection of the possibility of non-human intelligences contacting people. Nor do I want to be seen as discouraging FREE’s investigations. But, if we’re to ever get to the bottom of this phenomenon we need actual science. We don’t need New Age belief masquerading as science, or distorting scientific inquiry to prove a pre-existing belief. Too often, paranormal researchers are their own worst enemy.

 

[Randall]

Gene did his usual solid job, particularly in the face of two guests who were quite determined to have their cake and eat it too: They wanted their New Age beliefs to have scientific credibility. Batchelor’s epistemology seemed to boil down to ‘I have special gifts that give me specialized access to knowledge. Trust me.’ I got the distinct impression Gene wasn’t convinced that this was a valid way to establish the reality of alleged non-human intelligences. I’m in agreement ... Having said all this I don’t mean to declare any dogmatic rejection of the possibility of non-human intelligences contacting people. Nor do I want to be seen as discouraging FREE’s investigations. But, if we’re to ever get to the bottom of this phenomenon we need actual science. We don’t need New Age belief masquerading as science, or distorting scientific inquiry to prove a pre-existing belief. Too often, paranormal researchers are their own worst enemy.

You made some excellent points in your review, but it's not as simple a task as we might first imagine to break everything that is real down into scientific facts. If you follow me here on the forum, you'll already know that I value science a lot and have contributed many posts to debunking new-age woo and/or promoting genuine science, so I know where the boundaries are. Unfortunately it seems that those involved in the paranormal don't know where to draw the line and get sucked into the same trap as ufology by trying too hard to promote what they're doing to the mainstream scientific community. By doing that before they have their own house in order they are only inviting criticism.

So it's not that I don't agree that science should be applied where and when it can, but at the same time science isn't the only tool we have to analyze a situation. I've mentioned critical thinking more times here than people care to hear, but it is another valuable method of looking at a problem that has academic acceptance. So instead of constantly repeating the science mantra, I suggest we go with the CT approach which allows us to apply genuine science when possible without discarding other valuable information gained by way of subjective experience.

 

[marduk]

When I tuned in and heard the words, "Higher dimensional life frequencies." I thought to myself, "Well here we go with more new agey pop-culture quantum woo nonsense, but surprisingly, and much to the credit of Gene and the calibre of the guests, this show did nothing but get better and stay on-track, with quality probing questions that were responded to with what sounded to me like honest answers that IMO gave these guests a level of credibility rarely seen in this area of inquiry. If I were to offer any constructive criticism it would only be to fine tune the delivery so as to keep the quality of the questions up while also keeping it well into the green on the congeniality meter.

On the content of the show itself, what I really liked about the guests is that they made it clear that the terminology they were using was based on their own completely subjective interpretation and for all practical purposes is symbolic or analogical rather than objectively real or of the same meaning as when used in mainstream science, and because of that we don't need to concern ourselves as much with the technical accuracy of the terms as the subjective experience. The guests made some absolutely fantastic points in this regard that validate the value of subjective experience.

For once, when I translated the convenience terms e.g. vibration, dimension, and so on into more neutral and IMO accurate descriptors, I could see, or at least assume I could see a certain coherency, and I would add, that the experience of loss that Dr. Batchelor describes, seems to be a catalyst that can open the door to this layer of subjectivity. Most people have paved it over with their day to day material responsibilities, papered their walls to keep their gut reactions hid, and given everything a shiny gloss coat that reflects everything back to them but their inner selves. But that layer is there for those brave enough to get dirty and do a little personal archaeology on their worldviews.

That being said, I still believe that life after death is impossible, but what I'm saying here is that these subjective experiences are real, and there may be connections between them and the paranormal, including alien visitation, that deserve serious consideration. Being somewhat of an analyst of things paranormal, I think some of the ideas I've heard presented in this episode could be better refined, but all in all, this was an excellent episode. It engaged me deeply in the guests and the subject matter. In closing, I imagine Chris could have linked-in there with some of the comments on consciousness and the responsible use of ethenogens to explore this fringe area.

The ATP with Erica Lukes is also worth checking out. If you don't have an ATP membership, sign up! https://www.theparacast.com/forum/r...sources/after-the-paracast-march-19-2017.291/

OK you've talked me into giving this one a listen. Because TBH, I was going to give it a miss.

 

[marduk]

OK you've talked me into giving this one a listen. Because TBH, I was going to give it a miss.

Ok I tried. I got through one segment.

If my frontal lobe could puke, it would have.

Thanks for trying to have an open mind, Gene. I couldn't have held it together for a whole show.

To all the potential new age folks out there: could you cut a math guy like me a solid and stop using terms like dimension and vibration when you really mean "stuff I made up?"

Those words have meaning, and I end up yelling at my iPhone when you misuse them.

 

[EricTheRed]

You made some excellent points in your review, but it's not as simple a task as we might first imagine to break everything that is real down into scientific facts. If you follow me here on the forum, you'll already know that I value science a lot and have contributed many posts to debunking new-age woo and/or promoting genuine science, so I know where the boundaries are. Unfortunately it seems that those involved in the paranormal don't know where to draw the line and get sucked into the same trap as ufology by trying too hard to promote what they're doing to the mainstream scientific community. By doing that before they have their own house in order they are only inviting criticism.

So it's not that I don't agree that science should be applied where and when it can, but at the same time science isn't the only tool we have to analyze a situation. I've mentioned critical thinking more times here than people care to hear, but it is another valuable method of looking at a problem that has academic acceptance. So instead of constantly repeating the science mantra, I suggest we go with the CT approach which allows us to apply genuine science when possible without discarding other valuable information gained by way of subjective experience.

You made some excellent points in your review, but it's not as simple a task as we might first imagine to break everything that is real down into scientific facts. If you follow me here on the forum, you'll already know that I value science a lot and have contributed many posts to debunking new-age woo and/or promoting genuine science, so I know where the boundaries are. Unfortunately it seems that those involved in the paranormal don't know where to draw the line and get sucked into the same trap as ufology by trying too hard to promote what they're doing to the mainstream scientific community. By doing that before they have their own house in order they are only inviting criticism.

So it's not that I don't agree that science should be applied where and when it can, but at the same time science isn't the only tool we have to analyze a situation. I've mentioned critical thinking more times here than people care to hear, but it is another valuable method of looking at a problem that has academic acceptance. So instead of constantly repeating the science mantra, I suggest we go with the CT approach which allows us to apply genuine science when possible without discarding other valuable information gained by way of subjective experience.

If you're alluding to the overreach of scientism, I'm apt to agree with you, depending on the question. I'm also in agreement that critical thinking can get us some distance into a question through the use of clear definitions, logic, avoidance of fallacies, awareness of bias, and the like. But having said that, critical thinking would still demand that we avoid things like affirming the consequent, or begging the question, which both guests seemed to be doing.

 

[Randall]

If you're alluding to the overreach of scientism, I'm apt to agree with you, depending on the question. I'm also in agreement that critical thinking can get us some distance into a question through the use of clear definitions, logic, avoidance of fallacies, awareness of bias, and the like. But having said that, critical thinking would still demand that we avoid things like affirming the consequent, or begging the question, which both guests seemed to be doing.

Yes. The guests seemed to be of the opinion that the phenomenon represented life after death or some alien influence, but when pressed admitted that they wouldn't go so far as calling it adequate proof, and without the kind of digging into the subject that @Gene Steinberg did, we might never have gotten that admission. That's why the Paracast remains IMO a cut above the rest in terms of looking at these kinds of claims from an open minded, but skeptical perspective. What other examples come to mind for you?

 

[EricTheRed]

Yes. The guests seemed to be of the opinion that the phenomenon represented life after death or some alien influence, but when pressed admitted that they wouldn't go so far as calling it adequate proof, and without the kind of digging into the subject that @Gene Steinberg did, we might never have gotten that admission. That's why the Paracast remains IMO a cut above the rest in terms of looking at these kinds of claims from an open minded, but skeptical perspective. What other examples come to mind for you?

I haven't found the ideal paranormal podcast, the Paracast comes closest for me, and for the reasons you cite.

I will say that Sasquatch Chronicles, which I've been listening to for about 7 months or so now (the free weekly version), does an alright job. I always desire more inquisitive skepticism from any paranormal show, but Sasquatch Chronicles has enough seemingly credible testimony such that my view on this creature has done an about face. I'm sure my friends think I'm off my rocker, but then again they can't be bothered to explore the subject either. What to do?

Do any other paranormal shows stand out for you?

 

[Randall]

I haven't found the ideal paranormal podcast, the Paracast comes closest for me, and for the reasons you cite.

I will say that Sasquatch Chronicles, which I've been listening to for about 7 months or so now (the free weekly version), does an alright job. I always desire more inquisitive skepticism from any paranormal show, but Sasquatch Chronicles has enough seemingly credible testimony such that my view on this creature has done an about face. I'm sure my friends think I'm off my rocker, but then again they can't be bothered to explore the subject either. What to do?

Do any other paranormal shows stand out for you?

I've enjoyed @Erica Lukes' show more than once: Erica Lukes, UFO Classified Radio Show Host KCOR. She's less aggressive but still enjoyable. McConnell's X-Zone is good sometimes: Home | The 'X' Zone Radio & TV Show Podcast Centre. There are just so many, and the guests tend to make the rounds anyway, so I don't listen to much else except C2C because they carry it here on the local radio station at night.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I always have a great time when Erica is on board. She's a good counterpoint to my innate skepticism.

 

[Randall]

I always have a great time when Erica is on board. She's a good counterpoint to my innate skepticism.

Yes. I thought @Erica Lukes handled your questions really well on the After The Paracast episode. That was almost a perfect situation for her to shine because an extensive background on the subject wasn't necessary. That's not to say she doesn't have a knowledge base, but instead of that being the focus, you could hear how she ran the questions through her own filters, ones that seem to be based more on how to handle the questions fairly. Not that your questions weren't fair ( they were ), but the differing perspectives created a very interesting dynamic between the two of you that might make listeners think a little deeper while a the same time being more open minded to possibilities.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Gene did his usual solid job, particularly in the face of two guests who were quite determined to have their cake and eat it too: They wanted their New Age beliefs to have scientific credibility. Batchelor’s epistemology seemed to boil down to ‘I have special gifts that give me specialized access to knowledge. Trust me.’ I got the distinct impression Gene wasn’t convinced that this was a valid way to establish the reality of alleged non-human intelligences. I’m in agreement.

I felt like banging my head against a wall after repeatedly hearing about “frequencies,” “energies,” and “higher dimensions.” Batchelor’s use of these terms mirrors their standard usage in New Age discourse, which function both a figure of speech or rough metaphor, while also supposedly referring to fundamental natural forces. The problem for the former usage is that frequency/etc. doesn’t reveal, it obscures; it offers pseudo-description in place of more precise observation. For example, most everyone knows what you mean when you say you ‘have common interests’ with someone else. This phrase certainly gives you more specific information than ‘We’re on the same frequency’, which could mean several things and not necessarily a shared interest.

In the second category of usage, frequency and energy depart from scientific meaning and seem to become universal causal terms that extend well beyond their scientific meaning. Frequency and energy (and vibration) explain or describe almost anything, which therefore means they explain or describe essentially nothing.

During Gene’s session with Batchelor she said “The earth can actually send frequencies up through your feet.” What could she possibly be talking about here? I can well appreciate this phrase as non-literal and poetic language, the kind of thing you’d say to induce greater bodily awareness and induce mental states as in a guided meditation. However, she appears to believe that there actually exists some literal physical force, which the New Age gives the name of frequency, that was moving from the earth to Gene’s feet and body. What could this be other than New Age word magic?

This frequency is also connected, so we’re told, to these non-human intelligences in their interactions with us. And then there’s a third sense of frequency that appears to be a metaphor for various unspecified psychological and/or physical qualities.

Such obscurantist New Age verbiage lies right there on the table and apparently goes unnoticed, or at least certainly not commented on, by Batchelor or Davis. Their verbal gestures toward skepticism and science don’t assuage the suspicion that they don’t see these terms and their lack of scientific definition as any kind of problem. Thus their talk of science and skepticism is mostly or in part mere rhetoric.

Davis didn’t strike me as being sufficiently aware of a couple of key things.

1. Davis didn’t seem to be aware of the fallacy that the truth of an objective hypothesis, in this case that some non-human intelligence is interacting with experiencers, is not given validity based on how one feels about it. Several times he noted that people had life changing experiences, adopted a more spiritual view of life or spiritual practices, felt “unconditional love” or “united with the universe”—so what? If these experiences benefitted people, I’m happy for them.

But truth doesn’t depend on how we feel about it. If it makes me feel good to believe I’m a billionaire, well then I am one. Given how many times Davis repeated the claim that many experiencers had a positive response, I got the impression that perhaps he was compensating for the lack of any empirical support for the hypothesis of what inspires these experiencer claims in the first place.

2. Davis seems much too easily impressed with Batchelor’s alleged channeling ability. He himself spoke of experiencing ‘jerking movements’ and other things. It was very odd though that he failed to emphasize, which you would do if you were committed to presenting your information with a scientific approach, that somewhat unusual physical and psychological effects are commonplace in therapeutic, religious and other settings. Why these commonplace bodily and psychological effects he mentioned should be upgraded as a unique class of evidence for Batchelor’s alleged channeling power of non-human intelligences is a question left unanswered.​

In his eagerness in trying to convince us that Batchelor is “the real deal,” Davis used the example of love, stating that we can’t prove it but that we know that it exists. Yes, but this is not a valid analogy with what is presented as true in these channeling sessions—that some intelligent entity or force outside the mind is involved. In other words, this is an objective claim. We can either prove it or not. Inner experience alone can’t be used as proof because inner experience can come from other sources, namely psychological.

Having said all this I don’t mean to declare any dogmatic rejection of the possibility of non-human intelligences contacting people. Nor do I want to be seen as discouraging FREE’s investigations. But, if we’re to ever get to the bottom of this phenomenon we need actual science. We don’t need New Age belief masquerading as science, or distorting scientific inquiry to prove a pre-existing belief. Too often, paranormal researchers are their own worst enemy.

Found the interview refreshing even though 'woo speech' had me rolling my eyes and the Yoga session was interesting . It would be interesting to listen to the late Ingo Swann interview and compare both techniques. Agree more open science investigations without bias skepticism.



How we edit science part 1: the scientific method

Blog

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

I always have a great time when Erica is on board. She's a good counterpoint to my innate skepticism.

Erica brings a great energy, different point of view and welcomed change of pace when she co-hosts. She also has a terrific voice for radio. I look forward to her continued participation in the show when Chris' responsibilities find him unavailable.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I agree.