Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Christian vs. Survivalist Apologetics.Keith Augustine - 2023 - The Secular Web.
    In a 2022 critique of the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies essay competition on the “best” evidence for life after death (“the survival of human consciousness”) and in replies to two commentaries on it, I made passing reference to the parallels between the arguments provided by survival researchers—psychical researchers ostensibly investigating evidence for an afterlife using scientific best practices—and the well-worn fallacies repeatedly committed by creationists and other Christian apologists. In this essay, I highlight several parallel fallacious arguments found among (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • How Not to Do Survival Research: Reflections on the Bigelow Institute Essay Competition.Keith Augustine - 2022 - Journal of Scientific Exploration 36 (2):366-398.
    The recent Bigelow Institute contest rewarding the "best" evidence for life after death epitomizes much of what's wrong with the current state of survival research, its participants constituting a who's who list of contemporary survival researchers. Cases that are regularly hyped as among the best evidence for an afterlife are all too often easily susceptible to normal explanations--if only survival researchers would give them a chance. The consistently negative results of 121 years of experimental survival research ought to have spurred (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Answering More of the Same: A Reply to Nahm.Keith Augustine - 2022 - Journal of Scientific Exploration 36 (4):794-808.
    Michael Nahm's preceding commentary accuses me of seven misrepresentations. One of these is an acknowledged good-faith error about a peripheral detail, while the remaining six are demonstrably accurate descriptions of Nahm's statements. At the same time, Nahm verifiably misrepresents me frequently and intentionally over issues that he takes to be consequential, which is a much more serious offense. All authors should call out when an interlocutor get their points wrong, but only when they can definitively back up the charge. Where (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation