Eben Alexander & Raymond Moody vs Sean Carroll & Steven Novella - Death is Not Final 2014

This debate ( audio | video | transcript | 1:43.05s ) was an Intelligence Squared Debate that took place in New York and featured Dr Eben Alexander Neurosurgeon and living proof himself that death is not final paired with Dr Raymond Moody, the man who first coined the term Near-Death Experience (NDE) versus Cal Tech Physicist Dr Sean Carroll and Neuroscientist plus noted awesome skeptic Dr Steven Novella. The topic was "Death is Not Final".

3.75 Stars. Easily 4 stars based on the performances of Carroll, Novella, and to a lesser extent Alexander but taken down a notch due to the rather one-sided debate topic and the overly domineering moderator.

Eben Alexander went first pretty much presenting himself as the penultimate case for his side's claim that death is not final. Alexander went into a 7 day coma and was essentially a vegetable but he astonishingly awoke and eventually recovered from the event. He further claims to have profound visionary experiences during his coma.

Alexander explains all of this he actually comes off very well and I could certainly see how his presentation could seem even persuasive. However he really just sticks to his own case and actually gets cut off by Donvan due to time.

Carroll follows and is very well spoken, though he gives more of a lecture and uses what I now know is one of his favorite lines about Kant and blades of grass. More substance appears to come from Novella in terms of opening presentations.

But even though Carroll's opening isn't as vigorous as I'd like it's still where this debate pretty much dies for the other side. Even with Alexander standing as an actual opposing anecdote right there with Carroll and Novella, and even if he was fairly impactful in his own opening, he's just one guy. Just one guy with a few others versus the rest of the scientific knowledge we've gained about the topic. So Carroll certainly gets the lance ready and aimed at the opposition and Novella sinks the death blow in deep.

Alexander never really has as much umhf as his opening displayed during the remainder of the debate and Moody seems pretty demure about the entire subject. Whereas Carroll gets stronger both in terms of arguments and rhetoric and Novella gets specific with Alexander's claims in a pretty persuasive manner.

However the debate seemed like it was just too weak a topic. There's a reason why (good) atheists debaters talk about the mind-body dependency argument amongst three or four other arguments and a reason why Craig will mention it amongst eight arguments...it's just not a whole lot to chew on for a full-on debate. Good for a radio discussion, sure...but not a two on two epic event.

So it seems like that plus the moderator pull this debate out of being a 4 star listen, especially when we consider the ultimately weak arguments from Alexander and Moody, too.

Concerning the moderator

This is the first IQ^2 US debate I've heard and in short I will check them out only if there are other great speakers in the other debates because the moderator John Donvan who was just unnecessarily barging in on everything, cutting off any of the debaters, repeating what one guy just said to the other side even though everyone heard the first guy speak already. He also apparently decided to cut off questioners or skipped their questions if he deemed them irrelevant to the debate. Noted skeptic Richard Spencer (I think) actually asked a question and Donvan cut him off and told him he's gonna skip his question. This wasn't the only questioner Donvan decided brought nothing to the topic, either. It seemed completely against the spirit of the structure of these types of debates.

To be fair, John Donvan is not the only moderator I have seen done this in the past. For some reason, people who have more extensive presentation backgrounds, like Donvan, think they need to be more prominent in debates in the same way they might be more active in a panel or for a Natural History Museum Event or something.

Gang, don't do this for debates. Even when moderators do this and support the side I support, it is annoying. One example was the last Dillahunty debate I posted and another absolutely dreadful example was a 2012 911 Conspiracy debate between Jonathan Kay and absolute crackpot Webster Tarpley. David Frum moderated and he was smug, obnoxious, and caused a lot of unneeded tension during the event. He didn't interrupt the speakers, though, which is nice.

Novella v Baughman 2007 Is the Field of Psychiatry Scientific? CHECK

This debate ( audio | 1h08m59s ) took place in 2007 on the topic: "Is the Field of Psychiatry Scientific?" It was between the SGU's Dr. Steven Novella and author of The ADHD Fraud, Dr. Fred Baughman.

4 stars. CHECK

Okay enough Craig and enough religion, how about a debate on something else? Unfortunately for you, dear reader, this is another topic close to my heart.*

This debate occurred after Baughman appeared on the Infidel Guy Show to take calls. Baughman holds that ADHD isn't a disease (or disorder, which is what it really is) and wrote a book against it and many other disorders of the mind. Dr. Novella is famous for hosting the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a podcast on skepticism that has a place in my heart as it was one of the first skeptical resources when I became interested in the community. I stopped listening back in 2008, though.

I always liked how straight forward Dr. Novella was and I stumbled across this debate on an SGU fan site, for all I know Novella has done other debates since, like I said, I stopped listening in 2008.


The debate was on whether or not psychiatry was supported by enough evidence to justify its existence and more specifically, the prescription medications psychiatry doles out to patients. Baughman feels that ADHD (attention deficit hyperactive disorder) is not a real disease...or disorder - the definition of the two and the difference becomes a huge and pretty much unresolved issue of the debate - and that big pharma are lying to kids to get them to take meth...okay I might have simplified the argument a little but, there it is.

Novella on the other hand, feels that the field has proved itself, disorders (he distinguishes between the two like any sane person and unlike Baughman) of the mind do exist and have been researched extensively, plus: the prescription medications used for ADHD are highly effective in curbing the issues that arise from it and other learning disorders.

Baughman counters by ignoring this and saying that there are no purely objective tests available to demonstrate things like dyslexia or ADHD etc are diseases. Repeatedly he complains that these disorders aren't diseases even after Novella explicitly defines the two different terms. When asked by Reggie to explain the difference (over 30 minutes into the show), Baughman just says they're the same thing and that psychiatrists use the confusion to dupe parents into drugging up their kids. Near the end of the program a caller nails him pretty badly on it and Baughman only says the same thing over and over again.

I used to love this debate but I just can't consider it great after relistening to it. It's too short, Baughman talks at such long lengths and it isn't until the end of the program that Reggie finally asks him to get to the point on one of his rants - his voice doesn't help either. He comes off as senile at some points, like I said, he drones on and on and talks over Novella and doesn't counter almost anything Novella says. A little into the debate he does address one thing and it's where Novella really devastates Baughman. After Novella asks him this one question there is a long pause and he just falls apart.

Another issue that irked me is that Baughman droned on so much and kept talking and interrupting when Novella responded, he would just cut him off and talk over him which resulted in both he and the audience not hearing what Novella had to say. Novella doesn't repeat himself a few times after this happens and some of the really good points he makes become lost in this mess. Otherwise, Novella was great and it was obvious who the victor was, despite the fact that Baughman obviously learned nothing in the dialogue.

Technical: Okay AQ.

*I have ADHD and wasn't diagnosed until after high school. It is a thing and it has been pretty annoying dealing with those who think that it is just kids being lazy.