Talk:Pim van Lommel

Active discussions


Dick Swaab criticismEdit

"Van Lommel deviates from the scientific approach and his book can only be categorized as pseudoscientific".

Is this the opinion of neurobiologist Dick Swaab? In that case the opinion should be articulated more specifically, preferably backed up by the complete reference. The statement, as it is formulated in the text, is a bit diffuse. It would be perhaps be better to write: "according to Swaab Van Lommel deviates from the scientific approach and his book can only be categorized as pseudoscientific".Hawol (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Van Lommel's researchEdit

It is necessary that Van Lommel's research on NDE is mentioned with primary source. The article mentioned (september 18, 2017) only a critical reaction to his theory without explaining his research (that was published in the Lancet) on which Van Lommel's theory is based. I added Van Lommel's research with a fair explanation with reference to the primary source (article in The Lancet). Someone deleted my text, but that is not fair because information on Van Lommel's research is essential in a encyclopedia article on 'Pim van Lommel'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Perierkeia (talkcontribs) 16:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

We generally only report what secondary sources say. Doing otherwise risks original research. It should be possible to summarise some more of PvL's ideas using the existing sources in the article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Return to "Pim van Lommel" page.