Talk:Pim van Lommel

Dick Swaab criticism

"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 research

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

The wikipedia page is biased and edited by science adherents with fixed ideas. It lacks balance.

There is more input on wikipedia from science adherents that have a materialistic view of the world. It lacks input from science adherents from other side of the argument, of which there are many. Pseudoscience is an overused and pejorative term devised by those people involved in science that have limited view of the world and a bias that is unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.144.245 (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You're probably not coming back here again to read this, but I would like to point out that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that per definition summarizes mainstream scientific theory. However, I do agree that the criticism levelled in the article is vague and too generalizing. As it reads now, van Lommel (please don't just write Lommel, the van is part of the surname) looks like merely an author of pseudoscientific theories without any academic credibility. This is not accurate. His reputation has two sides to it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

In this interview the sscientist affirms the relation among consciousness and the brain shall be discussed another time. That would have relevantr implication on the concept of brain death and the related industry of transplants. Best regards, user:Philosopher81sp/Micheledisaveriosp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.68.124 (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I do agree this article was very bias and the person who wrote these biased claims seems to copy and pasted it from this article https://alchetron.com/Pim-van-Lommel Bofor2544 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This article does not present a biography of Pim Van Lommel which is what one should expect from any encyclopaedia worthy of the name. Most of the content of the article seems focused on "debunking" Pim Van Lommel without even outlining the main points of the study published in the Lancet that he later developed in his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8856:E04C:7C91:F907:9CD6:742E (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The information listed for Van Lommel does not square with other entries which include more biographical information, work history, and contributions. Instead, it is a landing page for his critics to post their opinions at best. WDWPHD (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

i agree with you....shame! 81.38.219.71 (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)