1- “Notwithstanding Crislip’s observation that, upon follow-up, some subjects suddenly remembered an NDE that was at first not reported.”

Dieguez seems (seems; I may have understood him wrong) inclined to consider this “remembering” as some sort of false-memory implant. The alternative view (true remembering, that is, FORGETTING the event right after it happened but regaining consciousness of it afterwards), as it seems, is being perhaps biasedly discarded beforehand. This Type-II Error proness is a problem that skeptics must be careful not to fall into (just as non skeptics, i.e., believers must be aware of their Type-I Error proness…).

2- “All these facts, in my opinion, do point to biological and psychological factors involved in the probability to endure and recall an NDE.”

These facts can actually point in many different directions. That is why the authors disagree on Dieguez. (though they may be wrong)

3- “Then, there is the embarrassing failure to find even one irrefutable case of ‘veridical perceptions’ during brain inactivity (or simply unconsciousness), whereas such cases should be all over the place according to any transcendental or non-reductionist account.”

That is another quite common (and naive) skeptic mistake. What Dieguez is saying is that (moving him back in time three hundred years) “If there really were this thing called electromagnetism, then we should see it everywhere and every creature should benefit from it, even using it as a sensory input resource and as a weapon against enemies.” The logic is correct. The fatal flaw is with the “we should see it.” Electromagnetism IS (and WAS) everywhere. The problem is that we just could not see it then (though we saw *using* it…). Further, very few animals use this force in a way that can be perceived ordinarily, and strikingly, by us (mostly creatures like the electric fish). As a matter of fact, I think that, according to most transcendental or non-reductionist accounts, there should be NO NDE cases altogether (and you can count that as one further reason to interpret NDEs as non transcedent!). But I agree. The failure he mentions is embarrasing.

4- “The reason is, in my view, that the pioneers of NDE research, and most of their successors, have largely contributed to discredit the whole field.”

CSICOP et al, Shermer included, also had their part in it. And it is us all (the whole society, worldwide) that lose.

5- “They did more than they were asked for to turn it into a shameful religious war involving syrupy new age ‘support groups’, amateur quantum enthusiasts, Mormon propagandists, and Christian fundamentalists (for an embarrassing ‘discussion’, see Ring, 2000 and Sabom, 2000).”

Dieguez forgot to mention CSICOP fundamentalists (Shermer included…).

6- “Really, it is no wonder that so few scientists were ever attracted to this area of research.”

Sure. After all, they will never die. They do not have relatives that have died or that will ever die, or that suffer. So, who cares to NDE or to death? But during the seventies, CSICOP was born and flourished. Mocking to death NDE research, just like they did with the parapsychological research as a whole. This kind of irresponsability from the part of “skeptics,” and from the part of “believers,” have left scars and open wounds that society must not tolerate. It is a welcome breeze of fresh new air that Dieguez seems to be bringing to us, with the core of his article above. With this core, I agree a hundred percent.

Best,
Julio
http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/criticizingskepticism.htm