Ian Stevenson and his studies on reincarnation.

[angellous_evangellous]

With talk about evidence and responsible research, I am reminded of a clown car.

Only this is sillier with a lot more huge noses.

 

[George-ananda]

With talk about evidence and responsible research, I am reminded of a clown car.

Only this is sillier with a lot more huge noses.

WHY is this so silly to you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

WHY is this so silly to you?

I find it terribly offensive that someone can take someone else's beliefs and prostitute them for whatever gain this guy is getting for it. Maybe he gets his rocks off by making fun of religion. Maybe he does't know that that what he is doing exploits his supporters and a fool out of himself. I think that he knows that he is a fraud. That is the serious part I suppose.

I do find it hilarious that words like reincarnation can be used with research and evidence. He may as well begin with the statement "I am lying to you," because anyone who knows the meanings of those words immediately knows that he is either selling something or he is making fun of you because he thinks that you are stupid.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, you seem to be admitting a personal perception of evidence, if so, its not scientific.

In that case it is called pseudoscience and will remain there until verification beyond faith and want.

This is not part of physical Science as you think of it but it's still valuable information.


You're like: If it can't be detected by the five senses and physical instruments then it's just worthless pseudoscience. Spiritual inquiry and study is valuable and different than physical science.

The cumulative experiences of man can be considered in forming our beliefs about the nature of existence.

 

[George-ananda]

I find it terribly offensive that someone can take someone else's beliefs and prostitute them for whatever gain this guy is getting for it. Maybe he gets his rocks off by making fun of religion. Maybe he does't know that that what he is doing exploits his supporters and a fool out of himself. I think that he knows that he is a fraud. That is the serious part I suppose.

I do find it hilarious that words like reincarnation can be used with research and evidence. He may as well begin with the statement "I am lying to you," because anyone who knows the meanings of those words immediately knows that he is either selling something or he is making fun of you because he thinks that you are stupid.

You're seemingly almost unbelievably biased from before the start against research into other worldviews.

Lets back up. I see you're a Christian with an incredible post count. I can't figure out where you're coming from with these rants from out of the blue. Help me out. What's wrong with him researching reincarnational memories?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is not part of physical Science as you think of it but it's still valuable information.


You're like: If it can't be detected by the five senses and physical instruments then it's just worthless pseudoscience. Spiritual inquiry and study is valuable and different than physical science.

The cumulative experiences of man can be considered in forming our beliefs about the nature of existence.

What I am saying is that this guy is a fraud and liar, and one can easily tell that by th way be presents himself. My question is simply if he knows it or not (I think that he does).

Consider this... What if this guy were selling medical supplies instead of crap. He tells you his method of finding the best medical supply is using a sixth sense. You would be crazy to buy it because you would know that he was ripping you off!

It is well and good to pretend that what he is doing has any relevance... Just as it is fun to pretend that his fake medical supplies will work. The reason why we don't want crappy medical supplies is obvious. Why do we want crappy spiritul supplies?

 

[George-ananda]

What I am saying is that this guy is a fraud and liar, and one can easily tell that by th way be presents himself. My question is simply if he knows it or not (I think that he does).

Consider this... What if this guy were selling medical supplies instead of crap. He tells you his method of finding the best medical supply is using a sixth sense. You would be crazy to buy it because you would know that he was ripping you off!

It is well and good to pretend that what he is doing has any relevance... Just as it is fun to pretend that his fake medical supplies will work. The reason why we don't want crappy medical supplies is obvious. Why do we want crappy spiritul supplies?

I guess I'll have to drop this line of questioning. Bed time in my time zone. I'm getting the surface rant but not the real reasons at the bottom of it.

We'll probably meet again on some other threads and I'll draw my own opinion of where you're coming from.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're seemingly almost unbelievably biased from before the start against research into other worldviews.

Lets back up. I see you're a Christian with an incredible post count. I can't figure out where you're coming from with these rants from out of the blue. Help me out. What's wrong with him researching reincarnational memories?

Don't misunderstand me, then. I have a deep respect for the doctrine of reincarnation. In fact, it is from this respect that my distaste for this kind of thing arises.

First, the research places more authority on the method that this guy is using. It isn't even in the same universe as something that can be called research. Measures would need to be taken to have a good selection of people to study, ways to determine the various natures of the memory, a careful justification for how the memories are extracted, and so on. All of this hard work is why real research has weight.

2. Then there is the subject. It is isolated somewhere high in fairyland, where the researcher must connect a ton of dots together to describe the context of the research in a way that makes sense to others -- this means that you cannot conduct research in you own play land. It must be conducted within a framework that is either already accepted or theoretically sound.

The research at hand doesn't fail miserably. It's not on the same universe. And the association with real research is fraulent.

 

[YmirGF]

The research at hand doesn't fail miserably. It's not on the same universe. And the association with real research is fraulent.

Agreed. The mere suggestion that his research follows scientific guidelines is a gross overstatement at best and outright fraud at worst. Anecdotal "evidence" is all fine and dandy, but doesn't count for much in scientific circles.

 

[Shermana]

The question remains, how do we interpret the data? Attribute it all to just meaningless coincidence?

 

[YmirGF]

The question remains, how do we interpret the data? Attribute it all to just meaningless coincidence?

I rather suspect that this is a subject that each have to interpret in their own way, according to their own understanding. It is not a topic that lends itself to scientific inquiry due to the extreme difficulty in nailing down facts and human animal's penchant for both exaggeration and unreliability.

 

[Sculelos]

I rather suspect that this is a subject that each have to interpret in their own way, according to their own understanding. It is not a topic that lends itself to scientific inquiry due to the extreme difficulty in nailing down facts and human animal's penchant for both exaggeration and unreliability.

I've heard many things and I think it's safe to say that dreams and memories have a way of coming out in a strange metaphorical way, but the meaning of dreams is not direct in most circumstances so interpreting them as direct could lead to a whole host of issues.

However I believe I have also an alternative solution and that is one of mixed energy streams. When we are formed, we are basically formed out of energy and water mixed together. These 4 creatures become 1 creature and the cells have a memory of their own. Since those cells bind with our nervous system our brain can later recall parts of them subconsciously even revealing strange details of what you were before you were human (as a star or part of a star) and perhaps what your cells might have experienced before you were born.

It's a strange theory and can't really be proven but neither can proof of reincarnation. :drool:

 

[outhouse]

This is not part of physical Science as you think of it but it's still valuable information.


You're like: If it can't be detected by the five senses and physical instruments then it's just worthless pseudoscience. Spiritual inquiry and study is valuable and different than physical science.

The cumulative experiences of man can be considered in forming our beliefs about the nature of existence.

It is percieved only, and there is no real basis for anything as described.


Your claiming what a soul can do, without evidence a soul even exist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We know you don't consider yourself among the credulous. But when a skeptic criticizes a parapsychologist you become quite credulous towards the skeptics claim.

I see what the problem is. You misuderstand what credulous means: Credulity is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge. Credulity is not simply belief in something that may be false. The subject of the belief may even be correct, but a credulous person will believe it without good evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

I see what the problem is. You misuderstand what credulous means: Credulity is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge. Credulity is not simply belief in something that may be false. The subject of the belief may even be correct, but a credulous person will believe it without good evidence.

No, there was no misunderstanding on my part of what 'credulous' means.

Credulity is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge.

Mr. Trout is credulous to claims by skeptics in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge that the skeptic is correct in his assertions.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No, there was no misunderstanding on my part of what 'credulous' means.

Credulity is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge.

Mr. Trout is credulous to claims by skeptics in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge that the skeptic is correct in his assertions.

Ah, you don't understand what skepticism is either.

 

[George-ananda]

First, the research places more authority on the method that this guy is using. It isn't even in the same universe as something that can be called research. Measures would need to be taken to have a good selection of people to study, ways to determine the various natures of the memory, a careful justification for how the memories are extracted, and so on. All of this hard work is why real research has weight.

Now we must understand that verifiable reincarnational memories are a very rare event and only occur in the real world of children whose parents may be unsympathetic to the whole thing particularly in India where reincarnation is commonly accepted, and memory of it by a child is considered inauspicious.

I’m sure we would all like to see a perfect study. But that cannot happen in the real world where the phenomenon occurs very rarely and completely randomly and the researcher has no control of any of that. He does the best research he can do in the real world where he can control nothing but his interview and investigation process. I know of no one who has studied it better and more rigorously than Dr. Stevenson.

Dr. Stevenson, who has passed, has a successor. I’m sure he considers suggestions for improvement.

2. Then there is the subject. It is isolated somewhere high in fairyland, where the researcher must connect a ton of dots together to describe the context of the research in a way that makes sense to others -- this means that you cannot conduct research in you own play land. It must be conducted within a framework that is either already accepted or theoretically sound.

The research at hand doesn't fail miserably. It's not on the same universe. And the association with real research is fraulent.

Dr. Stevenson himself does not claim this type of research is the same as research into phenomenon where more variables can be controlled. Nor does he claims his research proves reincarnation. He does conclude that his research is ‘suggestive’ of reincarnation. I don’t see where he can be fundamentally faulted and called a liar and a fraud.

For most of us, we understand things beyond the reach of the five senses and physical instruments can not be studied in the way things within our reach can be studied. But my concern with all this is what is most reasonable for me to believe after thinking about it all from all sides. I think it is reasonable to believe that Dr. Stevenson has a body of data that cannot be explained away as normal phenomenon and that it seems to be ‘suggestive’ of reincarnation.

 

[George-ananda]

Ah, you don't understand what skepticism is either.

No, the so-called professional 'Skeptics' don't follow skepticism.

Skepticism: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

Skepticism is fine and I am a skeptic.

These so-called professional 'Skeptics' are not really skeptics but hardcore defenders of the atheistic-materialistic worldview using the title 'Skeptic' to help them appear fair and intellectual. They used to be called 'debunkers' until they needed a PR upgrade. They drip 'bias' (as has been repeatedly shown) and not 'fair-minded skeptical inquiry'.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No, the so-called professional 'Skeptics' don't follow skepticism.

I'm not a professional skeptic. I'm simply a skeptic. An actual skeptic.

 

[George-ananda]

Agreed. The mere suggestion that his research follows scientific guidelines is a gross overstatement at best and outright fraud at worst. Anecdotal "evidence" is all fine and dandy, but doesn't count for much in scientific circles.

'Scientific Circles' should be agnostic on the issue of reincarnation. It is beyond the reach of the five senses and physical instruments so mainstream science cannot address the question.

I know mainstream 'science' cannot answer this question. But what I'm interested in here is what I should believe is the 'most reasonable' belief on these types of subjects. In doing so I consider data that 'science' cannot work with. And consider that data from all intelligent perspectives out there and form my opinion.

It would impoverish the human intellect if we do not consider all evidence in a fair-minded manner.