'20 cases suggestive of reincarnation'
- Thread starter bfinn
- Start date
Thanks for this. However Rockley is reviewing another book by Stevenson (which I have bought, but not read yet) - though I assume the book is somewhat similar to 20 Cases as it appears to include some of the same cases.
I can't say Rockley's analysis and criticisms are particularly impressive. In the 20 Cases book Stevenson himself devotes a substantial part of the book to considering possible prosaic explanations (involving fraud, self-delusion, coincidence, etc. - even exotic explanations such as telepathy), concluding that these could explain some aspects of some cases but by no means all. He is also quite open about the weaknesses of some of the cases - the 20 Cases book is after all intended to contain a representative sample of strong and weak cases from a variety of countries - not just the best cases.
Rockley would I think hit trouble if he focussed on a single strong case and tried to explain all aspects of it (rather than effectively saying 'we can explain some aspects of some cases, ergo they must all be entirely explicable in a somewhat similar way'). This is something that Stevenson attempts to do at considerable length with each of the cases (in 20 Cases).
I agree with Rockley that the fact that apparent reincarnation seems to arise mostly in cultures that believe in it, and in the way they believe it happens, is puzzling (the suggestion being that reincarnation is imagined), but this does not amount to a satisfactory explanation for the large amount of correct information conveyed by the apparent reincarnee about his/her supposed former life. And it is consistent with other explanations (hey, maybe post-death you can choose whether & how you are reincarnated?) - of course entirely speculative, but it shows there is no logical contradiction here.
I think Rockley's parting shot is quite bogus:
With these comments I believe he blows his credibility as a serious scientist. In my view this casts doubt on all of his work.
Which I translate as:
Ian Stevenson has funny views on consciousness, materialism, etc. - so we can safely ignore all his reports of apparent reincarnation cases.
Which is just an ad hominem attack (Rockley seems very fond of classifying his arguments).
I can't say Rockley's analysis and criticisms are particularly impressive. In the 20 Cases book Stevenson himself devotes a substantial part of the book to considering possible prosaic explanations (involving fraud, self-delusion, coincidence, etc. - even exotic explanations such as telepathy), concluding that these could explain some aspects of some cases but by no means all. He is also quite open about the weaknesses of some of the cases - the 20 Cases book is after all intended to contain a representative sample of strong and weak cases from a variety of countries - not just the best cases.
Rockley would I think hit trouble if he focussed on a single strong case and tried to explain all aspects of it (rather than effectively saying 'we can explain some aspects of some cases, ergo they must all be entirely explicable in a somewhat similar way'). This is something that Stevenson attempts to do at considerable length with each of the cases (in 20 Cases).
I agree with Rockley that the fact that apparent reincarnation seems to arise mostly in cultures that believe in it, and in the way they believe it happens, is puzzling (the suggestion being that reincarnation is imagined), but this does not amount to a satisfactory explanation for the large amount of correct information conveyed by the apparent reincarnee about his/her supposed former life. And it is consistent with other explanations (hey, maybe post-death you can choose whether & how you are reincarnated?) - of course entirely speculative, but it shows there is no logical contradiction here.
I think Rockley's parting shot is quite bogus:
With these comments I believe he blows his credibility as a serious scientist. In my view this casts doubt on all of his work.
Which I translate as:
Ian Stevenson has funny views on consciousness, materialism, etc. - so we can safely ignore all his reports of apparent reincarnation cases.
Which is just an ad hominem attack (Rockley seems very fond of classifying his arguments).
Last edited:
I don't think there are any cases for reincarnation.
You tell us what the best case is, in your opinion.
Then, let's discuss it.
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
I'm planning to re-read Twenty Cases and will be interested to participate in the discussion.
Stevenson's own methodology always struck me as sound, with the exception of the use of translators in several cases, where there are obvious problems. Clearly this was absolutely necessary, but it still worries me.
Comments about Stevenson not being a decent scientist are farcical. He was committed to the pursuit of medical science - sure he may well have made errors, but his intent was as far as I can see purely scientific, and his efforts have revealed a curiosity.
Apparent Reincarnation Memories in children ( a new acronyum - ARMC ?) --and remember Stevenson was a scathing critic of ALL recovered memory/ hypnotic regression claims, something his detractors generally overlook-- need an explanation,. That explanation may well teach us something about how parents shape children's identities, cultural understandings of religion, or maybe something weirder. Yet what Stevenson spent much of his life on was an oddity which demands exploration, a cross cultural phenomenon which however is clearly shaped by each cultures beliefs and expectations, and yet remains tot his day largely unexplored.
cj x
Stevenson's own methodology always struck me as sound, with the exception of the use of translators in several cases, where there are obvious problems. Clearly this was absolutely necessary, but it still worries me.
Comments about Stevenson not being a decent scientist are farcical. He was committed to the pursuit of medical science - sure he may well have made errors, but his intent was as far as I can see purely scientific, and his efforts have revealed a curiosity.
Apparent Reincarnation Memories in children ( a new acronyum - ARMC ?) --and remember Stevenson was a scathing critic of ALL recovered memory/ hypnotic regression claims, something his detractors generally overlook-- need an explanation,. That explanation may well teach us something about how parents shape children's identities, cultural understandings of religion, or maybe something weirder. Yet what Stevenson spent much of his life on was an oddity which demands exploration, a cross cultural phenomenon which however is clearly shaped by each cultures beliefs and expectations, and yet remains tot his day largely unexplored.
cj x
We are all unique beings. All of our thoughts and feelings, hopes and dreams, passions and pleasures, sorrow and pain is ours and ours alone.
To suggest that we are used spirits in new bodies is an insult to our amazing uniqueness.
Instead of wasting time searching for some way to not be who we are. We should be embracing ourselves as the one of a kind beings that each of us truly are.
Reincarnation is not a real thing. When we are dead we are focking dead.
So we should embrace each moment we have no matter how mundane, tragic, sad, painful, happy, loving or beautiful it is.
Life is just to short to do otherwise.
To suggest that we are used spirits in new bodies is an insult to our amazing uniqueness.
Instead of wasting time searching for some way to not be who we are. We should be embracing ourselves as the one of a kind beings that each of us truly are.
Reincarnation is not a real thing. When we are dead we are focking dead.
So we should embrace each moment we have no matter how mundane, tragic, sad, painful, happy, loving or beautiful it is.
Life is just to short to do otherwise.
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
I admire the sentiments Brattus, nobly put. I am however convinced there remains an anomaly here worthy of proper scientific investigation: Stevenson's work was not religious (he may well have been) - I think it's a mystery worth exploring. 
I don't believe in reincarnation as it happens, but I want to understand the mechanism by which these cases arise...
cj x
I don't believe in reincarnation as it happens, but I want to understand the mechanism by which these cases arise...cj x
The real world calls this mechanism "delusion".I admire the sentiments Brattus, nobly put. I am however convinced there remains an anomaly here worthy of proper scientific investigation: Stevenson's work was not religious (he may well have been) - I think it's a mystery worth exploring.
cj x
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
Delusion? Is that meant to be an explanatory mechanism, because it fails rather badly!
You are making a priori assumptions, rather than addressing the evidence. Yeah sure the kids might be deluded, in the sense they have false memories, but that tells us nothing about how this arises.I don't see how it can work, but I know there is a phenomena of children reporting previous lives, and I want to understand why. At the very least it will have something to teach us about developmental psychology and the role of cultural and familial factors on the creation of individual identity, and as such could be extraordinarily important...
cj x
Wait this makes no sense. So we are all spirits. But the human population is increasing. So there are getting to be more and more spirits. Where do these spirits come from? And what chooses who will be what next? If there are old spirits, shouldnt they be much wiser? Why do we need to re-learn everything in our life even though we lived before, if we simply forget everything which happened what is the difference between reincarnation in which you forget everything which happened and everything just not happening?
Unless you want to answer the core fundamentals of this theory, I don't see how this study is relevant.
Unless you want to answer the core fundamentals of this theory, I don't see how this study is relevant.
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
Reincarnation makes no sense to me philosophically either. Nonetheless, the fact the explanatory mechanism proposed by believers makes absolutely no sense in no way evaluates the peculiarity we face: somehow some children are becoming convinced they lived before. That is fascinating -- even more so if the metaphysical claims are wrong, because it might provide us with material relevant to how individual identity forms.
I note from my memory of reading Stevenson that these memories arises early, say prior to 2, and pass by the age of 5 normally, becoming less and less frequent. Now we can assume it is somehow culturally conditioned, as most of the cases Stevenson reports are from cultures which believe in reincarnation, but, and i speak from experience, it is not necessarily so. It may just be that "memories of other lives" are a stage in separation from mother and development of many children, but only associated with proof of reincarnation in cultures that believe in reincarnation.
I'd like to see a lot more work on this, as human identity and how we formulate our sense of self is fascinating stuff... Just because an experience is often put in box marked woo does not make it woo. Night hag experiences and NDEs are probably real experiences - the woo is in the pseudo-explanatory mechanisms, not in the experience itself, if that makes sense.
Linda suggested a while back that "the paranormal" is possibly a category error, and I agree wholeheartedly. We need more proper science here...
cj x
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
That sounds like the same argument used by people who want to stop any discussion of evolution. To suggest that we're descended from animals would be an insult to our divine nature, so it would be wrong to discuss it.
I like cj.23's approach. If it appears that the data is there--if children regularly report something that appears like past life memories--it doesn't mean they are having past life memories.
We can discuss sleep paralysis without believing in the "old hag," or the psychology behind ouija boards and dowsing rods without believe in ghosts or dowsing, or mental illness without believing in possession by evil spirits. So why not see if there's some data on this topic worth examining?
Hmm, how about the simple explanation? Children fib; they make things up all the time. The lie in school, at home, in play with other kids, and in just about every place where children are to be found. Kids do not understand the implication of lying or why it is not generally desirable; that is the whole reason why the legal system gives them a pass. Kids also lie with the encouragement of their parents; given suggestability in young kids (and older ones), is it any wonder that the focus of fibs might be the things to which their parents expose them including religious beliefs? Kids have incredible imaginations; they play with toys, dolls, play guns in the yard, have imaginary friends, etc; more indications of the ability to create fantasy worlds and non-reality. Why is it so hard to recognize BS when you see it? Instead, psychs always seek to validate their pseudo-scientific claptrap with sophisticated sounding theories for something that is usually as plain as the nose on your face. In this case, it's called fibbing.
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
Because fibbing does not explain large parts of Stevenson's data. Now fibbing is as you say what we might expect from very young kids, and in cross caste cases we can see other motives, but some of the reincarnation cases resulted in severe punishment of the children, and in some cultures arose in heavy parental opposition to the claims.
Still, yes lying is a good explanation - but one assumes it would be cross cultural, and probably is? My biggest objection would be why these fantasies of being someone else and having lived before- not something one might easily think of!
My major problem is so much of the information we have is reliant on Dr Ian Stevenson, and therefore subject to the criticisms of his methodology. Further studies by other medical and psychiatric authorities of his rank are rare (I can think of a couple on specific cases) but until we get more data it's hard to comprehend. Children do fantasise, and lie in all innocence, but "Twenty Cases" deals with that issue - an many other equally sound objections...
Insufficient data. I hope we see more well researched studies.
cj x
Still, yes lying is a good explanation - but one assumes it would be cross cultural, and probably is? My biggest objection would be why these fantasies of being someone else and having lived before- not something one might easily think of!
My major problem is so much of the information we have is reliant on Dr Ian Stevenson, and therefore subject to the criticisms of his methodology. Further studies by other medical and psychiatric authorities of his rank are rare (I can think of a couple on specific cases) but until we get more data it's hard to comprehend. Children do fantasise, and lie in all innocence, but "Twenty Cases" deals with that issue - an many other equally sound objections...
Insufficient data. I hope we see more well researched studies.
cj x
Last edited:
You largest objection concerning the subject matter of the probable lie is possibly western centric. Perhaps in India someone might find it strange that Western kids have imaginary friends? I think the basis for the fibbing is largely cultural as has been suggested here. As for the severe punishment aspect, that is not necessarily a deterrent to lying. We see this time and again with kids and adults. We also don't know at which point there was heavy parental opposition. Certainly, in cultures where reincarnation is part of the majority religion, how could parents justify belief in reincarnation on one hand then punish a kid for claiming it on the other. The Indian caste system is absolutely dependant upon the notion of reincarnation; karma dictates what caste a person will be born into. If the kid is born as an untouchable, for instance, maybe he would want to create fantasies that he was actually reincarnated from the soul of a great king? And if he then presented that to the society around him, his parents (aware of their social standing) might very well punish him not so much for violation of belief in reincarnation but for misrepresenting his reincarnation and, more importantly, causing problems for the parents. The same could be said of high caste parents who have a kid creating fantasies about a low caste reincarnation. Parallel examples could be discussed for Western societies. Just examples, but it's all fibbing just the same.
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,697
If "reincarnation" represents a phenomenon based on a mechanism as yet unrecognised science, then I don't see a reason for assuming such questions necessarily apply to the observed phenomena. If "reincarnation" is nothing to do with known mechanisms, what we have, ostensively, are cases where children appear to have access to information about the experiences of people who have already died. So I think its a question of formulating the best and simplest hypothesis (assuming normal explanations ruled out). "Spirits" (whatever they are!) don't necessarily have to come into it.
I haven't read the Stevenson book. Does he mention "spirits"?
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
Possibly: the problem here is to what extent children of that age can assimilate religious symbolism, and graps concepts like death and rebirth, which may vary anyway by individual. There was however i seem to to recall some research mentioned in a BBC news piece which suggested children could learn religious iconography by 3, so this is indeed highly possible.
Some cultures Stevenson discusses believe previous life memories are a sign the child may die young, hence clearly discourage such, whereas in others the child wishes to go to its "real family", resulting in much distress. There are other reasons in some cases, but those are the key ones as I recall.
Yes, but Stevenson claims that children display knowledge of castes they would have no social contact with. I suspect this could be a way of subverting the social order and allowing the child to "act up" with some cultural validation. I also suspect that when I was young many little girls would recall having been princesses and little boys astronauts in the UK and Denmark!
Still i can't prove that, because there is no cultural tradition of reincarnation.Stevenson draws cases from Canada/Alaska, SE Asia, India and the Middle East as I recall, from widely disparate cultures - and unsurprisingly the children's claims reflect the variant form of reincarnation they are exposed to in the main as far as I recall, so there is little consensus as one might expect if the reincarnation hypothesis is true. I may be mistaken though - its been years since i read Stevenson at all.
Still find it all interesting! I love a mystery, and am keen to understand how it arises...
j x
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
As far as i recall, only in the context of describing the beliefs of the various cultures involved as regards reincarnation. It's been a long while though - someone else may have a copy to hand - I'm afraid I don't!
cj x
Much of the above discussion is worthless (if I may be so bold!) because lying, cultural conditioning etc. in no way explains how the children are able to provide large quantities of accurate information about people, past events & locations which in many (not all) cases they & their families & acquaintances have not (and pretty much could not have) had any connection with.
E.g. the child is able to identify names & relationships of people in an unconnected family & location, knows how to navigate around towns he/she has never visited, can identify and provide the history of possessions of the dead person, knows very intimate details that almost no-one else knows (e.g. what someone's dying words were), in some cases demonstrably knows things that absolutely no-one else knows (e.g. that the dead person buried such-and-such in the garden which is then dug up, or knowing that such-and-such is written on the back of a clock). In the stronger cases there are 30 or 40 individual items of this kind.
This is the central evidence that demands and lacks a conventional explanation.
Additionally (and though it is harder to quantify, having witnessed it himself Stevenson puts some emphasis on this aspect) the child typically behaves in an extraordinary way, often strongly believing and acting as if they are the person reincarnated rather than a young child - e.g. denying that their parents are their parents, insisting that they have children and grandchildren (we're talking a 2 or 3 year old here), trying to run away to their 'real' family in a distant town or village the parents have never spoken of or visited, acting towards the dead person's relatives in a quite inappropriate way (e.g. a toddler addressing to the dead person's adult children as if the toddler was their father).
I recommend you read Ian Stevenson's books for more details.
E.g. the child is able to identify names & relationships of people in an unconnected family & location, knows how to navigate around towns he/she has never visited, can identify and provide the history of possessions of the dead person, knows very intimate details that almost no-one else knows (e.g. what someone's dying words were), in some cases demonstrably knows things that absolutely no-one else knows (e.g. that the dead person buried such-and-such in the garden which is then dug up, or knowing that such-and-such is written on the back of a clock). In the stronger cases there are 30 or 40 individual items of this kind.
This is the central evidence that demands and lacks a conventional explanation.
Additionally (and though it is harder to quantify, having witnessed it himself Stevenson puts some emphasis on this aspect) the child typically behaves in an extraordinary way, often strongly believing and acting as if they are the person reincarnated rather than a young child - e.g. denying that their parents are their parents, insisting that they have children and grandchildren (we're talking a 2 or 3 year old here), trying to run away to their 'real' family in a distant town or village the parents have never spoken of or visited, acting towards the dead person's relatives in a quite inappropriate way (e.g. a toddler addressing to the dead person's adult children as if the toddler was their father).
I recommend you read Ian Stevenson's books for more details.
Last edited:
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
Yes, I was thinking about the veridical side - but the issue is that in at least 80% of Stevensons cases the families had already made contact as I recall, so we are dealing with anecdotal recollections of the facts recorded after the event, often sometime after the fact, which while often multiply attested still remain anecdotal and subject to usual problems of confirmation bias, selective reporting, confabulation and all the other issues you get with testimony. Add to that the translation issues, and while extremely interesting, and supported by some other researchers like Haraldsson etc with their cases, I think it's too early to be too sure. I just think we should keep trying to investigate these cases.
I'm sorry you found our discussion worthless though!
I shall ask Roy Stenman to comment I think...cj x
That is true. But nonetheless I reckon the factual information conveyed is the strongest evidence in the cases. The behaviour stuff is all rather qualitative, and it's hard to put much weight on the birthmarks.
I didn't think translation was much of an issue, in that Stevenson discussed it at some length and if I recall rightly was careful to use different translators on different occasions (or on occasion simultaneously) to avoid errors.
I agree with you there. One thing which I found slightly disappointing with the 20 Cases was that many of them dated from the 1940s or 1950s, which seemed rather long ago - though recent enough for data collection methods to be good, a more robust job would be done now (e.g. it could all be videoed).
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
I note with some amusement James Randi deals with Sam Harris on Ian Stevenson in this weeks commentary. I politely disagree with his stance, as I do with his rejection of Radin's work. Radin needs properly critiquing, and Ersby has done a sterling job - that I respect - but I refuse to simply reject research because i am uncomfortable with the implications - I need to see why it is flawed, not just have it asserted because it does not fit our prevailing paradigm. Guess I took Kuhn to heart!
cj x
cj x
I'd have to re-read the book to say which is the best case.
I recall that in one case Stevenson showed up on the scene before the families had met, which at least removes the usual doubt about the witnesses - does anyone know the name of that case? (Though I think it was less strong in other respects.)
I recall that in one case Stevenson showed up on the scene before the families had met, which at least removes the usual doubt about the witnesses - does anyone know the name of that case? (Though I think it was less strong in other respects.)
When will that be?
Hmm, does it remove the doubt? Based upon what, Stevenson's word? I don't think so. He would have to conduct his testing under controlled conditions with independant validation of his practices. That is the entire point to a scientific study, or at least so I've read but I'm no scientist (please correct me if I'm wrong). I grant you that you might not be able to get repeatable results here given the unique nature of what he's going after, although this could very easily have been remedied by independant verification concurrent with Stevenson's own investigations.
I suppose, however, if he argues for reincarnation and that the rates of awarness concerning past lives occur must frequently in children, a modern day study could be made to confirm his results. Why would children suddenly stop claiming to be reincarnated now for instance than at the time of Stevenson's alleged investigation?
Sorry to say that Stevenson is woo. He is a well cited source for the new age mystics. His data is old, tired, and of the same quality as the other credulous "scientists" in the paranormal field; unsubstantiated and anecdotal. He is credulous and clearly marketing himself to the believer. If we were to take what he says as true (that he heard stories from children), at best the most likely explanation is that the kids lied either on their own or with the assistance of their parents.
Yes - it removes the doubt other than of fraud by Stevenson.
It depends how independent you want it. E.g. many (perhaps most) of his investigations were witnessed by translators, who could be interviewed as to what they saw & heard. Yes, I suppose they could be in on a conspiracy too. But conspiracy theories get less and less plausible as the greater the number of people that have to be involved.
More than that and it wouldn't be 'very easy'. E.g. if you want an independent scientist trailing around after Stevenson verifying everything - that wouldn't be so easy. (And then the issue would arise about how independent that other scientist was - he could be in on it all too.) Stevenson's work was at least replicable - his interviews could have been replicated (even years later) by any other scientist who wanted to verify them.
Like I said, it would be more practical nowadays to provide some verification by videoing it all (though the video could itself be an elaborate fake).
What makes you say that? Have children stopped claiming to be reincarnated?
So...? So if new age mystics cite quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics is false? Non sequitur.
What is 'tired' data? Does data degrade over time?
The age of data is irrelevant if it was gathered properly. (I have London stock market data going back to 1694. Is this 'old, tired data' which cannot be used? Stevenson's data is from the 1960s. Comparatively recent I'd say.)
What would count as 'substantiated'? Multiple witnesses? He has those. And anyone else could have replicated Stevenson's interviews had they wanted to verify them.
'Anecdotal' - so is all testimony to be discarded? What about any scientist's testimony - e.g. research data - that can be made up just as easily.
I don't see any evidence of that in the 20 Cases book. On the contrary he seems to me to be careful & cautious in his claims, discussing possible mundane explanations, fraud etc. in depth for each case individually and for all collectively - I'd guess a third to a half of the book is taken up with such discussions. (Or is this not so?) And in the title of the book he says no more than that the cases are 'suggestive' of reincarnation (doesn't say they are proof of or examples of or even strong evidence of reincarnation).
Assuming you have read the 20 Cases book (have you?), how could 'lying' explain a toddler's apparent knowledge of names, faces, relationships, places, objects and events to which the toddler and his parents have had no exposure?
Last edited:
If they haven't, it has been remarkably quiet.
Don't you think that, by now, we would have had an increasing number of well-documented cases of reincarnation?
If you are so familiar with the book, you should have no trouble picking the best case.
Who would be documenting them? Ian Stevenson is now dead, and I don't know how many others were working in this field, but presumably very few. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, particularly if no-one is looking.
(Hey, no-one's produced any new moon rocks in the last 30 years, so does that mean the moon doesn't have rocks on it any more? And those moon rocks from the 1960s - that's old, tired data. So there never were any rocks. Those astronauts, they were probably lying about rocks. )
Last edited:
Oh, come on! About 1 in 4 believe in reincarnation, it is a common theme in popular culture. Reincarnation is hot.
Yet, nobody seems to be able to dig up really convincing accounts. Heck, not even less convincing ones.
Look, just dig up any account that you find convincing, and let's discuss that.
OK?
"It depends how independent you want it. E.g. many (perhaps most) of his investigations were witnessed by translators, who could be interviewed as to what they saw & heard. Yes, I suppose they could be in on a conspiracy too. But conspiracy theories get less and less plausible as the greater the number of people that have to be involved."
Except that if the underlying story was BS, then it doesn't matter how many other people heard it. The translators would be infected by the same fraud and fantasy as the researcher. (Please forgive me if I'm doing this whole quote thing wrong, I'm new to the boards and blogs in general and something of a hamfist when it comes to computers.)
"More than that and it wouldn't be 'very easy'. E.g. if you want an independent scientist trailing around after Stevenson verifying everything - that wouldn't be so easy. (And then the issue would arise about how independent that other scientist was - he could be in on it all too.) Stevenson's work was at least replicable - his interviews could have been replicated (even years later) by any other scientist who wanted to verify them."
So he made available to anyone who asked the names/address/contact info for each and every subject? And these subjects had agreed to further contact?
"Like I said, it would be more practical nowadays to provide some verification by videoing it all (though the video could itself be an elaborate fake)."
Agreed.
"What makes you say that? Have children stopped claiming to be reincarnated?"
My meaning was simple enough I think. If children have (according to the implication raised by his work) the ability or a heightened ability to remember past lives in comparison with adults, then why are researchers not out now, in the present day, attempting to confirm this most valuable discovery? Surely children today would have just as much memory of their past lives as children from the 1960's.
"So...? So if new age mystics cite quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics is false? Non sequitur."
Umm, not really. It's not quantum mechanics that is "false", although much of it is theoretical and yet to be proved. It is the new agers' use of quantum mechanics that is flawed; the flagrant hijacking of these theories as proof of some other, logically disconnected concept. In any case, my point was that this guy strikes me as having written this specifically with the parawoo audience in mind. He is providing this to others who are already prone to believe it without questioning either his methods or the veracity of those interviewed.
"What is 'tired' data? Does data degrade over time?
The age of data is irrelevant if it was gathered properly. (I have London stock market data going back to 1694. Is this 'old, tired data' which cannot be used? Stevenson's data is from the 1960s. Comparatively recent I'd say.)"
Well, no, age of data can certainly be relevant in many contexts. Detailed astronomical measurements taken in 1960's, for instance, can become "tired" or obsolete given the power and exactitude of modern equipment and computer systems. In this case, it is tired because (amongst other things) he is no longer around to discuss results that don't seem to accord with reality, who knows where the subjects are, and there is no way to evaluate the credibility of his methods. Fresh data is needed to confirm or support his hypothesis. Given the fact that children are born every day and they seem to be in such plentiful supply, there should be no problem conducting a new test with open and understood, controlled credible scientific methodologies and modern technologies.
"What would count as 'substantiated'? Multiple witnesses? He has those. And anyone else could have replicated Stevenson's interviews had they wanted to verify them."
Nope, multiple witnesses are subject to the same fraud as the researcher if approaching the issue from the same perspective. Substantiated would depend upon his method really. Did he separate the kids from the parents and then ask for descriptions of place/people/etc? Did he ask them to speak the language of whichever place their previous soul lived? Aside from what the kids wanted to say about people/place/things, did he ask questions each kid should know if he/she truly lived in that place/time? The list goes on and on and is dependent upon really his methodology.
"'Anecdotal' - so is all testimony to be discarded? What about any scientist's testimony - e.g. research data - that can be made up just as easily."
Anecdotal evidence is perhaps the worst kind. Witnesses in court lie under oath, don't remember things as they happened correctly (when faced with a video evidence for instance), might remember things that did not happen because of mental or physical illness, and a host of other factors. The same is true of UFO sightings, ghost sightings, etc. For instance, my grandmother has Macular Degeneration (spelling?). It affected her eyesight much later in life and she is by now basically blind. Yet, she told us that she began seeing my dead grandfather sitting by the bed at night while she was trying to fall asleep. She also sometimes sees Christmas trees, snow, and a host of other things from her life experiences while traveling in the car long distances (of course, she doesn't drive, she's a passenger). When she told her doctor these things (we thought she might be crazy), he said don't worry. This is very common. It is because when someone who had eyesight all their life loses it because of this illness, the brain begins to replay images from his/her life that appear real. The notion is that because this area of the brain was so occupied with sight for those many years, when the stimulus is gone it searches for activities on its own. Those include replaying the images. As an aside, this is one reason why some people see ghosts and aliens. In any case, my point is that anecdotal evidence is very unreliable and to be taken with the utmost skepticism.
"Assuming you have read the 20 Cases book (have you?), how could 'lying' explain a toddler's apparent knowledge of names, faces, relationships, places, objects and events to which the toddler and his parents have had no exposure?"
Haven't read them, probably won't, but don't need to. Simple way to explain this; the kid saw those people/place/things in person or was shown them by some other person. He/she was shown them in this lifetime; even if it was King Tut, someone said, "Ok, remember King Tut and here's a likeness; tell it to the nice man when he comes to talk to you." If the child actually knew these things, then I would first look to the parents or a close family member as the culprit. This sort of thing happens all the time with children. Sometimes children just make it up on their own, sometimes with the help of others.
Except that if the underlying story was BS, then it doesn't matter how many other people heard it. The translators would be infected by the same fraud and fantasy as the researcher. (Please forgive me if I'm doing this whole quote thing wrong, I'm new to the boards and blogs in general and something of a hamfist when it comes to computers.)
"More than that and it wouldn't be 'very easy'. E.g. if you want an independent scientist trailing around after Stevenson verifying everything - that wouldn't be so easy. (And then the issue would arise about how independent that other scientist was - he could be in on it all too.) Stevenson's work was at least replicable - his interviews could have been replicated (even years later) by any other scientist who wanted to verify them."
So he made available to anyone who asked the names/address/contact info for each and every subject? And these subjects had agreed to further contact?
"Like I said, it would be more practical nowadays to provide some verification by videoing it all (though the video could itself be an elaborate fake)."
Agreed.
"What makes you say that? Have children stopped claiming to be reincarnated?"
My meaning was simple enough I think. If children have (according to the implication raised by his work) the ability or a heightened ability to remember past lives in comparison with adults, then why are researchers not out now, in the present day, attempting to confirm this most valuable discovery? Surely children today would have just as much memory of their past lives as children from the 1960's.
"So...? So if new age mystics cite quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics is false? Non sequitur."
Umm, not really. It's not quantum mechanics that is "false", although much of it is theoretical and yet to be proved. It is the new agers' use of quantum mechanics that is flawed; the flagrant hijacking of these theories as proof of some other, logically disconnected concept. In any case, my point was that this guy strikes me as having written this specifically with the parawoo audience in mind. He is providing this to others who are already prone to believe it without questioning either his methods or the veracity of those interviewed.
"What is 'tired' data? Does data degrade over time?
The age of data is irrelevant if it was gathered properly. (I have London stock market data going back to 1694. Is this 'old, tired data' which cannot be used? Stevenson's data is from the 1960s. Comparatively recent I'd say.)"
Well, no, age of data can certainly be relevant in many contexts. Detailed astronomical measurements taken in 1960's, for instance, can become "tired" or obsolete given the power and exactitude of modern equipment and computer systems. In this case, it is tired because (amongst other things) he is no longer around to discuss results that don't seem to accord with reality, who knows where the subjects are, and there is no way to evaluate the credibility of his methods. Fresh data is needed to confirm or support his hypothesis. Given the fact that children are born every day and they seem to be in such plentiful supply, there should be no problem conducting a new test with open and understood, controlled credible scientific methodologies and modern technologies.
"What would count as 'substantiated'? Multiple witnesses? He has those. And anyone else could have replicated Stevenson's interviews had they wanted to verify them."
Nope, multiple witnesses are subject to the same fraud as the researcher if approaching the issue from the same perspective. Substantiated would depend upon his method really. Did he separate the kids from the parents and then ask for descriptions of place/people/etc? Did he ask them to speak the language of whichever place their previous soul lived? Aside from what the kids wanted to say about people/place/things, did he ask questions each kid should know if he/she truly lived in that place/time? The list goes on and on and is dependent upon really his methodology.
"'Anecdotal' - so is all testimony to be discarded? What about any scientist's testimony - e.g. research data - that can be made up just as easily."
Anecdotal evidence is perhaps the worst kind. Witnesses in court lie under oath, don't remember things as they happened correctly (when faced with a video evidence for instance), might remember things that did not happen because of mental or physical illness, and a host of other factors. The same is true of UFO sightings, ghost sightings, etc. For instance, my grandmother has Macular Degeneration (spelling?). It affected her eyesight much later in life and she is by now basically blind. Yet, she told us that she began seeing my dead grandfather sitting by the bed at night while she was trying to fall asleep. She also sometimes sees Christmas trees, snow, and a host of other things from her life experiences while traveling in the car long distances (of course, she doesn't drive, she's a passenger). When she told her doctor these things (we thought she might be crazy), he said don't worry. This is very common. It is because when someone who had eyesight all their life loses it because of this illness, the brain begins to replay images from his/her life that appear real. The notion is that because this area of the brain was so occupied with sight for those many years, when the stimulus is gone it searches for activities on its own. Those include replaying the images. As an aside, this is one reason why some people see ghosts and aliens. In any case, my point is that anecdotal evidence is very unreliable and to be taken with the utmost skepticism.
"Assuming you have read the 20 Cases book (have you?), how could 'lying' explain a toddler's apparent knowledge of names, faces, relationships, places, objects and events to which the toddler and his parents have had no exposure?"
Haven't read them, probably won't, but don't need to. Simple way to explain this; the kid saw those people/place/things in person or was shown them by some other person. He/she was shown them in this lifetime; even if it was King Tut, someone said, "Ok, remember King Tut and here's a likeness; tell it to the nice man when he comes to talk to you." If the child actually knew these things, then I would first look to the parents or a close family member as the culprit. This sort of thing happens all the time with children. Sometimes children just make it up on their own, sometimes with the help of others.
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,697
Dr. Jim Tucker published a book in 2005 "Life before life". I haven't read it. I think he worked with Stevenson before he died and its a continuation of his work with more cases from around the world.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Please, please, PLEASE! Could we have a concrete case to discuss? I have read such accounts in the past (I fail to remember where), and I didn't find them very convincing, the weak point usually being the verification of the alleged memories.
But all this won't lead us anywhere. If we have a concrete case, we can discuss the concrete issues of that case.
Hans
But all this won't lead us anywhere. If we have a concrete case, we can discuss the concrete issues of that case.
Hans
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,697
With all respect to Stevenson's apparently honest scientific approach (I haven't read his work), I don't think you are going to get a "concrete" case. The unpredictable nature of all this really guards against it. People have enough of a hard time trying to induce an OBE under controlled conditions (trying to induce "reincarnation" would seem to necessitate killing someone, mmmm).
So I think the point of investigating "reincarnation" cases and writing a book about them is to engage those who are willing to hypothesise what it may mean for the nature of consciousness. If they're wrong, they're wrong. They retreat in embarassment. If they're right however...
Sure, we can get concrete cases.
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 6,990
I think it is interesting that it is claimed that in some cases the child "knows things that absolutely no-one else knows". I bet you that I, too, could come up with some information from "a past life" that no one else knows. How would you be able to check me?
And as Claus says, if there was such convincing evidence of reincarnation, why is no one working on it today? I mean, such a discovery would be life-changing! It is part of the same argument as against psychics, ghost hunters, etc.
And as Claus says, if there was such convincing evidence of reincarnation, why is no one working on it today? I mean, such a discovery would be life-changing! It is part of the same argument as against psychics, ghost hunters, etc.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
