Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How far is too far?
#1
I have been posting a lot with *various people (*edit) about evidence (You may have noticed Wink ), and decided to take a break because it felt like we were getting nowhere, at a very slow rate of speed.

It got me thinking though: I wonder how far people will go to twist themselves into keeping a consistent view on a matter.

For example- In the conversation about evidence, I pointed out that on more than one occasion a very young child (under 5 yrs old) has identified multiple family members from a past life, out of  a group that included non-family members as well mind you. The child knew their names, relationships, personal information, nick names, and in one case of a girl's husband, she even stood beside the man who was her past husband out of respect, and wouldn't  speak his name until coerced to do so (these self deprecating behaviors of a wife, are required in her Indian culture). Yes, there is always data that are misses too. But in teh most convincing cases, the hit rate is extremely high.

The response I got was that the results of the research may not valid because they didn't employ a control group where (I guess) a second young girl should have been asked these same questions of this group of people whom she had never met, to see if she could provide the same information. 

Huh?

When I asked for clarification I was told that it is possible that the girl could have guessed this stuff.

After I lifted my jaw from the floor over hearing such a preposterous statement, I got to wondering how far people will go to maintain their illusion of understanding of how things work. How important to the psyche is it, to maintain control by making such statements?

Or maybe it is me that doesn't get it?

Yes, of course I know, that the more data you collect, the better your results.

But to claim that these research results are suspect, over such a remote possibility seems extremely far fetched to me. 

Could we do a better job determining what data to collect, and how to do it? Yes of course, but also we need to keep in mind that we are dealing with MANY people's lives here. People with homes and jobs and generally, other things to do. That means we don't have the luxury of unlimited time and access to these folk. That'e the reality we must deal with. These are not rats in a cage.

Further- would we next claim that perhaps the girl might have a brain implant which contains this information, and without imaging of the girl's cranium we can't be sure? (don't laugh, I thought the prior statement was laughable too but,,,) And perhaps if we had that, could we next claim that the implant might be in her foot, so without a full body scan we would pronounce the research suspect?

Where does it stop? What is reasonable?

Seems that this topic is less about rules of evidence, and more about people's need to maintain control over their precious world-view.

Was wondering what others think?
[-] The following 3 users Like jkmac's post:
  • The King in the North, Roberta, tim
Reply
#2
I think it is an attempt to bring the methodology of typical scientific study into reincarnation work. If I'm not mistaken she was asked her opinion on what would make reincarnation research more palatable to folks who are on the hard science end of the spectrum.

Is it an appropriate methodology for reincarnation studies? I guess it could be. I think it would need to be explored. I wouldn't know.

I know that Andy Paquette tried to do something similar with precognitive dreaming. Introducing more strict controls. He's published several paper using this methodology. 

Do you ever consider that this phrase can apply to all of us here:

Quote:more about people's need to maintain control over their precious world-view.


Anyone here who thinks they don't have a precious world view they are protecting is pretty silly. 
[-] The following 6 users Like chuck's post:
  • Max_B, Brian, Bucky, Roberta, Silence, berkelon
Reply
#3
(09-15-2017, 11:41 AM)jkmac Wrote: I have been posting a lot with Linda and others about evidence (You may have noticed Wink ), and decided to take a break because it felt like we were getting nowhere, at a very slow rate of speed.

It got me thinking though: I wonder how far people will go to twist themselves into keeping a consistent view on a matter.

For example- In the conversation about evidence, I pointed out that on more than one occasion a very young child (under 5 yrs old) has identified multiple family members from a past life, out of  a group that included non-family members as well mind you. The child knew their names, relationships, personal information, nick names, and in one case of a girl's husband, she even stood beside the man who was her past husband out of respect, and wouldn't  speak his name until coerced to do so (these self deprecating behaviors of a wife, are required in her Indian culture). Yes, there is always data that are misses too. But in teh most convincing cases, the hit rate is extremely high.

The response I got was that the results of the research may not valid because they didn't employ a control group where (I guess) a second young girl should have been asked these same questions of this group of people whom she had never met, to see if she could provide the same information. 

Huh?

When I asked for clarification I was told that it is possible that the girl could have guessed this stuff.

After I lifted my jaw from the floor over hearing such a preposterous statement, I got to wondering how far people will go to maintain their illusion of understanding of how things work. How important to the psyche is it, to maintain control by making such statements?

Or maybe it is me that doesn't get it?

Yes, of course I know, that the more data you collect, the better your results.

But to claim that these research results are suspect, over such a remote possibility seems extremely far fetched to me. 

Could we do a better job determining what data to collect, and how to do it? Yes of course, but also we need to keep in mind that we are dealing with MANY people's lives here. People with homes and jobs and generally, other things to do. That means we don't have the luxury of unlimited time and access to these folk. That the reality we must deal with. These are not rats in a cage.

Further- would we next claim that perhaps the girl might have a brain implant which contains this information, and without imaging of the girl's cranium we can't be sure? (don't laugh, I thought the prior statement was laughable too but,,,) And perhaps if we had that, could we next claim that the implant might be in her foot, so without a full body scan we would pronounce the research suspect?

Where does it stop? What is reasonable?

Seems that this topic is less about rules of evidence, and more about people's need to maintain control over their precious world-view.

Was wondering what others think?

It's a game of obfuscation, jkmac and Linda is a master at it.
[-] The following 2 users Like tim's post:
  • Obiwan, Doug
Reply
#4
(09-15-2017, 11:52 AM)chuck Wrote: I think it is an attempt to bring the methodology of typical scientific study into reincarnation work. If I'm not mistaken she was asked her opinion on what would make reincarnation research more palatable to folks who are on the hard science end of the spectrum.

Is it an appropriate methodology for reincarnation studies? I guess it could be. I think it would need to be explored. I wouldn't know.

I know that Andy Paquette tried to do something similar with precognitive dreaming. Introducing more strict controls. He's published several paper using this methodology. 

Do you ever consider that this phrase can apply to all of us here:



Anyone here who thinks they don't have a precious world view they are protecting is pretty silly. 

"they are protecting is pretty silly."

Wouldn't that possibly be "projecting," Chuck ?
[-] The following 1 user Likes tim's post:
  • Doug
Reply
#5
(09-15-2017, 11:52 AM)chuck Wrote: Anyone here who thinks they don't have a precious world view they are protecting is pretty silly. 
All of us do,,, more of us should realize this fact, and work harder to offset our desire to maintain it.
[-] The following 2 users Like jkmac's post:
  • Brian, Obiwan
Reply
#6
(09-15-2017, 12:00 PM)tim Wrote: It's a game of obfuscation, jkmac and Linda is a master at it.

Could be: but I prefer to think it is less insidious than that.
[-] The following 1 user Likes jkmac's post:
  • Brian
Reply
#7
(09-15-2017, 12:09 PM)jkmac Wrote: Could be: but I prefer to think it is less insidious than that.

No worries then. I'll be following your 'jousts' (with her) with interest Wink
Reply
#8
(09-15-2017, 12:18 PM)tim Wrote: No worries then. I'll be following your 'jousts' (with her) with interest Wink
Sleepy
Reply
#9
I think its bound to be frustrating, but for me at least the exchange plays a vital role.  (As an "anti" echo chamber)
Reply
#10
This thread is fine. However, so people know, there was an agreement made early on that Linda is not allowed in the ECP forum, so specific criticism of her is not welcomed here and should be reserved for the forum where she is able to defend herself.
[-] The following 11 users Like Ninshub's post:
  • Laird, Max_B, malf, Brian, Doug, Silence, Roberta, Pollux, tim, berkelon, Obiwan
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)