Michael Sudduth's critique of the Leininger case as reincarnation or psi evidence

[Ninshub]

My most important single conclusion about them is of the need for further study of similar cases.

I think, though, that ultimately that statement should be appreciated within the scope of Stevenson's entire work. What I mean is this book came out in 1966 (and then revised in 1974) and he studied cases and published a lot more after that. I haven't read most of the books, just the 20 Cases one and the 1975 one about Indian cases, but I wonder what conclusions he expresses in his later works.

Just focusing on the books (dealing with such cases) rather than the articles, this is the timeline:

[*](1966). Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. University of Virginia Press.
[*](1974). Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (second revised and enlarged edition). University of Virginia Press.
[*](1975). Cases of the Reincarnation Type, Vol. I: Ten Cases in India. University of Virginia Press.
[*](1978). Cases of the Reincarnation Type, Vol. II: Ten Cases in Sri Lanka. University of Virginia Press.
[*](1980). Cases of the Reincarnation Type, Vol. III: Twelve Cases in Lebanon and Turkey. University of Virginia Press.
[*](1983). Cases of the Reincarnation Type, Vol. IV: Twelve Cases in Thailand and Burma. University of Virginia Press.
[*](1997). Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects. Volume 1: Birthmarks. Volume 2: Birth Defects and Other Anomalies. Praeger Publishers.
[*](1997). Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect. Praeger Publishers (a short, non-technical version of Reincarnation and Biology).
[*](2000). Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation (revised edition).
[*](2003). European Cases of the Reincarnation Type. McFarland & Company.

Please provide one or more examples of what you consider to be Dr Ian Stevenson's assumptions...

When you run a simple search on "assume" or "in my opinion" "assumption" etc... it kind of shows itself. Most everything he writes outside of the facts of these cases becomes assumed, his opinion, or plain wrong because he has no idea of ESP or the limits of that. Theory of... assumption.

In this place, therefore, and because the other cases do not provide strong enough evidence of the exhibition of skills before learning in this life, I shall not extend the discussion of this topic. But it deserves mention here because in principle cases of the definite occurrence of skills before learning in this life offer an opportunity for crucial evidence of survival since, in my opinion, they exceed the limits of what we can account for by extrasensory perception alone. 

Now we have no reason to imagine that these psychological processes alter for an individual surviving death.

The theory of possession also cannot adequately explain the knowledge shown by a number of the children of how buildings were arranged or people looked during the life of the previous personality.

And we can also exclude the theory of extrasensory perception plus personation as accounting for all the facts, since this theory clearly cannot account for the birthmark.

Extrasensory perception alone does not adequately account for the organization of the information available to the subject in a pattern characteristic of the deceased personality. And it cannot account for the exhibition of skills not learned in the present life. This theory also does not adequately account for the long duration, extending over years, of the child's identification with the previous personality.

without the resources he would have today to prove or disprove so many of his own questions or assertions.

(That is, please provide one or more examples of today's resources which Dr Ian Stevenson would have had to (dis)prove so many of his own questions or assertions).


Today, we have brain scanning and other measuring equipment, lab tests, and other means of figuring out deception, tracking, information flow, etc. We can see the brain configuratin that would designate telepathy or medium, as an example. These would help to define a possible "reincarnation" configuration as different from psychometric, telepathic, or other possible sources. We could monitor forms of known hypnosis memory recall and compare those scans to dream / sleep studies that can record data during reincarnation memory recall, to determine if there are particular configurations and frequencies that are specific to reincarnation memory as opposed to hypnosis types, or if they are the same. We can compare this type of recall with standard memory of events and see if there are differences.
Some of this already existed in the 60's. But he mostly used heresay instead. Verbal information, recounting things, story telling.
Most of the work done by Tart, Persinger, and many others would provide insight into the workings of many of these cases that were in question. And would have expanded the theories he was using to disqualify and assume or assert his opinion, replacing them with better conclusions leading to better hypothesis or improving the recall for many.
As an example, Persinger could not determine any here or there position or location when brains were synchronized, and when tested with video game players, novice players were suddenly capable of expert player skills when brains were submerged in the same oscillating frequency. Thus a direct transfer of skills and knowledge without any learning or memory. 
The point there, is that the existing frequency patterns around these children can be examined and recorded. If we start seeing a particular configuration that repeats across reincarnation cases, then we at least know a possible reason why they remember. This is actually very "theoretically" possible from a quantum reference, where if our frequency patterns resonate to the same as those in another place or time, the sharing of data can occur.
Stevenson didn't have these theories, or the equipment, or these test results to work with. There are many more.

And another:

Cases showing a specific or idiosyncratic skill which the subject could not have inherited or acquired in the present life require some survivalist explanation, either possession or reincarnation. But we cannot make a choice between these two possibilities from the study of the skill alone.

Refere to Persinger's results in the last posting... it is not either / or, and these are not the only choices, and they don't REQUIRE any survivalist explanation... we also see these in brain damage cases, and more.

He appears to fly right by the brain studies known in 1966, savants, and more.

[Ninshub]

Please provide one or more examples of what you consider to be Dr Ian Stevenson's assumptions...

Is this directed at my post Durward?

Here's another great assumption... Victor Vincent case. And it also demonstrates his lack of understanding of what Psi phenomena, he calls ESP, can and can't account for.

Extrasensory perception does not account for the pattern of the recognitions. Nor does it explain the accompanying behavioral features, e.g., the enthusiasm of the child on seeing the various friends and relatives of Victor Vincent. But both the pattern of the recognitions and the accompanying behavioral features become understandable if we suppose that the mind of Victor Vincent somehow participated in these recognitions.

More lack of psi knowledge... making assumptions.

they have then often suggested that we may explain the accepted facts of the case by supposing an extrasensory linkage between the two personalities. I agree that we must consider this possibility very seriously, but no amount of extrasensory perception alone will account for all the features of many of the cases.

However, in the case of Swarnlata and in some other (unpublished) cases of my collection, all the information known to the child did not reside in any single living mind. In such cases, according to the theory of extrasensory perception and personation, the information had to be gathered from two or more minds, each of which possessed a portion only of the available information. In short, multiple agents would be required for the explanation of such cases by extrasensory perception. We might suppose, however, that these children do not need agents, but acquire their information through clairvoyance, perhaps sometimes drawing on information in other persons' minds and sometimes on other sources.

-----------------

Here we can see that the supply of information and how that works in many psi situations has nothing to do with gathering or multiple sources. Thus, just total assumptions, where we might suppose many things.

Extrasensory perception may account for the passage of the information, but I do not think that it alone can explain the selection and arrangement of the information in a pattern characteristic of Biya. For if Swarnlata gained her information by extrasensory perception, why did she not give the names of persons unknown to Biya when she met them for the first time? (Wow, really?)

Extrasensory perception of the magnitude here proposed should not discriminate between targets unless guided by some organizing principle giving a special pattern to the persons or objects recognized. (Wow, really?)

It seems to me that here we must suppose that Biya's personality somehow conferred the pattern of its mind on the contents of Swarnlata's mind.
(No, we must not suppose or assume anything of the kind.)

Is this directed at my post Durward?

No, still answering Laird's request.