(2017-09-14, 05:38 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Please define what you mean by "scientifically".
This term is getting thrown around a lot, but I'm afraid it has no precise meaning to me.
Seems to me the word is generally used by people who want to trump other's people's information or opinion on some matter. In such cases, all that seems to be necessary is to throw "scientific" in the sentence and it (whatever "IT" is) instantly grows ten sizes, and then a big "S" appear's on "IT's" chest.
I can remove it. There is no way that reincarnation can ever be proven with evidence.
(2017-09-14, 05:40 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Completely disagree.
Without access to the mechanisms behind what most people consider reincarnation (the movement of a previously incarnated soul into a new physical existence) then even if we had 10,000 air tight narratives with physical marks to back them up it, the mechanism of the soul transfer could never be proven.
It could be that the child is accessing information from a kind of akashic record through channelling (with the aid of non-physical entity) or through their own psychic access.
Just because someone says I lived a past life and they know hundreds of details of another previously lived life does not prove the re-incarnation of a soul. It is suggestive of it.
We would need access to tools that could:
1. Prove the existence of a soul.
2. Show the mechanism where a soul moves from body to body.
How would we prove those things?
(2017-09-14, 05:40 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Completely disagree.
I can provide 10 examples right now to prove my point. But why bother?
I think one of the problems with his whole conversation is the false notion that there exists some perfect evidence. Some silver bullet that is always valid.
It just doesn't exist folks. Evidence comes in all shades of grey. And every situation requires that we find the best evidence we can and make decision. And guess what? A few weeks later some equally qualified researcher may come along and look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.
This thing is not nearly as black and white as some people claim.
(2017-09-14, 05:38 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Please define what you mean by "scientifically".
This term is getting thrown around a lot, but I'm afraid it has no precise meaning to me.
Seems to me the word is generally used by people who want to trump other's people's information or opinion on some matter. In such cases, all that seems to be necessary is to throw "scientific" in the sentence and it (whatever "IT" is) instantly grows ten sizes, and then a big "S" appear's on "IT's" chest.
But I'm sure you recognise that there are scientists who study standards of evidence. There is a lot of work going on in that field, particularly by scientists like those in the Cochrane Group (
www.cochrane.org) or Stanford's METRICS (
https://metrics.stanford.edu/).
Scientists have learned quite a bit about what research methods produce more reliable results. They do this by comparing different methods and seeing how the methodology affects the results.
Just hand waving these issues away as just trying to "trump other's people's information or opinion" is not giving, in my opinion, enough consideration to the issue.
(2017-09-14, 05:52 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]I can provide 10 examples right now to prove my point. But why bother?
I think one of the problems with his whole conversation is the false notion that there exists some perfect evidence. Some silver bullet that is always valid.
It just doesn't exist folks. Evidence comes in all shades of grey. And every situation requires that we find the best evidence we can and make decision. And guess what? A few weeks later some equally qualified researcher may come along and look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.
This thing is not nearly as black and white as some people claim.
Agreed we can only deal with the best evidence we have. But surely there are circumstances where the decision we should make is that the evidence isn't strong enough justify a conclusion.
Remember, not accepting the hypothesis is not the same thing as considering the hypothesis false.
(2017-09-14, 05:52 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]I can provide 10 examples right now to prove my point. But why bother?
I think one of the problems with his whole conversation is the false notion that there exists some perfect evidence. Some silver bullet that is always valid.
It just doesn't exist folks. Evidence comes in all shades of grey. And every situation requires that we find the best evidence we can and make decision. And guess what? A few weeks later some equally qualified researcher may come along and look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.
This thing is not nearly as black and white as some people claim.
I believe reincarnation happens. But proving something is something else entirely.
I assume scientists have a way to prove that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know. But I assume you can go to a lab and "prove" this beyond the shadow of any doubt.
It is in this sense that I use the word prove. No such thing can be done for reincarnation. It can't be proven. That is the very nature of this reality.
(2017-09-14, 05:52 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]I can provide 10 examples right now to prove my point. But why bother?
State even one case that couldn't be information coming from Akashic records?
(2017-09-14, 05:52 PM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]But I'm sure you recognise that there are scientists who study standards of evidence. There is a lot of work going on in that field, particularly by scientists like those in the Cochrane Group (www.cochrane.org) or Stanford's METRICS (https://metrics.stanford.edu/).
Scientists have learned quite a bit about what research methods produce more reliable results. They do this by comparing different methods and seeing how the methodology affects the results.
Just hand waving these issues away as just trying to "trump other's people's information or opinion" is not giving, in my opinion, enough consideration to the issue.
True true. I over simplify.
Just as Linda oversimplified when she said that non-recorded evidence is invalid.
The scientific rules of evidence that I have come across have served us well for a couple hundred years. Unfortunately they are generally suited for situations very unlike psi.
So to be as candid as I can be: yes of course I realize there are standard methodologies when it comes to evidence in various fields of science. I am really saying that science has tied themselves in a knot with the very rules that have gotten them this far. And they will proceed no further in understanding things like psi unless those knots are loosened a bit, or maybe completely re-defined.
e.g. Evidence about a two year old boy who knows dozens of facts about a particular WW2 aircraft, and who also knows details about his sister who is now in her 80's, needs to be taken seriously. If it violates some precious 100 year old rule against valid evidence, that rule needs to be amended, or at a minimum reasonable intelligent people need to look honestly at the details of such a story and decide while pushing the "rules of evidence" aside.
Otherwise we will continue to have what we have now, people using this as an excuse to avoid talking about some pretty amazing stuff.
(2017-09-14, 05:58 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]State even one case that couldn't be information coming from Akashic records?
Sure, and perhaps you can use the same argument in reverse to argue against Akashic records...
OTOH- how would you explain the fact that akashic records creates physical markings on someone's body?