(2017-09-14, 10:47 PM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]As I wrote above, taking for the sake of argument that scientific analysis is inappropriate for psi (again, I disagree but let's go with it), then question then becomes: what other method do we use to determine if the evidence is reliable or not? That's a discussion I'm more than willing to have. What do you think?
Well, in this thread I've been focused on reincarnation, not psi. For the Stevenson et al studies, I would suggest that the best way to determine it is to use a control maybe? Pick out some random kids who have never expressed past life memories, bring some random people into the room and see what they say when asked to identify them if they know them? As of right now, I'm having difficulty thinking of other ways - I think the methodology given the necessities and nature of the research is fairly well done. I do know there are examples in some cases where a random person has been brought in for the child to identify, and when the past life personality didn't know the person, the child hasn't recognized them. I am curious as to how familiar you are with these cases in total. I think that Tucker does a pretty damn good job with methodology generally.
What are the kinds of methods you'd want to see?
Quote:You state this as a fact but I am not clear upon what it's based on. But again, let's accept it for the sake of argument: if we have no idea how to detect its validity, then should we not refrain from concluding that it is valid?
Likewise, you stated your objective standard and said the evidence fell short of it as far as reliability goes. I responded that I don't think that's founded in anything that is reasonably related to the research based on the nature of the phenomena. I'm not sure what that's exactly based on either.
As far as what I said, I'm honestly shocked you're contesting that. How would you suggest we detect actual reincarnation right now? Like chuck said, I just don't see how we have the means to do that at this time - and I mean to
literally show it empirically. I'm not sure how we'd go about that right now. I would be very interested how you think we might.
Anywho, responding to your "sake of argument" question: I addressed the conclusion thing earlier. I didn't say I was certain or that I'd made a conclusion - that sounds like a final decision, which isn't the case here for me. I know jkmac and chuck also both agreed that they aren't 100% certain about anything. I think conclusion is the wrong term, and again, you're speaking in broad terms and asking rhetorical questions. Obviously, Arouet, if we have no way of detecting something at all, it would be wise to not draw a direct conclusion about it. However, you're taking my use of "detect", by which I meant empirically discover, and changing it to mean something that seems to be resembling "detect" in any capacity at all.
I did not say that I think detection in a "being aware of it" sense isn't possible. I think that the evidence allows a reasonable and rational person to believe that it is more likely than not that reductionism is not an accurate view of the world, first and foremost. I think the evidence is still strong enough to reasonably,
though not conclusively, infer the existence of some immaterial/non-local or non-reductive memory, at the very least. When it comes to reincarnation, which, as I've said before, can have a number of interpretations, I don't know exactly what I would say the research and evidence is indicative of. Either way, I never said anything about hard conclusions, and I don't think your characterization of my use of detect allows for that rhetorical to function the way you meant for it to.
Quote:I think it is useful to discuss methodology in absence of the evidence itself. But sure, bring the evidence into the discussion, we can do that too.
But there isn't an absence here. There is a thread called reincarnation cases is open in the Reincarnation subforum, and there's a thread of the same name in the SvP subforum that has a case from Jim Tucker's first book typed out. If you want to discuss that case there, I'm happy to.
Methodology is important, obviously, but continuing to discuss it broadly and vaguely serves little actual or productive purpose.