(2017-09-17, 10:07 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]These factors have often explained huge bodies of cases. For example, the entire practice of medicine up until the late 19th/early 20th century was essentially explained by these factors, almost none of which survived once evidence was sought and examined. How many millions of people think homeopathy is helping them, when the research has shown these are the only factors in play?
None of this is some subjective standard I've come up with on my own - these are the factors, which when tested against, have caused vast swathes of supposed effects to disappear. Even just blinded evaluation (the suggestion I made earlier) has had a huge effect. I'm not comfortable ignoring that.
The problem is that what you describe in your second paragraph (as what "they don't do") is exactly what scientists do do. If the evidence is weak, you're not likely to run with the idea knowing that fair to good evidence is almost never forthcoming. That's not to say that some scientists won't remain interested and continue to perform research. But if weak evidence hasn't been generally persuasive, then more of the same isn't going to help. I'm more interested in finding ways to rise above that - invest in the kind of research that provides a stronger evidentiary level.
When it comes to claiming that it offers disproof of reductionism, you are in the same boat. You still need good evidence to disprove something. I don't know what you mean about putting something into a box - what box? And I'm not talking about holding it to the standards of a hard science. Psi should be very amenable to the processes which are demonstrably valid and reliable in the social sciences/medicine.
Linda
Linda, I would like for you to suggest how bias and the other factors you listed explain a specific case. Go address it in the reincarnation thread and point out to me where those things come into play for you. Then do it for the other 50 cases in Tucker's first book, and honest to goodness try to tell me that you really and truly believe that it is more likely than not, or even remotely realistic, that those things explain all the cases away. Honestly.
The reason skeptics resort to this line of reasoning for the Tucker and Stevenson research is because they have absolutely, positively no "normal" explanation for the results. Chris just touched on this about the Global Consciousness Project, which I'm not familiar with - but I have yet to see a skeptic come up with any normal explanation at all. And I mean none, and I've looked for them. Every single response to the research is about bias, fraud, or coincidence. That is the final frontier for those trying to explain the cases away, and it is a real frontier - I'm not dismissing it. But at some point you have to look in the mirror, and wonder, "Hey, maybe I'm the reason I don't accept this evidence." Maybe your standards are so unrealistically high (they are) that there's virtually no
realistic methodology that could convince you. Certainly, the methodology could be improved, though it's very hard and has little to do with the researchers themselves. As Arouet noted earlier, much of the bias and risk involved is inherent and not related to the researchers' own strategies or methods.
I am finding myself chuckling at you "causing vast swaths of supposed effects to disappear" remark. Truly, that would astonish me kids magically stopped saying these things, and stopped remembering these facts, in light of your suggested methodological adjustments. Mostly because I am not sure that those serve any real purpose but to allow the more open minded skeptics to believe more legitimately in them or take them more seriously, and the more close minded ones to continue to raise that bar.
As far as your commentary on my second paragraph, the reason you and I disagree is because you think it's weak evidence, and I do not. For the tenth time, that is not some objective standard. We disagree, and I think a reasoned and informed person could fall on either side of that spectrum. It doesn't seem that either you or Arouet thinks that's the case. What type of research methods do you suggest they "invest in"? Come up with some better methodology for me. Go to a couple cases and tell me what they could've done better. My second paragraph makes sense in light of belief that the evidence is of value and is useful as it is now, now that it cannot or won't improve in quality. Your response disregards that and assumes your conclusion that it's weak. Therein lies the disconnect.
For disproof of reductionism, I am most certainly not in the same boat, though I figured you would respond like that. It's an entirely different thing - so the evidentiary standard is a little different. This is, of course, if you don't outright sweepingly call all the evidence weak for risk of bias, coincidence, wishful thinking etc. I think that you'll agree it's probably more difficult to
prove reincarnation than it is to indicate severe weakness in reductionism. Weakness or failure of reductionism comes as a direct result of the validity of this evidence - reincarnation does not necessarily follow. Again, the disconnect comes in that you think the evidence is obviously weak, and I don't agree. Are you seriously not sure what box I'm referencing? It's as if you're ignorant of your own position's ramifications. You have suggested that the evidence is weak and can be improved methodologically (I disagree with the former and agree - to an extent - with the latter), but have then tried to set up some ideas for how to improve the research that hardly make sense when applying them to an actual case instead of speaking generally. The box is certainly one of your own standards, which are more rooted in empirical and hard science standards whether you care to admit it or not.
Why should we use the same standards as are used in social science and medicine when they are so heavily flawed themselves? Had you considered that the standards don't necessarily verify those results adequately, since they are so frequently overturned or (in the case of the social sciences especially) involve an immense amount of speculation? And that's before we get to the fact that
this is fundamentally different than the hard sciences, medicine, or even the social sciences. It's not the same thing. I'm talking specifically about reincarnation research here, NOT psi, though you insist on continually bringing it up.
How familiar are you with this research? Have you read many of the cases? Have you read the researchers notes on methodology and potential explanations? Have you for even a second considered your own standards to be something other than the objective bar for what is "good" or "reliable" evidence? Really, actually being familiar with the cases, I would be incredibly hard pressed at this point to believe that there was any chance of moving you from your position, Linda, because I don't think what you've suggested as supplements to the current methodology are reasonable suggestions.
Of course, the most important caveat to all of this is that this entire conversation has been discussed largely without regard to specific cases, vaguely, generally, and broadly. Perhaps that's a component of our disagreement. If you're not as familiar with the cases as I'd assumed, that would explain it to a degree too.