2022-01-24, 06:09 AM
Anyone have thoughts on Michael Sudduth's attempted debunking of the Leininger reincarnation case that was just published? https://www.scientificexploration.org/do...udduth.pdf.
Breaking from his usual pattern he doesn't argue for a living-agent psi interpretation but instead argues that there's no evidence of paranormality in the case at all. If he's succeeded I'd consider that pretty bad for reincarnation proponents insofar as the Leininger case is frequently held up as one of the best CORTs (cases of the reincarnation type). It also might reflect poorly on the Division of Perceptual Studies in general insofar as it'd imply that one of their key people, Jim Tucker, isn't very reliable in conducting case studies into the paranormal, which is his bread and butter.
Here's what Stephen Braude says about the paper in his editorial for the issue of JSE that it appears in:
>Michael Sudduth’s essay is a forensic tour de force (as befits an admirer of the TV detective Columbo)—an unprecedently detailed critique of the James Leininger case of ostensible reincarnation. That case is both complicated and messy, and it illustrates a general problem with CORT investigations that I’ve dubbed the Problem of Investigative Intricacy.
>All CORT cases are messy. Investigators must interview the subject, family members, and (when possible) crucial figures in the life of the previous personality. In fact, it typically requires considerable detective and interpretive work merely to identify the previous personality from the often vague or ambiguous behaviors and statements of the subject. And then, investigators must still obtain testimony from the remaining living persons (if any) who knew the apparent previous personality, simply to establish that the subject’s apparent recollections about the previous personality are reliable. Moreover, the interview process can be muddied by the fallibility of memory, and by conscious or subconscious motives either to please (or frustrate) the interlocutor or simply to confirm a deep wish for the case to be a genuine instance of reincarnation. And of course, many cases also require the services of translators whose own biases, inadequacies, and needs might influence the direction or accuracy of the testimony obtained. So a great deal of work is required to obtain clear and reliable early-bird testimony (i.e., gathered before the apparent previous personality was identified), establish a strong link between that testimony (or the subject’s behavior) and a previous personality, and to ensure the accuracy of the information obtained from interviews. In short, CORT investigations require a great deal of work simply to establish the reliable and relevant facts of the case.
>However, other bodies of evidence don’t require such a complex process either to identify the deceased or to establish a clear link between the living and the deceased. For example, in the case of the medium Mrs. Piper, we have many interactions between the medium and sitters who knew the deceased well. So when Mrs. Piper channeled a message having intimate relevance to the sitter (e.g., an affectionate and private nickname), we know immediately who the deceased seems to be. And arguably, transplant cases provide even clearer connections to the apparent deceased.
>Sudduth’s examination of the Leininger case is a breathtaking illustration of how difficult it is to properly evaluate evidence suggesting reincarnation. I imagine few of us have the fortitude or investigative skill for such a task. Indeed, I don’t believe any ostensible survival case has ever been subjected to such a thorough examination. I should also note that Sudduth and Jim Tucker will have more to say about the Leininger case in the Spring issue.
https://www.scientificexploration.org/do...torial.pdf
Breaking from his usual pattern he doesn't argue for a living-agent psi interpretation but instead argues that there's no evidence of paranormality in the case at all. If he's succeeded I'd consider that pretty bad for reincarnation proponents insofar as the Leininger case is frequently held up as one of the best CORTs (cases of the reincarnation type). It also might reflect poorly on the Division of Perceptual Studies in general insofar as it'd imply that one of their key people, Jim Tucker, isn't very reliable in conducting case studies into the paranormal, which is his bread and butter.
Here's what Stephen Braude says about the paper in his editorial for the issue of JSE that it appears in:
>Michael Sudduth’s essay is a forensic tour de force (as befits an admirer of the TV detective Columbo)—an unprecedently detailed critique of the James Leininger case of ostensible reincarnation. That case is both complicated and messy, and it illustrates a general problem with CORT investigations that I’ve dubbed the Problem of Investigative Intricacy.
>All CORT cases are messy. Investigators must interview the subject, family members, and (when possible) crucial figures in the life of the previous personality. In fact, it typically requires considerable detective and interpretive work merely to identify the previous personality from the often vague or ambiguous behaviors and statements of the subject. And then, investigators must still obtain testimony from the remaining living persons (if any) who knew the apparent previous personality, simply to establish that the subject’s apparent recollections about the previous personality are reliable. Moreover, the interview process can be muddied by the fallibility of memory, and by conscious or subconscious motives either to please (or frustrate) the interlocutor or simply to confirm a deep wish for the case to be a genuine instance of reincarnation. And of course, many cases also require the services of translators whose own biases, inadequacies, and needs might influence the direction or accuracy of the testimony obtained. So a great deal of work is required to obtain clear and reliable early-bird testimony (i.e., gathered before the apparent previous personality was identified), establish a strong link between that testimony (or the subject’s behavior) and a previous personality, and to ensure the accuracy of the information obtained from interviews. In short, CORT investigations require a great deal of work simply to establish the reliable and relevant facts of the case.
>However, other bodies of evidence don’t require such a complex process either to identify the deceased or to establish a clear link between the living and the deceased. For example, in the case of the medium Mrs. Piper, we have many interactions between the medium and sitters who knew the deceased well. So when Mrs. Piper channeled a message having intimate relevance to the sitter (e.g., an affectionate and private nickname), we know immediately who the deceased seems to be. And arguably, transplant cases provide even clearer connections to the apparent deceased.
>Sudduth’s examination of the Leininger case is a breathtaking illustration of how difficult it is to properly evaluate evidence suggesting reincarnation. I imagine few of us have the fortitude or investigative skill for such a task. Indeed, I don’t believe any ostensible survival case has ever been subjected to such a thorough examination. I should also note that Sudduth and Jim Tucker will have more to say about the Leininger case in the Spring issue.
https://www.scientificexploration.org/do...torial.pdf