(2017-08-31, 04:30 AM)Dante Wrote: That's not a scientific view, because it isn't based on anything that has been demonstrated by scientific research. Don't claim science as a buzzword as if it adds something to your statement. That is a purely skeptical view and nothing more. The research was conducted in as scientific a manner as possible given the circumstances. I'm a pretty skeptical person and come from an actual science background; I don't take methodology lightly.
For me, if those are the explanations given for the broad and well documented research by Tucker, Stevenson, and others, I'm perfectly content with that. Fraud, coincidence and false memory can explain some cases; they can't explain them all, and when someone tries to use them to do so, it tells me that they just don't have a good explanation via "ordinary" means.
Instead of painting with the broadest paintbrush possible, could you tell me your thoughts specifically with regards to the case presented in the OP? Are you personally familiar with the cases and research, or do you take Paul Edwards' word for it?
Edit: Didn't even see Ninshub's "non-moderator" comment, but it seems he caught the same inconsistency as I did.
Let me confine myself to to "proponents vs skeptics" section from now on. Then we can debate the pros and cons of reincarnation if you like. From now on I will only post in that section of the forum. I think it would be easier actually if skeptics were only aloud to post in that section of the forum. Apologies if I broke the rules.