Michael Sudduth's critique of the Leininger case as reincarnation or psi evidence

The politics in all this are new to me.  You have been presenting the work of S. Braude and I didn't get the influence it apparently has.  Thanks for the focus, and maybe you would make some comments as an overview of the effect from your point of view?

I had seen "super psi" as a physicalist-based approach, but it seems to be more of Phenomenalist (and hence more inclined to pragmatic analysis).  From a marketing viewpoint, the statement below is a victory in the long-term arc of Psi.  Actual events, taken one at a time, can become well-formed data and be sorted as being Psi-associated.

Am I way too happy??


The Sudduth arguments were poorly executed, I did not get the same openness to the event being a solid Psi data point, with an appropriate margin of error.  Really, that's all he argued.  The boy's phenomenal personal experiences, are unique and meaningful enough to be recorded and considered.

If I had a choice between Super Psi and full-on skeptic beliefs I'd pick the former...but Super Psi is just not a good explanation. Braude is definitely one of the philosophers I have a lot of respect for, especially his writings on how humans are not mechanisms, but despite him leaning towards Survival in Immortal Remains I think he has some blinders on when it comes to Survival. Braude has even suggested we have to consider "magic wand Psi", where simply desiring things can make them happen just not at a conscious level...so the mind has god-like power but will die when the brain does?

Sudduth just has amassed such a bad reputation I can't take him seriously. Even full-on skeptics like Wiseman are more trustworthy IMO.

Sudduth just has amassed such a bad reputation I can't take him seriously. Even full-on skeptics like Wiseman are more trustworthy IMO.

I'm not sure about this. What Sudduth seems to stand convicted of is being a narcissistic d***head with an omniscience complex. But I can't say I've seen anyone really blow a hole in his work, point out serious error or incompetence, that sort of thing. By contrast, Wiseman is just a slimeball who potentially has engaged in outright scientific misconduct to protect his fedora-tipper pseudoskepticism: https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/rich...phenomenon.

Super psi sounds very like magic to me. 
There’s definitely value in sceptics or Skeptics for me although once one has done some personal investigation it’s easier to assess their opinions looking at the evidence in the round imho. 

I think it’s very difficult (dare I say impossible?) to dispose of the body of evidence. Coming up with theories that don’t address all the evidence seems quite common. Once we see the full breadth of the evidence it’s often quite easy to see how weak the theories often are.

I'm not sure about this. What Sudduth seems to stand convicted of is being a narcissistic d***head with an omniscience complex. But I can't say I've seen anyone really blow a hole in his work, point out serious error or incompetence, that sort of thing. By contrast, Wiseman is just a slimeball who potentially has engaged in outright scientific misconduct to protect his fedora-tipper pseudoskepticism: https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/rich...phenomenon.

I talk about Sudduth regarding his accusation that reincarnation isn't falsifiable in a blog post should it be of any interest.

https://ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2021/10...art-2.html

At last, Jim Tucker's rebuttal of Sudduth has come out:

Journal of Scientific Exploration
Vol. 36 No. 1 (2022)   Published May 22, 2022

Response to Sudduth’s “James Leininger Case Re-Examined”

by Jim Tucker

Abstract
In the last issue, Michael Sudduth (2021) presented a reexamination of the case of James Leininger, who as a young boy appeared to remember the life of James Huston, a pilot killed during World War II. Sudduth clearly put a tremendous amount of time into exploring the case. Unfortunately, his report is filled with distortions, mischaracterizations, and at times, outright misinformation. There are too many instances to list every one, but large and small, they all contribute to an inaccurate picture that denigrates the credibility of James’s parents as informants and my competence as a researcher.

CONCLUSIONS

Much of Sudduth’s paper is ultimately beside the point.
Yes, James was exposed to materials about WWII and airplanes; we already knew that. How much of it a 2-year-old could have taken in during his visits to the museum is unclear, but young children can surprise us at times. And yes, in telling their story over the years, Bruce and Andrea Leininger may have been inconsistent at times on some of the
details. That’s why we go by the documentation. The documentation shows that James provided a number of specific details he said were from his death in a previous life, details that precisely matched a pilot who was killed in WWII. That was one James M. Huston, Jr., a 21-year-old pilot from Pennsylvania, who was killed only days before his ship was
scheduled to leave Iwo Jima. Try as he might, Sudduth is not able to change that. The case remains unscathed.

In the same issue, Sudduth responds to Tucker.

[Laird]

At last, Jim Tucker's rebuttal of Sudduth has come out:

Journal of Scientific Exploration
Vol. 36 No. 1 (2022)  Published May 22, 2022

Response to Sudduth’s “James Leininger Case Re-Examined”

by Jim Tucker

[...]

In the same issue, Sudduth responds to Tucker.

We should also note the Editor's Preface to the Commentaries about the Leininger Case by James Houran, as well as James G. Matlock's Clarifying Muddied Waters, Part 1: A Secure Timeline for the James Leininger Case, with part two to follow in the next issue.

I don't pretend to be up on all of the details of this case, although I have read both the original critique as well as all of the documents linked to above. I tend to the view that Jim Tucker and James G. Matlock have defended the case well enough for it to stand as evidence for reincarnation.

Aside from claims as to the unreliability of the Leiningers as providers of evidence in this case, Michael Sudduth seems to make much of his epistemological challenge: if Jim Tucker can't provide and justify the evidential criteria he is using to reach his conclusion that the evidence compels reincarnation as the best explanation of the facts, then he ought not to have arrived at that conclusion, and we ought not to share it.

It is foreshadowed that James Matlock will address that challenge in his second part, but in the meantime, here are some thoughts of my own:

It is fair enough to ask for rigorous evidential criteria, however, after a certain point, it becomes redundant and even petty and niggling. It's like asking how a court witness justifies seeing the defendant in a bright blue dress: "How do you define 'blue'? And what are your criteria for 'seeing' blue?" Yes, questions like that are useful in corner cases, but in cases where the evidence is obviously compelling... not so much.

We should also note the Editor's Preface to the Commentaries about the Leininger Case by James Houran, as well as James G. Matlock's Clarifying Muddied Waters, Part 1: A Secure Timeline for the James Leininger Case, with part two to follow in the next issue.

I don't pretend to be up on all of the details of this case, although I have read both the original critique as well as all of the documents linked to above. I tend to the view that Jim Tucker and James G. Matlock have defended the case well enough for it to stand as evidence for reincarnation.

Aside from claims as to the unreliability of the Leiningers as providers of evidence in this case, Michael Sudduth seems to make much of his epistemological challenge: if Jim Tucker can't provide and justify the evidential criteria he is using to reach his conclusion that the evidence compels reincarnation as the best explanation of the facts, then he ought not to have arrived at that conclusion, and we ought not to share it.

It is foreshadowed that James Matlock will address that challenge in his second part, but in the meantime, here are some thoughts of my own:

It is fair enough to ask for rigorous evidential criteria, however, after a certain point, it becomes redundant and even petty and niggling. It's like asking how a court witness justifies seeing the defendant in a bright blue dress: "How do you define 'blue'? And what are your criteria for 'seeing' blue?" Yes, questions like that are useful in corner cases, but in cases where the evidence is obviously compelling... not so much.

Yeah, I have to say that I was rather surprised by Sudduth's having made in response a rather weak effort to support the strong "no evidence of paranormality in the Leininger case" claim, so that he could lean on stuff like "you have to explain how you know things!", in other words his more standard fare of trying to philosophize away survival evidence. In what area of empirical research are people expected to take this kind of sophistry seriously? Leave the epistemology to the epistemologists. The demands he's placing on Tucker are absurd.

Some people have memories that cause them to believe in the Mandela Effect.  Does that mean reality is changing?  I have had an incredible experience that proved to me the Gospel is real, the same Gospel that makes it crystal clear there cannot be any reincarnation.  Your reality and mine conflict and to somebody outside of our realities, there are all sorts of better explanations that don't require supernatural thinking at all.  We can't all be right.

Why would it be supernatural to believe in 2 or more lives, but not just the one life?

With what good reason -- or any reason at all -- do we have to reject reincarnation?  If we have reasons to suppose the brain creates consciousness, then yes. But if we accept that the brain is unlikely to create consciousness, I cannot see any good reason to reject reincarnation.

Incorrect memories, indeed. However, my memories are indelible and not related to particular events. I know without any question that I've been here before but it is only of value to me. I even knew about the life review because during the early part of my life I made a point of being extremely nice and kind to others (because I already knew that we are 'confronted' with it when we return) and then I got bored with that and toned it down to being normal (ie not trying to be a saint). 

And because I knew that "last time" I failed (out of fear) I stood up to the school bully (unlike anybody else) and got a pasting for it, which I knew I would of course because he was a big brute, but it's something I had to do and I did it against all my common sense. 

It doesn't matter to me that you don't believe in reincarnation, Brian, I don't like the idea of it, either, believe me. The thought of coming back here again fills me with dread. I think I'll ask I can skip the next incarnation.

I'm not sure why it fills people with dread.  How appealing or otherwise one's next life will be depends on where and who one is born to. 

In my next life, I'd like to be born to parents who are both rich and loving. I think I'd probably prefer to be born male, in the west, in idyllic countryside. And would be great to be good-looking, and intelligent, and enigmatic, and mysterious, outgoing, and strangely alluring.

Braude even mentioned it as a challenge to reincarnation studies as a whole prior to the publication itself.

How on earth could it be a challenge to all the research carried out by Ian Stevenson?  Obviously it doesn't and this assertion by Braude is ridiculous.  I find the evidence from reincarnation vastly more compelling than the mediumship he favours.