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

Sorry, could you quote the parts you're talking about?

It's been some time since I went through it and am not sure, for example, who the Amazonian is.

the primer is on 223
(1) Our case would not have the etiological features found in cases of MPD/DID or other psychological disorders. For example, the phenomena ideally should not begin after the subject experiences a traumatic childhood incident. (2) The manifestations of a previous personality should not serve any discernable psychological need of the living. (3) Those manifestations should make sense in terms of agendas or interests credibly (if not coercively) attributable to the previous personality. (4) The manifestations should begin, and should be documented, before the subject (or anyone in the subject’s circle of acquaintances) has identified and researched the life of a corresponding previous personality. (5) The subject should supply verifiable, intimate facts about the previous personality’s life. (6) The history and behavior of the previous personality should be recognizable, in intimate detail, to several individuals. (7) The subject should also be able to display some of the previous personality’s skills or traits—the more idiosyncratic the better. (8) In order for investigators to verify information communicated about the previous personality’s life, it should be necessary to access multiple, culturally and geographically remote, and obscure sources. (9) Anomalous skills or traits manifested by the subject should be as foreign to the subject as possible—for example, from a significantly different culture to which the subject has had no exposure. (10) Skills associated with the previous personality should be of a kind or of a degree that generally require practice, and which are seldom (if ever) found in prodigies or savants. (11) The manifestations of the previous personality should continue to provide verifiable information and credible behavioral simulations for an extended period of time, adding to the crippling complexity of super-psi explanations.

[Laird]

Re the exchange between @Durward and @nbtruthman in posts #87 (Durward's), #90 (nbtruthman's), #91 and #92 (Durward's), #94 (nbtruthman's) and #95 (Durward's), I thought it useful to draw attention to Doctor Ian Stephenson's analysis at the end of his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, in particular under "General Discussion", running from pages 331 to 386, and especially from page 343 onwards, under the heading "Extrasensory Perception and Personation". I have just attempted to reread this discussion in full so as to refresh my memory and offer a summary of it, however, I found that I did not have the patience, and only managed to read a few tens of pages without summarising them - but I can confirm that based on what I did read, it is a very lucid, persuasive, and, especially, relevant discussion.

In it, Dr Stephenson addresses most of the alternative possibilities which Durward canvasses, with, unless I've missed something, the exception of the "demonically-generated" possibility. Dr Stephenson's reasoning seems to be of the type which nbtruthman points out: abductive. He considers all of the possible explanations other than reincarnation, and offers in each case reasons as to why reincarnation is the better explanation.

Durward, since you seem to be amenable to reading sources suggested to you, I'd really encourage you to read this discussion and to see what you make of it.

Durward, since you seem to be amenable to reading sources suggested to you, I'd really encourage you to read this discussion and to see what you make of it.

Thank you.

Reading Stevenson again reminds me how much he rambles on and makes assumptions, draws conclusions (however faulty at times), and deduces best he can without the resources he would have today to prove or disprove so many of his own questions or assertions.

He does touch down on many of the same points and arguments we have discussed back and forth. With some of the same conclusions.

However, his knowledge of Psi phenomena and how it works is obviously lacking, as he mentions this or that is not supposed to work this or that way according to theory this or that, or study this or that. He actually mentions studies done by people who are not psi talented, and are simply observing and making judgements (false most of the time), who have no clue of the subject matter. As if these studies or the people running them were then the world experts of this subject or Psi phenomena. And they are not.
So he draws false conclusions about what the data he has collected can or can't be, based on a lack of understanding of Psi subject matter, and conveniently mentions it, and then shoves it away or then dismisses it, based on his own judgement call. 

It doesn't change much of what we were discussing, since I don't see his input changing how I think or feel about reincarnation. 

As stated, it is evidence of a flow of information, in this case memories, that can have, and do have, multiple explanations and likely multiple truths behind all of them. 

Some of them will be reincarnations, and others not.

The mistake is still cherry picking truths based on personal preferences instead of facts, or making assumptions for that same purpose.

I do wish he would just supply the information in a format that would help determine the differences in cases, the differences between knowing things Harribance style, and knowing things because you were there, etc. In other words, columns and rows in his table of data are much different that what I would pick, because I look for different things that can take us down a different path than just assumption and speculation.

He also dismisses much that doesn't fit his narrative, out of convenience to making his points valid, whether valid or not, all the while excusing himself with the magic words "suggest" "assume" and so on. I suppose you have to make a stand somewhere.

The study of these children, and accumulation of this evidence, followed by the presentation of it, has got to be a nightmare task. Not something I would have picked on purpose.

So, my main problem with Stevenson would be that his writings show he has very little knowledge about how Psi phenomena functions, except for reading and theory, thus assumes he knows, when it is obvious that he doesn't from what he writes in relation to these cases.
Most often, he redirects to another study or interesting case, and the entire thought process follows that one and only situation as his go-to knowledge, example, or as the basis for comparison. That would be fine if the information applied to the circumstances and was correct.

People can't know everything, but he should have consulted the experts before making those blatant mistakes, or at least had some expert proofread before blurting out such mistakes.

Some of his psi comments are close, so some of it is ok. It is likely it doesn't interest him. Or it could be that a proper evaluation of Psi might lead to career suicide.

[Laird]

Hi Durward,

Let's have a little fun. Depending on your perspective, that final word should be quoted.

Really, though, rather than fun, I'm asking you for some additional rigour.

I request specific examples from you for each of the following assertions:

Stevenson [...] makes assumptions

(That is, please provide one or more examples of what you consider to be Dr Ian Stevenson's assumptions).

draws conclusions (however faulty at times)

(That is, please provide one or more examples of one of Dr Ian Stevenson's "faulty" conclusions).

without the resources he would have today to prove or disprove so many of his own questions or assertions.

(That is, please provide one or more examples of today's resources which Dr Ian Stevenson would have had to (dis)prove so many of his own questions or assertions).

However, his knowledge of Psi phenomena and how it works is obviously lacking, as he mentions this or that is not supposed to work this or that way according to theory this or that, or study this or that.

(That is, please provide one or more examples of Dr Ian Stevenson mistakenly mentioning some aspect of psi that is "not supposed to work this way or that").

So he draws false conclusions about what the data he has collected can or can't be, based on a lack of understanding of Psi subject matter, and conveniently mentions it, and then shoves it away or then dismisses it, based on his own judgement call. 

(That is, please provide one or more examples of a judgement call that Dr Ian Stevenson makes based on a lack of understanding of psi subject matter, from which he draws a false conclusion).

I could go on, but that's enough fun ("fun"?) for now...

Hi Durward,

Let's have a little fun. Depending on your perspective, that final word should be quoted.

Really, though, rather than fun, I'm asking you for some additional rigour.

I request specific examples from you for each of the following assertions:


(That is, please provide one or more examples of what you consider to be Dr Ian Stevenson's assumptions).


(That is, please provide one or more examples of one of Dr Ian Stevenson's "faulty" conclusions).


(That is, please provide one or more examples of today's resources which Dr Ian Stevenson would have had to (dis)prove so many of his own questions or assertions).


(That is, please provide one or more examples of Dr Ian Stevenson mistakenly mentioning some aspect of psi that is "not supposed to work this way or that").


(That is, please provide one or more examples of a judgement call that Dr Ian Stevenson makes based on a lack of understanding of psi subject matter, from which he draws a false conclusion).

I could go on, but that's enough fun ("fun"?) for now...

I don't see this as fun at all.

First you give me a reading assignment with the request to review.
Which i did, giving my opinion. I don't mind reading things again, since I know I have seen and read this material before.

Instead of going to his book, and drawing your own conclusions, or comparing what I wrote while perusing these same materials, I am now given the assignment of plucking out each of these areas from his book for you (or this forum), while including his references and mistakes (which is a long and gigantic rambling) and arguing or proving my points to some unknown level of personal satisfaction for you or this forum? 

You have presented these like some school assignment. While you sit back and just wait for me to fill in the blanks.
Not happening.

All the while, this level of personal satisfaction in my answers, whatever it is, is not defined or further explained. I have to assume you disagree with everything you just mentioned and that you blindly accept Stevenson's conclusions, ideas, theories at face value. I assume this because you have not asserted your own pro or con here.

All the while, not supplying counter arguments, facts, or evidence that would support the opposite of my opinion.

All the while, not knowing how much of the psi phenomena, whether the fake skeptic scientist versions of psi phenomena, or real evidence psi phenomea, you personally adhere to, will accept, or require as proof that Stevenson is not a subject matter expert qualified to determine if Psi applies or not, while Stevenson admits it can, or could.
 
What happens then? You try to shoot each one down and it goes on and on?

You see how this isn't some school assignment thing? Not fun.

How about you go there and find these items to answer your own questions? Come to your own conclusions?
I've made mine. I did the homework. I know from my own Psi research that his treatment of possible mechanisms shows a lack of knowledge.
I could likely write a book about why most scientists and researchers are wrong and don't follow the science enough to chime in as if they did know.
It is a personal pet peeve of mine, mainly because I do experience Psi and have done a lot of research.

So, I return the challenge. You go there, find these things, and present your side in your opinion, for or against. I am certainly not going to jump through any flaming hoops and perform today.

[Laird]

So, I return the challenge. You go there, find these things, and present your side in your opinion, for or against.

Well, that's an impossible challenge, because you've declined to identify any of these things. No problem though - I'm not invested in debating this. I just noticed that you made a lot of broad claims, and I wanted to understand what you meant more specifically. If you prefer not to oblige, though, then that's perfectly OK.

Well, that's an impossible challenge, because you've declined to identify any of these things. No problem though - I'm not invested in debating this. I just noticed that you made a lot of broad claims, and I wanted to understand what you meant more specifically. If you prefer not to oblige, though, then that's perfectly OK.

My only response there should be regarding "broad claims" which Stevenson and his entire book are full of, while he rambles on to the point of mental exhaustion.

My point, was to point out why his making broad claims and conclusions is not how I do science. 
Once you have a few of these that are false in any study materials, the rest of the conclusions have to be put into a big questionable zone, and I could sit there and strip the rest of his entire book down to claims and assumptions on one side, facts and evidence on the other. 

The facts or evidence stand for themselves. The interpretations of these, in particular the psi related discussion, should be shot down as what they are, broad claims consisting mostly of his opinions, assumptions, and misinformed or misguided conclusions.

It is his conclusions, assumptions, personal opinions, and claims that show my point. 
Most all of them.
He had a choice. 
He could present the evidence and be done with it. 
Or he could try to make it more than it is, or stuff it into a box where it doesn't belong, or make up things to plug gaps and holes, or talk nonsense, etc.
What I call the Erich von Däniken method.
He decided to go that Erich route. 
So it forces the rest of us to try and cherry pick through his stuff, try and find gems, and we are then constantly having to educate ourselves about the rest of his injected assumptions / conclusions, and much of what he writes proves itself to be lop-sided or fuzzy logic when it comes to psi phenomena.

Hi Durward,

Let's have a little fun. Depending on your perspective, that final word should be quoted.

Really, though, rather than fun, I'm asking you for some additional rigour.

I request specific examples from you for each of the following assertions:


(That is, please provide one or more examples of what you consider to be Dr Ian Stevenson's assumptions).


(That is, please provide one or more examples of one of Dr Ian Stevenson's "faulty" conclusions).


(That is, please provide one or more examples of today's resources which Dr Ian Stevenson would have had to (dis)prove so many of his own questions or assertions).


(That is, please provide one or more examples of Dr Ian Stevenson mistakenly mentioning some aspect of psi that is "not supposed to work this way or that").


(That is, please provide one or more examples of a judgement call that Dr Ian Stevenson makes based on a lack of understanding of psi subject matter, from which he draws a false conclusion).

I could go on, but that's enough fun ("fun"?) for now...

Since you went and fixed the alert functions and I'm so happy about that, let's do this... 

Just give me some time, the copy of his book I'm working from doesn't allow search functions, so I have to see if I can find a PdF version that does.
The copy also doesn't allow any copying, so I can't copy and paste either. What a pain in the neck... now it's on you PDF aholes!
And the incredible amount of things to pick from... my my my, this will take some time.

To keep the thoughts going...

https://philpapers.org/rec/AUGTMO

Abstract
This abbreviated critique notes several weaknesses in Ian Stevenson’s reincarnation research based on an examination of the cases at the University of Virginia’s then Division of Parapsychology. The analysis raises issues about the use of leading questions, the inadequate depth of the investigations, the substantial allowance left for memory distortions and embellishment in the case reports, and the likelihood of contamination by normal sources in the vast majority of cases due to communication between the families of the deceased and the families of the “reborn” long before any investigation ensued. In addition, the weaknesses of the cases are somewhat obscured by Stevenson discussing them in a general way in a separate part of the report or book rather than in the actual presentation of the case itself. The critique concludes that both the behavioral and informational features of the “rebirth data” are weak. 1. Weaknesses in the Case Investigations and Reports -- 2. Subsequent Rebirth Research

The preface to 20 cases suggestive of...

I would only here reiterate that I consider these cases suggestive of reincarnation and nothing more. All the cases have deficiencies as have all their reports. Neither any case individually nor all of them collectively offers anything like a proof of reincarnation. My most important single conclusion about them is of the need for further study of similar cases.