"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

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.

I get that you disagree. I should point out that Ian Stevenson thought of at least some of these as realistic explanations, which is why he tried to perform investigations prior to identifications being made. Research aimed at addressing these concerns would settle the question. It would be nice not to be having this argument a hundred years from now.

Linda

Stevenson hasn't done the research in 12-15 years. Tucker has since published 2 books on this stuff and has addressed a number of things in those books. There are other people he works with around the world who also have published those works. I find it hard to believe that Tucker, as Stevenson's protege, would outright ignore the suggestions of his predecessor if he meant to do the research as soundly as possible. 

Any idea what those realistic explanations were/are, instead of vaguely referencing them without being specific? Again, I'm informed on this research. Haven't seen a single thing to that effect, and you'd think an intelligent skeptic would be all over a suggested potential "normal" explanation from the primary researcher himself if he suggested such a thing. I have seen and read no indication of that.

Stevenson hasn't done the research in 12-15 years. Tucker has since published 2 books on this stuff and has addressed a number of things in those books. There are other people he works with around the world who also have published those works. I find it hard to believe that Tucker, as Stevenson's protege, would outright ignore the suggestions of his predecessor if he meant to do the research as soundly as possible. 

Any idea what those realistic explanations were/are, instead of vaguely referencing them without being specific? Again, I'm informed on this research. Haven't seen a single thing to that effect, and you'd think an intelligent skeptic would be all over a suggested potential "normal" explanation from the primary researcher himself if he suggested such a thing. I have seen and read no indication of that.

For example, he outlines some issues in the introduction in this paper. 


https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stud...nson-1.pdf

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.

As far as I can tell, Stevenson implies that the concerns he raised would apply in each case. And unblinded assessments would be expected to cause problems in each case in which they are used. So it isn't a matter of trying to come up with 50 different explanations for 50 different cases. It's a matter of looking at which issues are present in which cases.

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.

My point was that it wasn't just me that is doubtful, it is scientists in general. Trying to pin this on defects in my character doesn't really help you overall. Also, I'm not sure why you insist that no one has mentioned "normal" explanations for the results.

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.

Lol. Yeah, that's not what I meant. I was referring more to the proposed explanations for what the kids say, like "reincarnation". 

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.

I think that general scientific acceptance would count as "serving a real purpose". 

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.

This is the standard I am referring to:

http://cccrg.cochrane.org/sites/cccrg.co...r_2016.pdf
http://cobe.paginas.ufsc.br/files/2014/1...e.RCT_.pdf

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.

I mentioned one thing already - blinded assessments.

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.

To be honest, I don't really know what you mean by disproving reductionism. As far as I know, reductionism is simply one of a variety of tools used to investigate a problem. Sometimes it's useful and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes things can be looked at as the sum of their parts, but there are other situations where the whole has features that are not present in the parts (e.g. emergence).  

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.

Okay. I think of the hard sciences as physics and chemistry, followed by biology, and the soft sciences as sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. The methodologies used in studying clinical medicine come from the social sciences (like validity). But I'm pretty sure I specifically stated that the standards I was using are rooted in science standards.

Please note that I entered this discussion because the claim was made that the evidence for psi is strong. 

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.

What are you suggesting then? If attempts to use rigor are still flawed, what are you expecting to happen when less rigor is used?

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?

I've read two of Ian Stevenson's books and several of his published papers. 

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?

I don't really make up my own standards. I tend to go with the research on the subject of reliability and validity (see my links above).

Linda

I understand the risk that comes with not getting to the cases as soon as the child initially says something, as do Tucker and as did Stevenson.

Do you consider it to be a significant risk?  

As far as the birthmarks go, I'm not particularly familiar with that part of the research - but nonetheless, the few cases I've read involving them have been a mix of what I found to be impressive and not so impressive, or more likely to be due to coincidence.

For the "children refer to themselves in the first person" thing, I just don't see how that would explain the research, and I know you noted that... but I think it's self explanatory enough that it wouldn't shock me if the researchers hadn't touched on it (and they may have, I don't recall but I haven't read nearly all the books the two of them have published - only a couple among other articles and interviews). It's one thing for a kid to say, "Look! That's me! I'm batman!" or something of that ilk, like a famous character, super hero, or video game character, and of course an entirely different thing when a child says something about being a random person from another location while simultaneously listing a number of facts about that person that they should or would have no access to, if they even had the capacity to remember the information if it was ever told to them. And I know you said that you're not making the claim that this is part of what may be going on in these cases, but I would think these reasons are obvious enough that maybe the researchers devoted time to other possible explanations or reasoning first. Again, I'm also not certain that they've never addressed it, though off the top of my head I can't recall that I've personally read such a thing.

If the children have been given the suggestion that they may have a past life, combined with at least some children's propensity towards identifying with such suggestions, I think it is something that deserves some serious attention.  

One thing I learned as a parent, to my surprise, was that my children, even when they could barely speak, took in much more than I thought.  For example, we'd have conversations in the car, thinking that the kids were oblivious when they would say something that indicated they had taken it all in.  

The problem with many of these cases is that we have no idea to what extent such influences could have impacted on the children - even if the parents didn't believe they had.  

Remember, with risks of bias we often have no way of knowing whether the bias impacted the results or not.  That is why we identify risk rather than try to identify actual bias (see the links fls provided for more on this).  

The objective in analyzing the cases is to determine how significant the risk of bias.  If it is significant, the case must be downgraded if we are trying to approach an objective assessment.  This is the case even if we haven't identified a specific bias in play.  As the Cochrane handbook suggests, trying to nail down exactly what effect a particular bias had is a fools game. Rather, we perform experiments with the bias included, and without and compare the results.  If it is not possible to perform the experiment without, well, we're just stuck with the risk I guess.

Interviewing children is, of course, going to be "risky" - but this is, as with most things, best addressed specifically with regards to an actual case rather tan broadly. This doesn't really hold a lot of water for me when there are thousands of cases and I don't think that the method of questioning by scientifically cautious and methodologically careful researchers who have been at this for awhile is especially likely to be suspect. They are aware of the difficulties of doing the research, and I believe do their best to conduct the research in as unbiased a way as possible.

Even if the researchers have done their job expertly (which is harder than one might think), it is virtually certain that the people interviewing the children before the experts arrive haven't had that training.  Like I suggested above, the risk is high even before the investigators get on the scene.

Of course there is risk of bias/error, as there is with everything that any human is directly involved in. I wouldn't say it is extra fraught with that risk - of course, because the subjects are also human beings, there is more subjectivity and risk, but I don't think "fraught with" is accurate, and I think that because the researchers appreciate the importance of their work and know how important their methodology is, they try their best to control for it, which it seems you've acknowledged.

I generally assume the researchers are trying their best.  If that were enough we wouldn't need to develop all these protocols such as double blinding.  We develop these protocols in order to overcome our weaknesses.

In spite of what you said, I think that an actual reading case by case makes it fairly difficult to assign some form of bias, coincidence, luck, or fraud to the majority of the cases, especially the stronger ones, which aren't lacking in number. Speaking generally has its place but won't move the needle much for me or others who are familiar with a large number of cases and the researchers' works and noted caveats.

There's more to say on this but briefly: despite the number, remember that what we are looking at is a selected sample of cases collected all over the world. By definition we are dealing with rare events. What we can infer is that there is a good chance that something rare happened in these cases, whether of mundane or non-mundane origins.  

In other words, when it comes to these cases we should expect the unexpected to be involved.  We must be careful not to lose the forest for the trees.

Yeah, you're probably right.

I have to admit that over the last several years, as I've looked at the research in greater detail, I've moved more towards skepticism. I thought it would be the other way around (like the OP). But there it is. I think part of it is because I've seen what happens in medicine, where weak evidence almost never holds up and even good evidence is regularly overturned by excellent evidence. I just can't bring myself to trust that weak evidence is going to be different in the case of psi.

I still think there's a chance something novel and odd or psi-like is going on. I'm interested in what kind of research designs will tease this out. But I don't know that there's much point to talking about what we think psi is until we know to what extent we're just talking about happenstance, cognitive biases, associative memory (intuition) and a sprinkling of misadventure.

Linda

We've strayed far, far from the original post, but to clarify - Bond's point wasn't that he had grown less skeptical, but that he'd rejected skepticism as an identity and an organized community, due to pervasive attitudes within that community.

We've strayed far, far from the original post, but to clarify - Bond's point wasn't that he had grown less skeptical, but that he'd rejected skepticism as an identity and an organized community, due to pervasive attitudes within that community.

I thought the thread was about skepticsm myself, but I admit I only skimmed a few paragraphs of the article.  I'm not a part of the skeptical community. To me being a skeptic means applying skeptical methodology to the analysis of claims. 

 We can move the discussion of skepticsm itself to another thread if people feel this is a derail.

I thought the thread was about skepticsm myself, but I admit I only skimmed a few paragraphs of the article.  I'm not a part of the skeptical community. To me being a skeptic means applying skeptical methodology to the analysis of claims. 

 We can move the discussion of skepticsm itself to another thread if people feel this is a derail.

Threads evolve over the course of time; nothing wrong with broadening the topics of discussion. As I posted the original essay, I just wanted to make its point clear. But I'd recommend reading Bond's piece in full.

We've strayed far, far from the original post, but to clarify - Bond's point wasn't that he had grown less skeptical, but that he'd rejected skepticism as an identity and an organized community, due to pervasive attitudes within that community.

Fair point. I was probably responding more to the people in the thread who said they were no longer skeptical of psi because of the evidence. 

I did read the OP, but found it mostly uninteresting. I've never really been part of the organized Skeptic community, so I found myself saying, "yeah, if they did that, I'd be annoyed about it, too." I saw some stuff he mischaracterized, but can't really speak as to whether the rest is valid. 

My only experience was with the JREF forum. I liked it because of posters there like Ersby, who actually made a point of gathering primary information. And I liked the Million Dollar Challenge section where applicants would come to discuss their claims, so that advice could be given about how to make them suitable for the MDC while still being able to pass. But the ridicule of proponents from some members was off-putting, and I grew to have less and less respect for and trust in Randi. So I left quite a while ago. 

Linda

My impression is different, I think (we may also be talking past each other). It seems to me that reincarnation, NDE and physical mediumship are about the separation of personality and memory from an earthly body. And we look at finding correspondences between statements made and our familiarity with a previous personality (or in the case of NDE, correspondences between our recollections of auditory/visual experiences and our physical environment). 

I'm not sure what you mean by "non-physical psi". Do you mean a personality in the absence of a physical body? If so, I can give you some examples - I'll wait for your confirmation or clarification. 

Linda

For this conversation I'm just removing physical psi such as PK (eg spoon bending, table tipping,,) and trying to stick with phenomenon that are more centered on the seat of consciousness, and personal information. ie: whether we are physical or non-physical beings at our core.

So for example- can you give an example that would fullful your demands for facilities such as: NDE, OBE, Mediumship, Reincarnation, or similar ?