"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

I just kind of put it into the apples and oranges category. Is Jung's work scientific evidence? Can you have scientific evidence of the ego? How can you have scientific evidence of reincarnation?

Exactly my point. I agree wholly.

Exactly my point. I agree wholly.

That doesn't make reincarnation any less compelling as a phenomena.

That doesn't make reincarnation any less compelling as a phenomena.

Agreed.

This doesn't make Linda's blanket dismissal any less invalid. She has spoken in this thread in largely black and white terms, which is inappropriate. I think what jkmac is getting at is that just because some research doesn't achieve the "scientific" evidentiary standard Linda has referenced, does not mean it's able to be brushed to the side and ignored.

Is saying the evidence is not sufficient to warrant belief in the proposition the same as brushing aside and ignoring it?

Speaking for myself these unreliable cases are what makes spurs the desire to get better, more reliable evidence.  But until that time is achieved we should withhold belief in the hypothesis/proposition being considered.  

The predominant issue here, as has always been, is that because of the nature of the topic, it is extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible, to get anything other than subjective testimony. For some, that may forever bar it from consideration as legitimate evidence. I would suggest that that is naive and an incorrect application of an evidentiary standard that is lacking appreciation for the nature of the thing being dealt with. For the Stevenson studies, there can be no "objectivity" in the sense that Linda has referenced. It's all going to come from some person - and given that the vast, and I mean vast, majority of cases are very young children, it's never really going to satisfy the standard that Linda has set. If she or others want to ignore the evidence on those grounds, so be it. But it's blatantly unreasonable to suggest that it isn't "evidence" if it doesn't conform to that specific standard. You can always raise the bar; that doesn't make the bar raising reasonable.

It is true that in many situations it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to get sufficiently reliable evidence.  The question then is: what do we do with it?  Without sufficiently reliable evidence we cannot be justified in reaching a confident conclusion.

Evidence that has reliability problems is evidence.  It just isn't strong evidence. I argue that we must include that as part of our consideration in our reaching our conclusions.  Oftentimes, our conclusion must be that we have some interesting findings but not enough reliable evidence to reach a confident conclusion.

At that point the question is are the results suitably interesting that they warrant further research to get more reliable evidence?  Also, is it possible to get more reliable evidence?

But the appropriate - imo - skeptical response is that without sufficient reliable evidence we should withhold belief in the proposition being examined.

As I'm sure you're familiar with, given your background, context and circumstances always matter in determining what is reasonable. I would think that it's obvious, or ought to be, that the nature of the topic being investigated requires an understanding that purely empirical objectivity, which is always the goal if possible, may be outside the realm of reason for something like the Stevenson studies. At the core of this is subjectivity - it comes, then, as no surprise that a good portion of evidence for non-reductive phenomena would come from a subjective source, or even be subjective in and of itself. That's what makes this stuff so hard. Again, if someone is going to dismiss a phenomena based on that it's fine by me, I just wouldn't think that a person is really interested in pursuing the truth if that's the case. Taking things with a grain of salt is advisable; ignoring or dismissing things on that same basis is excessive and unjustified.

Is not accepting a phenomena the same as dismissing it?  Is someone who accepts a phenomena based on unreliable evidence more interested in the truth than someone who waits for reliable evidence before accepting it?

Is saying the evidence is not sufficient to warrant belief in the proposition the same as brushing aside and ignoring it?

Speaking for myself these unreliable cases are what makes spurs the desire to get better, more reliable evidence.  But until that time is achieved we should withhold belief in the hypothesis/proposition being considered.  

Refer to the link Chris posted. Linda said it is essentially useless as evidence. Based on what you've said here, I would conclude that you don't agree with that statement. So she didn't say it isn't sufficient there - she said it's useless. If something is useless, generally people tend to ignore it if it isn't worthy of their consideration.

That's precisely what I'm saying - what evidence for the Stevenson, Tucker et al. studies would be good enough for you? Withholding isn't necessary. Being aware that a belief isn't founded in certainty is important, but I disagree that we have to withhold any belief at all. For telling jkmac that legal reasoning doesn't apply here, that sounds an awful lot like legal reasoning to me. 

It is true that in many situations it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to get sufficiently reliable evidence.  The question then is: what do we do with it?  Without sufficiently reliable evidence we cannot be justified in reaching a confident conclusion. 

Evidence that has reliability problems is evidence.  It just isn't strong evidence. I argue that we must include that as part of our consideration in our reaching our conclusions. Oftentimes, our conclusion must be that we have some interesting findings but not enough reliable evidence to reach a confident conclusion.

Again, you're using sufficient in the same way a judge or attorney might. As far as standards go, I would say that it's reasonable to believe in a phenomena based on some of these evidences. If you choose to hold it to an empirical standard, which you are, and then say it isn't sufficient, that's your own belief. 

I addressed this either in this thread or another with Linda, but this can also be evidence of a weakness of reduction, not just evidence for reincarnation. In that case, I absolutely think what the evidence supports changes. For instance, I wouldn't be comfortable saying that Stevenson and Tucker's research is moderate or strong evidence for reincarnation. I would, however, say that it's moderately strong evidence against reductionism. Again, you can hold things to whatever standard you want. At some point, subjectivity comes in. What I disagree with is your attempt to set some objective standard here and say that it isn't reliable enough evidence to reach a confident conclusion. I also said nothing about conclusions, and beliefs needn't entail a conclusion. They can just be a belief that it is more likely than not the case that something exists or doesn't exist, without having a hard, confident conclusion.

At that point the question is are the results suitably interesting that they warrant further research to get more reliable evidence?  Also, is it possible to get more reliable evidence? 

But the appropriate - imo - skeptical response is that without sufficient reliable evidence we should withhold belief in the proposition being examined.

Again, you are the one defining reliable. Reliable for what? If you're saying it doesn't warrant further research, I find that comical. The volume of cases worldwide is an additional fact to consider when claiming that the fact that the evidence comes from human beings subjective remembrances isn't sufficient. 

I don't disagree with your sentiment here. However, we disagree about the value of the evidence and how best to evaluate it.

Is not accepting a phenomena the same as dismissing it?  Is someone who accepts a phenomena based on unreliable evidence more interested in the truth than someone who waits for reliable evidence before accepting it?

This is obviously a rhetorical question, and doesn't follow from what Linda or I posted.

I'll repeat: Linda said it was "essentially useless" as evidence. If that isn't dismissing, I don't know what is. 

Your last sentence there attempts to reframe the issue in a light favorable to your and Linda's position. Your definition of reliable and unreliable evidence is not objective, and is not the same as other reasoned and intelligent people here. So sure thing, Arouet, I agree with the general premise you wrote there. I don't agree that Linda or you are "waiting for reliable evidence before accepting it", nor am I asking you to accept anything. While throughout your post you managed to frame it as if you were saying that you're just waiting for reliable evidence, I don't really think that's the case. It seems to me that you don't think such a thing can come about from these studies in particular - and if that's case, that's due to your own standards, which I suggest are unreasonable. So we have a fundamental disagreement about how to evaluate the evidence.

You can speak in broad terms and I won't disagree - where we part ways is what is a fair approach to calling the evidence reliable or unreliable, and for what purpose it might serve. It's not all about "proving reincarnation" (whatever that means). It is also about reflecting weaknesses in reductionism.

What else would they be able to say? What would the sightings be evidence of?

I think it's pretty obvious. It would be evidence of exactly what they described: large objects moving through in the sky. 

They don't need to suppose what those object are exactly, or guess what they are doing there, in order to put forward testimonial evidence that they saw and heard something, and this evidence should be seriously considered, and not simply ignored due to being "unscientific".

Are we still talking about factors that make evidence more or less reliable?

You brought up people being convicted based on eyewitness evidence. That is a legal example.  Judges are very familiar with how unreliable such evidence can be and write about it all the time, warn juries about it, etc.  The fact that people get convicted does not change the concerns over such evidence. Not to mention the number of people falsely convicted.  

Do you disagree with this?

No I don't. 

But I repeat that ALL evidence is considered, and given various weight. Testimonial evidence is considered in the same fashion, it is NOT ignored. 

Yes, testimonial evidence can be error prone, as can all forms of evidence. Do you believe every picture of a UFO you have ever seen? I would hope not.

I only mention our court system as an example of how much credence we give this sort of thing: enough to execute a person.

I think it's pretty obvious. It would be evidence of exactly what they described: large objects moving through in the sky. 

They don't need to suppose what those object are exactly, or guess what they are doing there, in order to put forward testimonial evidence that they saw and heard something, and this evidence should be seriously considered, and not simply ignored due to being "unscientific".

Do you consider those eyewitness accounts to be "scientific" evidence?

So I would amend my report to say that it's evidence that 100 witnesses saw an object which appeared to them to be 200-300 feet across, black in color, moving NW to SE with red and green lights. 

Where are you going with this? 

Linda

Yes. That's all I am saying.

Only have to go back a few pages to see the beginning.

I'm not really sure that Linda meant to utterly dismiss the research Stevenson did, but then that post Chris just linked to was poorly worded if that's the case.

clip- Stories documented after the fact, no matter how seemingly compelling, are essentially useless as evidence,