"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

Don't you see that most psi simply doesn't duplicate the way more traditional science experiments do? That's just the nature of it. The stuff is subtle and elusive. Hell, that's why we are still arguing over it 100 years later. 

I'm not trying to "relax" standards. I'm suggesting we use methods that are appropriate for the thing that we are trying to study.

You are trying to measure a gallon of water with a tape measure, when a measuring cup is much better suited for the job.

Now you can did in your heels and deny that fact and that's fine. You can stay right where you are. Exclaiming that it is all fake. If that works for you. Go right ahead. Matters not to me.

But here's the question- evidence rules aside, doesn't it occur to you that something extraordinary is going on when you hear these stories?

Something extraordinary is. But I don't know what. You see? How odd you should use the word extraordinary. I was roundly criticized for using that very word recently, remember?

I'll sit in the minority on this one. I'm sure there are aspects of psi that are amenable to the scientific method. I don't think the transmigration of souls is one them.

I don't think my requirements are super high - they're not really different than any other academic physician, as far as I can tell (which may be super high compared to the average layperson, I guess). But I don't see why reincarnation would be impossible to prove. Just like I don't see why anybody thinks psi isn't amenable to a scientific approach. Lots of medical conditions have the same kinds of characteristics that are attributed to psi, yet we've been able to make progress in our understanding of them. And the claims which are made about psi and reincarnation are the kinds of things a scientific approach is able to address.

While I don't see the reincarnation research at the same level as some other things, there's no reason it couldn't be. Which was kinda my point when I mentioned that stories are essentially useless if you're trying to present evidence. Focus on gathering the kind of information about reincarnation which can serve as decent scientific evidence, instead.

Linda

Like what? What kind of information about reincarnation would serve as decent scientific evidence?

One of our issues here is use of the term scientific. If you mean following the scientific method, I would argue that Jim Tucker is (and has already) making progress on that front with regards to the reincarnation research. So in that instance, I would agree a scientific approach is able to address it. However, if what you mean by scientific is some form of empirical or more concrete details beyond what they are by nature, I'm not sure you're going to get that. Given that it is specifically recollection as told by a child, the purest form is being there when the child first speaks about it, which isn't feasible for the researchers themselves. 

So how we're defining scientific plays a role how realistic your statement is, I think.

Something extraordinary is. But I don't know what. You see? How odd you should use the word extraordinary. I was roundly criticized for using that very word recently, remember?

Yours was an unreasonable requirement, jk is using it as a descriptor. Completely different uses.

Maybe I should say instead - those things which are regarded as 'evidence' for the idea of transmigration of souls are amenable to the scientific method.

Linda

It really depends what hat I'm wearing. In this thread I'm wearing my "prove" is a very high standard hat. I'm all in on reincarnation. I think it happens. But it isn't proven in the same sense as hard science facts. It never is going to be. I don't want to keep repeating myself. It's apples and oranges. You are trying to screed concrete with a watermelon. It isn't going to work. We can't "prove" the afterlife. We can't prove the existence of the soul. It doesn't matter. It doesn't affect what many of us already "know." Linda isn't going to change. She accepts that psi in some form probably exists. But her requirements for proof are super high. She doesn't care what you believe. I don't think Linda is belittling anyone for believing in reincarnation. She's just is saying it isn't proven in the same way that some other things are. And it won't ever be. It's impossible to prove it to the same level. (Sorry for trying to interpret Linda. I'm sure there will be corrections. )

Proof is in the eye of the beholder.

Like what? What kind of information about reincarnation would serve as decent scientific evidence?

One of our issues here is use of the term scientific. If you mean following the scientific method, I would argue that Jim Tucker is (and has already) making progress on that front with regards to the reincarnation research. So in that instance, I would agree a scientific approach is able to address it. However, if what you mean by scientific is some form of empirical or more concrete details beyond what they are by nature, I'm not sure you're going to get that. Given that it is specifically recollection as told by a child, the purest form is being there when the child first speaks about it, which isn't feasible for the researchers themselves. 

So how we're defining scientific plays a role how realistic your statement is, I think.

I would start with what people are considering evidence for reincarnation - let's take for example a child who correctly identifies people they've never met. A comparison could be made between what we see when the idea is false and what we see when the idea is true. From an empirical perspective, it means finding out what identifications are made when reincarnation is absent.

Linda

Something extraordinary is. But I don't know what. You see? How odd you should use the word extraordinary. I was roundly criticized for using that very word recently, remember?

Nope

I would start with what people are considering evidence for reincarnation - let's take for example a child who correctly identifies people they've never met. A comparison could be made between what we see when the idea is false and what we see when the idea is true. From an empirical perspective, it means finding out what identifications are made when reincarnation is absent.

Linda

clip- From an empirical perspective, it means finding out what identifications are made when reincarnation is absent.

Sorry,,, but what the hell are you talking about?

In the positive case the child knows everyone's name and relationship to them from a prior life.

In the negative case the child knows nothing and nobody.

What is the question here??  

Really,,,, I'm wondering if you are just babbling to run out the clock, or if you really are asking a question. 

Beats the heck out of me.

I believe reincarnation happens. But proving something is something else entirely. 

I assume scientists have a way to prove that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know. But I assume you can go to a lab and "prove" this beyond the shadow of any doubt.

It is in this sense that I use the word prove. No such thing can be done for reincarnation. It can't be proven. That is the very nature of this reality.

And you also can't PROVE that someone is depressed. But Psychologists seem to diagnose people with that every day.

And you can't PROVE that Pi goes on forever. But we claim that it does.

We can't PROVE that you can't exceed the speed of light, only it would violate our current understanding of physics.

There are all kinds and methods and levels of proof.

Saying that it can't be "proven" doesn't really mean anything because I don't know what proof looks like when it comes to reincarnation. 

In that way I would agree with you: that using a definition of proof that doesn't apply to a non-physical thing like reincarnation, it IS unprovable: by definition.  But if you are being honest, you need to accept our inability to prove lots of things we accept to be true, like the other things I show above.