"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

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

I'm not surprised you disagree. I certain if I were to say the Sun is hot you'd find some way to object. Oh, and psi is still extraordinary.

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.

I doubt that. After all, there will be a limited pool of those who could be a mother or a father, a brother or sister or friend. Even just guessing would be bound to get some right, never mind all the other processes which would aid in identification. 

We have had a lot of surprises when our guesses as to what we would find have turned out to be wildly wrong. 

Linda

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

Well... I would imagine if the "reincarnation" memory is absent, they won't recognize the person, would guess and be wrong, make something up, or say I don't know. They might guess right here and there, but not under the circumstances laid out in many of the cases - or at least if you take the cases seriously, that's incredibly unlikely from a coincidence standpoint. Unless that isn't want you meant. 

This kind of discussion is probably better suited for an actual case. There's one in full from one of Tucker's books posted in a thread called Reincarnation cases in the SvP subforum, if you care to pursue this conversation there. I get what you're saying - but if that's the case, I actually think the evidence is reasonably strong (again, without rehashing all the evidentiary discussion we just went through).

I'm not surprised you disagree. I certain if I were to say the Sun is hot you'd find some way to object. Oh, and psi is still extraordinary.

It's just common sense, I'm not actually sure how you are trying to equate your use of the term and his. You basically just saw that he said extraordinary and decided to make a plug for yourself about how you've been victimized over your use of it. Not really sure what point you're attempting to make.

Oh, and I never said it wasn't - I said the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is a misnomer and inaccurate. (BTW, I'm sure there are both skeptics and proponents who don't agree with that characterization) 

Thanks for the baseless potshot, I'm happy I've made an impression on you.

As I wrote above, taking for the sake of argument that scientific analysis is inappropriate for psi (again, I disagree but let's go with it), then question then becomes: what other method do we use to determine if the evidence is reliable or not?  That's a discussion I'm more than willing to have.  What do you think?

Well, in this thread I've been focused on reincarnation, not psi. For the Stevenson et al studies, I would suggest that the best way to determine it is to use a control maybe? Pick out some random kids who have never expressed past life memories, bring some random people into the room and see what they say when asked to identify them if they know them? As of right now, I'm having difficulty thinking of other ways - I think the methodology given the necessities and nature of the research is fairly well done. I do know there are examples in some cases where a random person has been brought in for the child to identify, and when the past life personality didn't know the person, the child hasn't recognized them. I am curious as to how familiar you are with these cases in total. I think that Tucker does a pretty damn good job with methodology generally.

What are the kinds of methods you'd want to see?

You state this as a fact but I am not clear upon what it's based on.  But again, let's accept it for the sake of argument: if we have no idea how to detect its validity, then should we not refrain from concluding that it is valid?  

Likewise, you stated your objective standard and said the evidence fell short of it as far as reliability goes. I responded that I don't think that's founded in anything that is reasonably related to the research based on the nature of the phenomena. I'm not sure what that's exactly based on either.

As far as what I said, I'm honestly shocked you're contesting that. How would you suggest we detect actual reincarnation right now? Like chuck said, I just don't see how we have the means to do that at this time - and I mean to literally show it empirically. I'm not sure how we'd go about that right now. I would be very interested how you think we might.

Anywho, responding to your "sake of argument" question: I addressed the conclusion thing earlier. I didn't say I was certain or that I'd made a conclusion - that sounds like a final decision, which isn't the case here for me. I know jkmac and chuck also both agreed that they aren't 100% certain about anything. I think conclusion is the wrong term, and again, you're speaking in broad terms and asking rhetorical questions. Obviously, Arouet, if we have no way of detecting something at all, it would be wise to not draw a direct conclusion about it. However, you're taking my use of "detect", by which I meant empirically discover, and changing it to mean something that seems to be resembling "detect" in any capacity at all.

I did not say that I think detection in a "being aware of it" sense isn't possible. I think that the evidence allows a reasonable and rational person to believe that it is more likely than not that reductionism is not an accurate view of the world, first and foremost. I think the evidence is still strong enough to reasonably, though not conclusively, infer the existence of some immaterial/non-local or non-reductive memory, at the very least. When it comes to reincarnation, which, as I've said before, can have a number of interpretations, I don't know exactly what I would say the research and evidence is indicative of. Either way, I never said anything about hard conclusions, and I don't think your characterization of my use of detect allows for that rhetorical to function the way you meant for it to. 

I think it is useful to discuss methodology in absence of the evidence itself.  But sure, bring the evidence into the discussion, we can do that too.

But there isn't an absence here. There is a thread called reincarnation cases is open in the Reincarnation subforum, and there's a thread of the same name in the SvP subforum that has a case from Jim Tucker's first book typed out. If you want to discuss that case there, I'm happy to.

Methodology is important, obviously, but continuing to discuss it broadly and vaguely serves little actual or productive purpose.

Well, in this thread I've been focused on reincarnation, not psi. For the Stevenson et al studies, I would suggest that the best way to determine it is to use a control maybe? Pick out some random kids who have never expressed past life memories, bring some random people into the room and see what they say when asked to identify them if they know them? As of right now, I'm having difficulty thinking of other ways - I think the methodology given the necessities and nature of the research is fairly well done. I do know there are examples in some cases where a random person has been brought in for the child to identify, and when the past life personality didn't know the person, the child hasn't recognized them. I am curious as to how familiar you are with these cases in total. I think that Tucker does a pretty damn good job with methodology generally.



What are the kinds of methods you'd want to see?

It's been awhile since I've looked into the Stevenson/Tucker work in detail. (I lost my Kobo Glo which had the notes I took on the Tucker book! Cry). I should give it another read if we're going to be talking about it a lot. And I don't think they did a terrible job. In many cases they probably did the best they could in the circumstances.

But I'll give you one general example of a reliability risk that affects many of the accounts. In those accounts, the researchers only get to the case a long time after it began. Interviewing people about events that took place long ago are fraught with risk. This is not the fault of the researchers, it is an inherent risk of bias when dealing with these kinds of cases.

I recall questioning their use of stats with regard to birthmarks but I want to relook at the material before commenting on this.

Another question that came to mind when I was reading the book, is that when the children refer to themselves in the first person referring to their potential ancestors, I couldn't help but think of my own son who around the age of these kids (he's 7 now but I'm talking 2-5) he regularly identified with certain characters and referred to himself in the first person regarding them. In my son's case most notably Batman at one time and Mario at another time. When he saw these characters in on tv or in a video game, or heard us mention them he would say "that's me!, that's my _____, etc." Now, I am not making the claim that I have concluded this is part of what may be going on in these accounts but its an issue I can't recall being covered in this research (though I may have missed it so if anyone has a reference please let me know).

Another issue I have with regard to risk of bias is that interviewing children is also fraught with risk. It is no easy task to interview a child in a non-leading manner, especially when the early conversations would have been with family members and friends who have no training in the matter. Even when someone is properly trained it is a very difficult task. This is a risk that is inherent in the task. In many cases there would have been little the researchers could have done to have avoided this risk.

So don't mistake my saying there are risks of bias as my saying the work was shoddy. From what I recall I didn't find it shoddy, but I did find risk of bias/error.

There's more to say but I think this is good to get the discussion started.

Getting tired so will have to respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.

Well... I would imagine if the "reincarnation" memory is absent, they won't recognize the person, would guess and be wrong, make something up, or say I don't know. They might guess right here and there, but not under the circumstances laid out in many of the cases - or at least if you take the cases seriously, that's incredibly unlikely from a coincidence standpoint. Unless that isn't want you meant. 

This kind of discussion is probably better suited for an actual case. There's one in full from one of Tucker's books posted in a thread called Reincarnation cases in the SvP subforum, if you care to pursue this conversation there. I get what you're saying - but if that's the case, I actually think the evidence is reasonably strong (again, without rehashing all the evidentiary discussion we just went through).

I'm sorry. I didn't make that very clear. You wouldn't be dealing with a child where the reincarnation memory is absent. When I say "reincarnation is absent" I mean that the child remembers a previous life, but unknown to everyone present, it can't be the life of the previous personality you are testing them against. In order to understand how identifications are made, you would need to have the same sets of expectations, verbal and non-verbal cues, associative memory, recollection biases, etc. in place in both cases (reincarnation present and absent).

Using the case you mentioned as an example, let's say that two people came forward after the publication of the articles in the local paper to say that the case sounded like a pervious personality known to them. In at least one of those cases, reincarnation must be absent. Some use could be made of that situation, when it arises, to find out whether identifications differ among multiple previous personalities. Everyone would have to be blind as to this, of course.

Linda

I doubt that. After all, there will be a limited pool of those who could be a mother or a father, a brother or sister or friend. Even just guessing would be bound to get some right, never mind all the other processes which would aid in identification. 

We have had a lot of surprises when our guesses as to what we would find have turned out to be wildly wrong. 

Linda

Most of these situations involved very young children and location that they have never even visited. What you are talking about is such an extreme stretch (that a child of 2 would know a man and a woman dozens or hundreds of miles away) that it is laughable.

Yes of course it would be nice to have any and all information. I grant you that. But what you are pointing to as the source of critical missing information that would make this work valid, is just not credible. It's ridiculous as a matter of fact.

I thought were making progress - and the conversation has barely gotten started - but I understand.  These are the kinds of discussions that interest me (and that I consider crucial to critically analyzing research) but I recognize that many people feel differently.  


It's fine if you don't want to continue the discussion but please don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. Was using the word "you" to mean anyone who ignores what may otherwise be incredible data because it doesn't fit some "rule of evidence". You personally may or may not fit into that category.

I usually use the word "one" in that situation but sometimes that sounds a bit formal and stiff.

Hope that removes the words I put in your mouth. 

Most of these situations involved very young children and location that they have never even visited. What you are talking about is such an extreme stretch (that a child of 2 would know a man and a woman dozens or hundreds of miles away) that it is laughable.

Yes of course it would be nice to have any and all information. I grant you that. But what you are pointing to as the source of critical missing information that would make this work valid, is just not credible. It's ridiculous as a matter of fact.

Well, you are making assumptions that children wouldn't know a man or a woman in the same way under the same conditions in the absence of reincarnation. History shows us that those assumptions can be wrong and that we make more progress when we test those assumptions, rather than assuming them to be true.

For example, it has long been held that amazing correspondences in mediumship readings point to the need for psi, that it would be "laughable", "just not credible" or "ridiculous" to suggest that this could be happenstance. Yet mediumship and other research shows that these amazing correspondences also happen when psi is absent. Yes, it may seem like a waste of time to test assumptions which to you and others are obvious. But it also seems like a waste of time to continue to collect the kind of information which doesn't have the ability to tell you whether or not the idea of reincarnation is true.

Linda