"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

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

I give up.

fls[Image: buddy_offline.png]


Posts: 73
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 58 in 27 posts
Likes Given: 2
Joined: Aug 2017
Unread post#169
Yesterday, 11:05 PM

"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)."

If you're a high ranking physician, Linda publishing papers in institutions, couldn't you give us mere mortals a peak at one or two.... or are they too difficult for the likes of me to understand  ?

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. 

Use the quote marks. That indicates you mean "you".

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. 

Thank you for clarifying. In any event, I see you have moved this discussion to another subforum.  Hopefully you will find what you are looking for there. Take care.

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.

Yes some children do identify themselves with certain characters - I think you're overstating the relevance of that though - the important part is the intimate knowledge of a deceased persons life seemingly without normal explanation. 

I agree the research could be better (any research could be) and there is a risk of bias, but they are hampered by the nature of the work, lack of funding etc. For me this research shows something interesting is going on, and I find 'normal' explanations contrived - what do you think?

Thank you for clarifying. In any event, I see you have moved this discussion to another subforum.  Hopefully you will find what you are looking for there. Take care.

Felt like it was getting way off topic.

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

Can you be a bit more concrete. Can you point out just what "mediumship research has illustrated" that makes you doubt the Stevenson/Tucker research. Is it possible that  the mediumship research is itself flawed ?

I mean, what is the probability that I can go to a village some distance from where I live, and identify several people by name?

Also, how would you investigate potential reincarnation phenomena? Alternatively would you simply say that sure these things happen but there is no way the information can reach the required rigour, so forget it!

Why don't you offer yourself to Tucker to improve his data collection

David

David

Felt like it was getting way off topic.

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

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

The thing you might want to think about is: there are literally a dozen or more different types of phenomenon that we are talking about. And they all point to the same basic thing. Do you really think ALL of them are based on different sorts of untrustable evidence?  

Seem's like a stretch.

Just a thought.

The thing you might want to think about is: there are literally a dozen or more different types of phenomenon that we are talking about. And they all point to the same basic thing. Do you really think ALL of them are based on different sorts of untrustable evidence?  

Seem's like a stretch.

Just a thought.

So far, they seem to have the same sorts of things in common. 
If you think that a particular phenomenon has better evidence in its favor than the Ganzfeld experiments, please share. 
Linda