"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

Max, I think you're a smart guy with a sharp mind who picks up interesting details that others might have missed. And I like that you formulate theories and objections. But what I find difficult is that when your theories are shown to have defects, and when your objections are met, you resort to repetitive non-responses and dodges, rather than openly admitting, "Oh, hey, yeah, that is a problem for my theory/objection. Let me rethink".

To be honest, that dynamic of yours really sucks for other people on the forum.

Actually it really sucks for Max himself.

• It lowers his status.
  
• It reduces his credibility.
  

Both mean any genuine concerns raised are likely to pass unnoticed by others. What I see is a form of self-harm going on.

I'd rather not try and find the one example that can't be refuted. Not that it doesn't exist (for me), but that there will always be a crack in any example of anything. And since I've spent enough time talking about the individual size and shape of those cracks, however small, I'm talking about a different, larger view of it.  

My point really was that there is also a great weight cast by virtue of the vast array of examples, the shear number and variety of them, all pointing at different aspects of the nature of things, all reinforcing the same basic theme of non-physicality. 

In this view, it's not about the merits of a particular one, but the weight of the whole. And whether it is reasonable that by some odd quirk of fate, the evidence for each would have a different flaw that would discount it. Seems like a long and therefore unlikely string of apparent coincidences to me.

Well, this is also what you'd expect to see - a vast array of examples reinforcing the same themes - in the setting of cognitive and methodological biases, etc. So I'm not sure that helps you. I don't see why these same flaws wouldn't be relevant in any case (rather than a string of different flaws in different cases).

Linda

As far as I know, no one has suggested they are connected to reincarnation.

I must say I find your question very surprising. Do you know anything at all about the Global Consciousness Project?

Okay.

Yes.

Linda

Okay.

Yes.

Linda

In the new spirit of the new discussion boards, I've been trying to be positive and to assume everyone is genuinely interested in discussing psi, rather than games-playing. I'll try to persevere, despite the not-very-encouraging one-word answers.

So, as you do know something of the GCP, probably you're aware that it was an outgrowth of the PEAR lab's experiments on micro-PK. Perhaps you also saw my earlier post in this thread - immediately following the one you replied to, quoting J. E. Kennedy, who wrote "If there are psi effects in these data, I expect that experimenter effects will remain the most parsimonious explanation for the foreseeable future."

In the light of that, perhaps it would be easiest if you explained why you're not sure why the effects are supposed to be psi-like. Or, equivalently, what alternative non-psi mechanisms you see by which they could be produced.

Well, this is also what you'd expect to see - a vast array of examples reinforcing the same themes - in the setting of cognitive and methodological biases, etc. So I'm not sure that helps you. I don't see why these same flaws wouldn't be relevant in any case (rather than a string of different flaws in different cases).

Linda

No I think you are wrong on that count. For example- Reincarnation and NDE and Physical mediumship do not reinforce the same themes, nor do they share any obvious mechanisms of function. 

What you have are relatively unrelated facilities that all have different arguments against. 

I am still curious if you can give an example of what you might consider to be a theoretically unassailable example of non-physical psi. 

I really want to know if satisfying your demand for strong evidence is even possible. I'm thinking it is not.

No I think you are wrong on that count. For example- Reincarnation and NDE and Physical mediumship do not reinforce the same themes, nor do they share any obvious mechanisms of function. 

What you have are relatively unrelated facilities that all have different arguments against. 

I am still curious if you can give an example of what you might consider to be a theoretically unassailable example of non-physical psi. 

I really want to know if satisfying your demand for strong evidence is even possible. I'm thinking it is not.

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

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. 

Just to be clear, I was not asserting that as fact, but as something to explore as part of these investigations.

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.

I agree (I've said this many times on Skeptiko), and I'm in favour of more investment into parapsychology to be able to produce higher quality studies, which often depend on sufficient funding (I'm talking generally, not just reincarnation).

But the fact remains that until those higher quality studies this should leave us with a lack of confidence in the results. Its a bit of a catch 22.

For me this research shows something interesting is going on, and I find 'normal' explanations contrived - what do you think?

I agree that something interesting is going on, and have said so often (I've used the word "intriguing" a lot as well). I don't think any current explanations have sufficient evidentiary backing at this time, though there is speculation aplenty, from multiple metaphysical outlooks. There is value to this speculation, in terms of future research.

I'm not setting the bar unrealistically high. I'm talking about looking at where it is now and about where it would need to be in order to establish that the idea of reincarnation may be true. "The bar" is simply a recognition of where we are at in terms of methodological biases, cognitive biases, happenstance, misadventure, etc. - none of which are what we mean by "reincarnation".

Linda

Go reread your post. Your suggestions are not realistic in my opinion... if that's what is required in order to establish that in your mind, so be it. I am not certain that your suggested methods are remotely applicable to almost any of the cases. I am openly and directly disagreeing with you about those being realistic explanations for the body of research as a whole.

Go reread your post. Your suggestions are not realistic in my opinion... if that's what is required in order to establish that in your mind, so be it. I am not certain that your suggested methods are remotely applicable to almost any of the cases. I am openly and directly disagreeing with you about those being realistic explanations for the body of research as a whole.

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