And this has been critically assessed and justifiably rejected as insufficient. — S

It hasn’t. It’s not as if the cases were re-examined and alternative explanations found for them. If was mainly simply ignored by mainstream science, for the reasons I’ve indicated. Most people will simply be content with the conclusion that the research must have been faulty.

Of course it is logically and epistemologically possible that there are sentient beings on other planets. But if the conditions for the advent of sentient beings were extremely stringent to the degree that only Earth out of the whole vast universe provided just those conditions, then it would not be physically possible that sentient beings could arise and exist on other planets.

Now that only Earth could provide such conditions seems very unlikely, but is itself not impossible, from a logical and epistemological perspective, although it too may be impossible from an ontological perspective. The point is, we just don't know.

You're testing my patience and I had decided to stop responding to your nonsensical unargued assertions, so stop being a fuckwit and asking me to concede a point when it has not been demonstrated to be incorrect. You don't even seem to have understood what I have been saying, much less to have refuted it.

I don't think you understand how "secular-scientific views" work. — NKBJ

Of course I do. And the reason I say that rebirth theories are rejected a priori on such grounds, is that it requires the existence of some psychic medium for the transmission of memories totally outside the ken of current science.

No, the reason such "theories" are rejected is not a priori, unless you think that it is a priori the case that they cannot be rigorously tested. There has been attempted research into some paranormal "phenomena" and it seems the conclusion has been reached that they are not amenable to the scientific method as it is currently understood, so I wouldn't call that outcome "a priori". The ability to be rigorously tested is considered to be the hallmark of scientific hypothesis and theory

the reason such "theories" are rejected is not a priori, unless you think that it is a priori the case that they cannot be rigorously tested. — Janus

Stevenson’s research was just such an attempt. Others are claiming that these efforts ‘were discredited’ without saying by whom, or how. They reject the idea in advance on the grounds that belief in rebirth is like belief in ghosts or other such nonsense. Pointing this out, however, is evidence of bias and prejudice, and of not understanding science.

I think you are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is that science doesn't, in principle, accept anecdotal evidence. There are inherent problems with the fallibility of memory, confirmation bias and confabulation that are difficult or impossible to eliminate with anecdotal reports. How could we know, for example, whether the testifying children were or were not schooled by their elders?

There has been attempted research into some paranormal "phenomena" and it seems the conclusion has been reached that they are not amenable to the scientific method as it is currently understood — Janus

Perhaps.

But if I may ask, have you considered that they are amenable, and they are being discredited for other reasons? Just like how alternating currents were?

I think you are misunderstanding the problem. — Janus

Please don't condescend to tell me what I do or don't understand. Where I came into this thread, I noted that 'evidence of rebirth' is the only post-mortem theory for which there can be evidence, save NDE's. Both are based on individual testimony - on what people say they recall. There can't be any other evidence in such cases.

How could we know, for example, whether the testifying children were or were not schooled by their elders? — Janus

You think that if you were going to conduct a multi-year research project on just this phenomenon that you wouldn't notice this? Stevenson makes a point of saying that many, many cases were rejected on just such grounds - that whenever he thought that there was a possibility of fraud, deception or suggestion, then he would shelve the case. But in those remaining, there were many instances of children recalling specific items of information that could not plausibly have been ascertained by another means.

I know there are cogent criticisms of Stevenson, and I acknowledge the possibility that he may have exhibited confirmation bias. But from my reading he tried to act as a conscientious scientist and to observe the same protocols and practices as a scientist engaged in any other comparable research. But even despite the criticisms that can be made, many of the cases present compelling evidence for the proposition that these children really did recall previous lives.

This is my very last post in this thread and on this subject. I know it's a controversial and even an offensive topic, but I have tried to play it with a straight bat. Once and for all, over and out.

But if I may ask, have you considered that they are amenable, and they are being discredited for other reasons? Just like how alternating currents were? — Shamshir

I can't rule that possibility out altogether, but I don't see much evidence in favour of believing it to be so. As far as i know the conflict between Edison and Tesla over alternating versus direct currents was driven, at least on Edison's side, by pecuniary interests, so I'm not convinced there is an instructive analogy to be found there.

Janus
7.2k
↪Frank Apisa
Of course it is logically and epistemologically possible that there are sentient beings on other planets. But if the conditions for the advent of sentient beings were extremely stringent to the degree that only Earth out of the whole vast universe provided just those conditions, then it would not be physically possible that sentient beings could arise and exist on other planets.

Now that only Earth could provide such conditions seems very unlikely, but is itself not impossible, from a logical and epistemological perspective, although it too may be impossible from an ontological perspective. The point is, we just don't know.

You're testing my patience and I had decided to stop responding to your nonsensical unargued assertions, so stop being a fuckwit and asking me to concede a point when it has not been demonstrated to be incorrect. You don't even seem to have understood what I have been saying, much less to have refuted it. — Janus

Well...that was a rather jerk-off way of handling that.

We aren't in disagreement.

You acknowledge that any of those things are possible...based mostly on the fact that they have not been established as impossible.

That is what I have been saying.

You have been raving on about bullshit that really does not impact on the veracity of what I said...even if you are logically correct in your non-rebuttal rebuttal...which I think you ae not.

Anyway...not sure why you are being such a dick, but it is something you ought really to deal with.

Oh...and you ought to sort out that mistake you are making about the reality/possibility...if it is a mistake. If instead it is just your way of refusing to acknowledge you are wrong...the problem for you magnifies.

I think you are misunderstanding the problem. — Janus


Please don't condescend to tell me what I do or don't understand. Both are based on individual testimony - on what people say they recall. There can't be any other evidence in such cases. — Wayfarer

Yes, but that is the problem, so if you understand that, then why do you criticize science for not allowing the kind of evidence it cannot rigorously test?

I know it's a controversial and even an offensive topic, but I have tried to play it with a straight bat. — Wayfarer

Actually it's not even controversial that such "theories" lie outside the purview of science, at least as it is currently understood. I also doubt anyone finds it offensive. I think you are projecting your own demons here.

We aren't in disagreement. — Frank Apisa

Then why are you continuing to disagree?

Janus
7.2k

We aren't in disagreement. — Frank Apisa


Then why are you continuing to disagree?
2 minutes ago
Reply
Options — Janus

I'm not. I'm saying we agree.

You seem confused.

Sounds to me that if I asserted that 2 + 2 = 4 in base ten...you would disagree in some way...albeit subtle.

That gives me too much power.

Ease back a bit.

Sounds to me that if I asserted that 2 + 2 = 4 in base ten...you would disagree in some way...albeit subtle. — Frank Apisa

Of course I wouldn't disagree, but in any case it's irrelevant to what I have been saying. You have not provided a single argument against anything I have said, and yet you continue to act as if you disagree, while saying that you agree. And then you accuse me of being confused!

I can only conclude that you don't understand what I have been arguing. If you did understand then you could lay it out in your own words, and then go on to show what you think is wrong with the reasoning there, if indeed you do think there is something wrong.

It's not me who needs to "ease back a bit". :roll:

Fair enough.

But consider how UFO data, of which there is an overabundance, was never shared with the public with the supposition that it would panic the public.
All the while however, it was extensively funded and studied - under strict secrecy.
And even though there are many credible witnesses, like those of the Phoenix Lights, it is still being publicly debunked.

So, the topic of Rebirth and Past Life Memory Regression may be in the same boat.
And maybe, the big boys just don't want to share - because it's going to raise a lot of uncomfortable questions and remarks, that may lead to something of a Bolshevik Revolution of Theology.

I won't say that's the case, but it seems sketchy either way that it's not a subject more seriously examined.

For me the difference between UFOs and Rebirth is that evidence for the former can, if it exists, be directly observed. That doesn't mean it will be observed. Incidentally, I don't think many will agree with you that there has been an "overabundance" of evidence for the existence of alien beings visiting the Earth. I haven't investigated the subject much, so there could be an overabundance of such evidence, but I have no reason to think there is.

there could be an overabundance of such evidence, but I have no reason to think there is. — Janus

Surely, neither would I, if I didn't extensively look in to it.
So as you've already mentioned - experience is key.

It reminds me of a story about a man who tried to point out the stars in broad daylight, when all he had to do was simply wait for the night and people would see them all on their own.

Of course I do. — Wayfarer

And yet you keep on insisting:

Pointing this out, however, is evidence of bias and prejudice, and of not understanding science. — Wayfarer

But still maintain:

As I'm not wedded to a secular~scientific philosophy, then I don't have the same underlying inhibitions about the subject that are quite understandable in those who do (as, for them, it's a threat to the underlying worldview.) — Wayfarer

And:

I mean that commitment to a secular~scientific view rules out such beliefs and prevents consideration of them. — Wayfarer

On the one hand you want to reject science and a scientific worldview on the basis that it cannot encompass all of your voodoo. On the other you wish to maintain that dismissing supernatural phenomena is not scientific. You're not being consistent or clear about your position.

But then, I guess when you adhere to a worldview that embraces illogic, you can choose to say anything even contradictory stuff. Kinda like Trump. Are you Trump, Wayfarer?

NO, don't say that! @Wayfarer seems to detest Trump more than anyone else I know! (And that's saying something!) But then it has been said that we detest those people most within whom we recognize aspects of ourselves we cannot own, so... there may indeed be something in what you say there. :lol:

Nah, just joking.

It reminds me of a story about a man who tried to point out the stars in broad daylight, when all he had to do was simply wait for the night and people would see them all on their own. — Shamshir

Nice!

When shall come the night; our very own "cloud of unknowing"?

Are you Trump, Wayfarer? — NKBJ

Blast! You guessed! But at least you now know the most important man in the world will waste time talking to the likes of you.

On the one hand you want to reject science and a scientific worldview on the basis that it cannot encompass all of your voodoo. On the other you wish to maintain that dismissing supernatural phenomena is not scientific. You're not being consistent or clear about your position. — NKBJ

Isn't he just saying that secular-scientific thought is denying scientific progress, by limiting itself?

As I'm not wedded to a secular~scientific philosophy, then I don't have the same underlying inhibitions — Wayfarer

I mean that commitment to a secular~scientific view rules out such beliefs — Wayfarer

Seems pretty straightforward.

Blast! You guessed! But at least you now know the most important man in the world will waste time talking to the likes of you. — Wayfarer

Self-important, maybe.
And he's off his rocker, so ya never know :P

You cannot both claim that science rules out the possibility of rebirth and that doing so in unscientific. Either you claim that the scientists who do so are being unscientific, or that your theory goes beyond science. You can't have it both ways.

You cannot both claim that science rules out the possibility of rebirth and that doing so in unscientific. — NKBJ

Why not?

Either you claim that the scientists who do so are being unscientific — NKBJ

That's the claim; malpractice.

In the case of the first we can say that we know something is impossible if it defies laws of the excluded middle — Janus

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true. — Wikipedia

So, for any issue where other answers are possible - such as "maybe" as well as "yes" or "no", offering just one of many possible examples - you have no answer. Binary thinking - "Answer yes or no!" - doesn't help here, I suspect?

Wayfarer is not just claiming malpractice though. Wayfarer wants to simultaneously claim malpractice and that rebirth and such things are beyond the practice/scope/ability of science at all.

beyond the practice/scope/ability of science at all. — NKBJ

I figured he meant beyond the scope of conventional science, considering he presented a scientific study himself.

was mainly simply ignored by mainstream science — Wayfarer

Is my interpretation incorrect @Wayfarer?

meant beyond the scope of conventional science, considering he presented a scientific study himself. — Shamshir

Which would be contentious enough, but he literally said:

I mean that commitment to a secular~scientific view rules out such beliefs and prevents consideration of them — Wayfarer

In the case of the first we can say that we know something is impossible if it defies laws of the excluded middle — Janus


In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true. — Wikipedia


So, for any issue where other answers are possible - such as "maybe" as well as "yes" or "no", offering just one of many possible examples - you have no answer. Binary thinking - "Answer yes or no!" - doesn't help here, I suspect? — Pattern-chaser

As I said logical possibility is one kind of possibility, epistemological possibility and ontological or physical possibility are others. If you accept only logical possibility then you will indeed rule out "maybes" as Frank Apisa seems to (insofar as I can determine what his position actually is, since he says he agrees with me and acts as though he doesn't).

So, if you say that if something has not been proven to be impossible it therefore must be possible, that is binary thinking, and you are ruling out the "maybe"; the possibility that it is in actuality impossible even though we cannot prove it.

It is impossible to prove that something is impossible except in the case of logical contradictions. So if the position that insists that if something is not proven impossible it must be possible is saying anything more than that it must be logically possible, or epistemologically possible (as far as we know) it must be saying that it is actually or physically possible. This rules out the possibility (the maybe) that it could be actually or physically (given the nature of things) impossible.

I hope that makes what I have been saying more clear.