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. — Janus

No, I'm not saying that. More binary thinking? :wink: If something has not been proven impossible, it may just be because we couldn't/didn't find the right evidence. Or it could be that there's something to it after all. We should allow for either of those, I think? [Or anything in between, if there is an 'in between'. :smile: ]

Right, just to be clear I wasn't referring to the particular you with the "you" but the general you.

I actually don't believe that it is possible to prove that anything is impossible except in the logical context or within a restricted context. For an example of the latter it is currently impossible for me to levitate or walk through walls. I can prove that by trying to do it. Can I prove that it will always be impossible? No. Can I prove that it is simply physically impossible? No. Can I prove that it is physically possible? No.

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

I had wanted to finish with this topic, but I have to address this point.

When I say 'scientific secular philosophy', it's a rather less confrontational, or more polite, way of saying 'scientific materialism'. When I use that term, a lot of people take it as a pejorative or an accusation. But scientific materialism of various types is the default attitude of the secular, Western world.

So what I'm saying is that in the scientific materialist view, there's no means to account for children having past life memories. According to it, 'memory' is something encoded in brain matter. So there's simply no way to account for memories being recalled from a previous life, because there's no known means by which such complex information could be transmitted.

If, however, you're not materialist, then at least in principle you might be open to the possibility that there some means (as yet unknown to science) by which memories are transmitted. And as I've never accepted the attitude of scientific materialism, then that possibility doesn't strike me as outlandish. At the very least, it doesn't undermine my overall philosophy.

Hope that is sufficiently clear.

Janus
7.2k

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. — Janus

Clear as mud.

There is no such thing as "maybe" in this equation...because anything that is "maybe possible" IS POSSIBLE.

YES, Janus...unless one can establish something as IMPOSSIBLE...it is POSSIBLE.

The nonsense that "maybe possible" exists as an alternative to POSSIBLE is an absurdity.

Eventually you will see that...or perhaps you already do. In which case, eventually you will acknowledge that.

Janus
7.2k
↪Pattern-chaser
Right, just to be clear I wasn't referring to the particular you with the "you" but the general you.

I actually don't believe that it is possible to prove that anything is impossible except in the logical context or within a restricted context. For an example of the latter it is currently impossible for me to levitate or walk through walls. I can prove that by trying to do it. Can I prove that it will always be impossible? No. Can I prove that it is simply physically impossible? No. Can I prove that it is physically possible? No. — Janus

So...

...it remain POSSIBLE that you may be able to walk through walls.

You are confusing "what is"...with POSSIBLE.

Get off it. You are too intelligent to continue this farce.

If, however, you're not materialist, then at least in principle you might be open to the possibility that there some means (as yet unknown to science) by which memories are transmitted. — Wayfarer

That right there is the unjustified prejudice you've been accused of all along. How the hell do you suppose science ever arrives at new 'means' (gravity, nuclear forces, electromagnetism, bacteria, ecology...) without being "open to the possibility that there some means (as yet unknown to science)"? Do you suppose that Science just determined what could and could not exists as a 'means' right at the very beginning of the whole project and won't change after that?

Science is perfectly open to the idea of means as yet unknown to science, that's how it discovers new thing for Christ's sake!

What it's not open to is adopting new 'means' as part of its world-view just because they could be the case. Could be isn't good enough because too many things could be the case and we're left with no means to choose between them, so science, quite rationally, uses approaches like Occam's razor to choose between all the things that could be the case. If the phenomena can be explained using forces which we already have good evidence for, then that is the prevailing theory until such time as the evidence is such that it can no longer be thus sustained.

Stevenson's evidence can be explained using only forces that we already have good reason to believe exist (psychology, mainly), so we don't accept his theory.

It's not prejudice, it's not closed-mindedness, it's just rational methods of thinking.

Science is perfectly open to the idea of means as yet unknown to science, that's how it discovers new thing for Christ's sake! — Isaac

So why do you think this kind of research is regarded as ‘fringe’ or ‘alternative’. Do you think that investigation of children who claim to recall their previous lives is legitimate science? Do you think it would be generally understood as legitimate science?

Stevenson was scientifically trained and believed he was acting in accordance with scientific standards, yet there are many who dispute that such an area of research is a suitable field for scientific analysis, and generally his work is regarded as fringe and was not seriously considered by his academic peers.

Stevenson's evidence can be explained using only forces that we already have good reason to believe exist (psychology, mainly), so we don't accept his theory. — Isaac

That is not so. The subjects in these studies were purported to know facts that they had no means of knowing according to psychology or any other science.

It's not prejudice, it's not closed-mindedness, it's just rational methods of thinking. — Isaac

Isn’t than an ironic statement, in light of the above?

I actually don't believe that it is possible to prove that anything is impossible except in the logical context or within a restricted context. — Janus

Agreed.

For an example of the latter it is currently impossible for me to levitate or walk through walls. I can prove that by trying to do it. Can I prove that it will always be impossible? No. Can I prove that it is simply physically impossible? No. Can I prove that it is physically possible? No. — Janus

So, surely we must conclude that anything we believe possible - not probable or likely, only possible - remains so until more evidence clarifies matters?

So why do you think this kind of research is regarded as ‘fringe’ or ‘alternative’. Do you think that investigation of children who claim to recall their previous lives as legitimate science? Do you think it would be generally understood as legitimate science — Wayfarer

The research isn't fringe or alternative. Scientists research the testimony of children for all sorts of reasons. My own field, psychology, is greatly constituted from testimony. It's not the research that is regarded as fringe, it's the theory, an important difference. Without the theory, his research is just a collection of stories children told him and some historical facts. Typically in these cases one would perform some basic statistical analysis to see if the coincidence is statistically significant, then if they are, a cohort/control trial would try to determine if the comparison between theory-selected groups and randomly selected groups was statistically significant. I hand this kind of work over to actual statisticians because its often complicated.

Stevenson (as far as I can tell) hasn't even passed the first hurdle, whether the coincidence he's noticed is statistically significant. But let's assume he has, because that's where the interesting part is philosophically.

He then has to come up with a theory to explain that coincidence. It's this theory which is 'legitimate' science or not. The theory that they recall their past lives because we have souls which carry memories and exist in some unknown realm, passed on by some unknown mechanism postulates the existence of some really huge forces. But almost anything could explain this phenomena. We could be avatars in a computer game. We might be long-lived aliens, transferred from body to body. We might 'pick up' memories like radio waves...

So we need some means of choosing which of these alternatives we are going to investigate using our cohort/control trials. We could choose our favourite to investigate first, we could choose the one that's most popular. But neither of these are reasonable choices (they have no underlying justification). One method of choosing which does have some underlying justification is Occam's razor. "Let's see if all this can be explained by what we already know first". The justification fir this is that a phenomena explained by what we already know is slightly more likely to be the case (afterall, we already know its prerequisites are in place).

So first we should presume that this some psychological phenomenon, and test for that first. All the while that theory remains un refuted (ie it has not been rejected at a statistical significance) then it is reasonable to act as if it were the case.

None of this prevents you from selecting a theory for your own reasons. Maybe this one comforts you. As long as its not completely refuted by the evidence, it's reasonable for to hold it. But it is more reasonable for scientists to hold the theories they do because they also have a reason for choosing the test hypothesis.

We could be avatars in a computer game. We might be long-lived aliens, transferred from body to body. We might 'pick up' memories like radio waves... — Isaac

Right! Thanks. Glad we got to the bottom of that, then.

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. — Wayfarer

It has, in this very discussion. It doesn't exactly require a team of scientists and a lab. It's not the kind of claim which requires a thorough examination. There are obvious alternative explanations which have been pointed out to you, which haven't been justifiably ruled out, but which you seem to have ruled out nevertheless, or seem to be deliberately ignoring. If "mainstream" or rather proper science has not dedicated a great deal of time on this "research", there's probably a good reason for that. But you're predisposed against it. You already have a favoured explanation, an explanation which you find emotionally appealing, and you're sticking to it. You explain away reasonable criticism as bias, which you put down to the subject being a taboo, which is pretty ridiculous. I put it to you that that is just your rationalisation, nothing more.

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. — Wayfarer

But they are like those sort of claims! How are they not? They are both not subject to the scientific method, as Janus rightly pointed out. In both cases, one could point to incredibly weak evidence, like a relatively high number of personal testimonies. In both cases, more plausible alternative explanations can't be ruled out. So what's the supposed difference?

Once again, if you want the testimonial evidence to be accepted as credible or sufficient, then you need to make the case for a lower epistemological standard. That's a must. As things stand, it's not suggestive of your favoured explanation over others. That would only be possible with a less reasonable standard, where one can indulge in special pleading, where you subject your favoured claims to a different standard than those relating to ghosts and the like, which you want to disassociate yourself with.

The subjects in these studies were purported to know facts that they had no means of knowing according to psychology or any other science. — Wayfarer

Yes, and subjects can appear to know facts that they appear have had no means of knowing, for perfectly normal reasons (such as coincidence and acquiring knowledge deceptively), so it is rational to want to rule them out first before even testing hypotheses which introduce new forces.

The accusation I brought you up on wasn't about the quality of his evidence, it was about the theory proposed to explain it.

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. — Wayfarer

That's a pretty clear indication of your own bias. You've already accepted that they're recalling things, even though that's just one possible explanation, and the least plausible, given the lack of scientific evidence in its favour. It's more plausible that there was interference invalidating the results. In other words, the children were simply trained to say the right things at the right time.

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. — Wayfarer

For sake of clarity, it is compelling only to those with lesser critical thinking skills or who willingly adopt a lower epistemological standard.

Well, I'm not sure what definition of materialism you're working with, but if you give it a moment's consideration, you may realize that it's compatible with accepting that things like rebirth and souls could exist. It would merely assume that these are heretofore undiscovered/not understood matters.

In other words, they would say, that once what is thought to be supernatural has been proven to exist, it must be considered natural.

The traditional opposition of materialism to idealism or religion stems from the lack of proof for the claims of the latter, not because the former is dogmatically unable to understand or accept them.

I'm not sure what definition of materialism you're working with, but if you give it a moment's consideration, you may realize that it's compatible with accepting that things like rebirth and souls could exist. It would merely assume that these are heretofore undiscovered/not understood matters. — NKBJ

I'm working with the definition of materialism that is commonly accepted by the majority of working academics and scientists. This holds that the basis of individuals and personality and memory is molecular in nature, and can only be transmitted by genetic means. But if you agree that such things could exist, and simply haven't been discovered yet, then really we have no argument.

There are obvious alternative explanations which have been pointed out to you, which haven't been justifiably ruled out, but which you seem to have ruled out nevertheless, or seem to be deliberately ignoring. — S

That's not the case. There are thousands of cases, and in many of them, there is testimony concerning specific items of information for which there is no explanation as to how the individual concerned could know. All you're saying is that it is accepted that Stevenson's research has been discredited - you know it must have been, right? There's no way it could have been true, right?

one could point to incredibly weak evidence, like a relatively high number of personal testimonies. — S

Testimonies corroborated by other evidence, including documentary evidence and so on. And in these cases, testimonies are central.

A three-year-old boy in Lebanon recalled having been killed in battle in his former life. He accurately reported how much money the person he had been had in his pockets at the time of his death and identified various personal articles when taken to that person’s home.

A two-year-old boy in Turkey claimed he had frozen to death after an airplane crash in his previous life. The person’s family believed the man had died instantly in the crash, but when consulted, a Turkish Airlines official confirmed the man had indeed died from freezing.

A two-year-old girl in Thailand remembered living in a monastery in her previous life. When taken there, she knew her way around, recognized a number of monastics, and even detailed what had changed about the buildings in the time since she had lived there.

In many such cases, the location of a birthmark on the child’s body is said to correlate with an injury sustained at the time of death in a prior life.

The 'alternative explanation' can only be that these cases didn't remember any such things, and Stevenson was duped into accepting falsehoods presumably by his own confirmation bias and sloppy research methods.

The accusation I brought you up on wasn't about the quality of his evidence, it was about the theory proposed to explain it. — Isaac

Stevenson's theory was simply that the evidence suggested the children did indeed recall things from a previous life. He didn't propose any theory as to how this occurred which remains an open question.

one could point to incredibly weak evidence, like a relatively high number of personal testimonies.
— @S

Testimonies corroborated by other evidence, including documentary evidence and so on. And in these cases, testimonies are central. — Wayfarer

The courts seem to do it.

So, surely we must conclude that anything we believe possible - not probable or likely, only possible - remains so until more evidence clarifies matters? — Pattern-chaser

Logically and epistemologically speaking, yes. I am holding open the possibility that at least some things which we cannot prove to be impossible, actually are impossible simply due to the nature of things, in other words that at least some things may simply be ontologically or physically impossible. This seems obvious to me, and I am genuinely perplexed that others seem to be having difficulties with it, even though no one seems to be able to explain what the problem is.

That's not the case. There are thousands of cases, and in many of them, there is testimony concerning specific items of information for which there is no explanation as to how the individual concerned could know. All you're saying is that it is accepted that Stevenson's research has been discredited - you know it must have been, right? There's no way it could have been true, right? — Wayfarer

Haha, yeah, that's a real charitable interpretation of all that I'm saying, Wayfarer. Good job. :lol: :up:

Of course there are other explanations! Why are you taking it for granted that the situations are not set up? Because you think this Stevenson is an honourable guy? Because you think that it's impossible that he could have been duped? Because it would throw a spanner into the works, and you really can't bare to accept that?

Testimonies corroborated by other evidence, including documentary evidence and so on. And in these cases, testimonies are central. — Wayfarer

Saying that testimonies are central is just to say that incredibly weak evidence is central. And what documentary evidence? You mean historical facts which could have easily been passed on to the children? Coincidental birth marks which could easily be exploited for personal gain? Yeah, those sort of things are a smoking gun. You got me there. Damn. Must have been past lives.

The 'alternative explanation' can only be that these cases didn't remember any such things, and Stevenson was duped into accepting falsehoods presumably by his own confirmation bias and sloppy research methods. — Wayfarer

Yes, exactly. So you do acknowledge the alternative explanation. The more plausible alternative explanation. No need for scare quotes.

You're acting just like one of those people who think that magic tricks by magicians are real. They almost automatically rule out the most obvious explanation, and then come up with rationalisations. "But it's on TV!", "But he's built a career out of it!", "But he's an expert, and he seems really genuine!", and so on, and so forth. They're almost always fans, kind of like how you are. You are an admirer of Stevenson's work, yes? Jump to his defence? Own a book by him, perhaps?

The courts seem to do it. — Merkwurdichliebe

The courts! Thank you for bringing that up. How do you think that the courts would respond to attempts to allow testimony of alleged past lives into admission?

There is a lot of documentary and other evidence. But your response to the suggestion pretty well exactly illustrates the point. Right from the outset, you have simply presumed, and then asserted, that there could be no real evidence, because beliefs such as past-life memories ‘could not be scientifically supported’. So perhaps you might spell out, for our benefit, why you believe that.

you think this Stevenson is an honourable guy? — S

I believe so.

Because you think that it's impossible that he could have been duped? — S

It’s not impossible, but he was not a dupe. He went to great lengths to rule out fraud. At the very least, the kinds of information he collated rule out anything but extremely sophisticated fraud or auto-suggestion.

On a side note - do you know where the expression ‘the devil’s advocate’ originated?

The courts! Thank you for bringing that up. How do you think that the courts would respond to attempts to allow testimony of alleged past lives into admission? — S

Your most welcome my good friend. I don't know how they would respond to attempts to allow testimony of alleged past lives into admission, that is up to judge, lawyer, and jury.

But . . . courts certainly permit: "a relatively high number of personal testimonies" . . . "Testimonies corroborated by other evidence, including documentary evidence and so on. And in these cases, testimonies are central."

The courts seem to do it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Funny you should bring that up. In a court of law it has been shown over and over and over that eye witness accounts are very unreliable. Laughably unreliable. Almost anything, even a strong argument, carries more weight.
If this research relies on that, and cannot corroborate the theory with real experiments and other methods of testing then that should be a red flag. Skepticism and more intense scrutiny are do, not acceptance of the theory.

There is a lot of documentary and other evidence. But your response to the suggestion pretty well exactly illustrates the point. Right from the outset, you have simply presumed, and then asserted, that there could be no real evidence, because beliefs such as past-life memories ‘could not be scientifically supported’. So perhaps you might spell out, for our benefit, why you believe that. — Wayfarer

Others have done so, and done a better job of it. You haven't presented anything which could be counted as evidence for recollections of past lives over alternative explanations, which is pretty damn important, don't you think? I'm pretty sure the scientific method doesn't permit arbitrarily picking a theory over others because it is more emotionally appealing.

I believe so.

Because you think that it's impossible that he could have been duped?
— S

It’s not impossible, but he was not a dupe. He went to great lengths to rule out fraud. At the very least, the kinds of information he collated rule out anything but extremely sophisticated fraud or auto-suggestion. — Wayfarer

You don't make a name for yourself like that without putting a lot of effort in. But that certainly doesn't count for much, if anything. Uri Geller and Darren Brown are good examples to bring up. How do you think a conversation with one of their fans would go? It would kind of resemble the way that you're replying here, don't you think?

Your most welcome my good friend. I don't know how they would respond to attempts to allow testimony of alleged past lives into admission, that is up to judge, lawyer, and jury. — Merkwurdichliebe

You must at least have an inkling. You're just withholding your thinking because it suits your agenda, which is to attack what I say.

But . . . courts certainly permit: "a relatively high number of personal testimonies" . . . "Testimonies corroborated by other evidence, including documentary evidence and so on. And in these cases, testimonies are central." — Merkwurdichliebe

Bravo! You successfully singled out something I said and took it out of context to score a point. We're talking about extraordinary claims here, obviously. Do I have to make that clear every single time?

You haven't presented anything which could be counted as evidence for recollections of past lives over alternative explanations, which is pretty damn important, don't you think? — S

But what ‘alternative explanations’ could there be, other than Stevenson being wrong and the witnesses lying? If someone says he remembers something that he could not have known by any means other than actually remembering it, then what ‘alternative explanation’ would cover it?

Stevenson, again, held a privately endowed chair at a University. He was by no means a sideshow psychic.

I'm working with the definition of materialism that is commonly accepted by the majority of working academics and scientists. This holds that the basis of individuals and personality and memory is molecular in nature, and can only be transmitted by genetic means. But if you agree that such things could exist, and simply haven't been discovered yet, then really we have no argument. — Wayfarer

You're working with a very narrow definition of materialism, trying to ascribe this to scientists generally, all in order to make strawpersons of them so you can condescendingly pooh-pooh them.

Scientist currently believe that genes and the molecular structure of the brain are what creates consciousness, because there is no proven account of anything else. That's how science works.

Funny you should bring that up. In a court of law it has been shown over and over and over that eye witness accounts are very unreliable. Laughably unreliable. Almost anything, even a strong argument, carries more weight.
If this research relies on that, and cannot corroborate the theory with real experiments and other methods of testing then that should be a red flag. Skepticism and more intense scrutiny are do, not acceptance of the theory. — DingoJones

That the court system is extremely unscientific is obvious. Nevertheless, it regularly permits eye witness accounts that are very unreliable. "Laughably unreliable". And because of this there is cross examination, so that, as you say: "Almost anything, even a strong argument, carries more weight."

Oh, and by the bye, his Wiki page alone suggests that a number of scientists took him seriously as an academic, but ultimately rejected his conclusions. So, your absurd claim that scientists and philosophers are unable to understand or open their minds to such phenomena is just that: absurd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Criticism

Exactly, and in the case of this Stevenson fellow the cross examination resulted in a rational rejection of the testimony and the research that depended on it.
If he is right, then he needs to come back with more and better evidence, and prove his theory just like everyone has too. This is how scientific consensus works