But what ‘alternative explanations’ could there be, other than Stevenson being wrong and the witnesses lying? — Wayfarer

Why would you do that? You haven't ruled that out. I don't need an alternative to the alternative.

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? — Wayfarer

You haven't given any examples of that. If you disagree, then explain how you reasonably ruled out the possibility that it was known simply through being told.

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

Ooooh, impressive! :roll:

Ayn Rand was a philosopher, and the author of a best selling book! William Lane Craig is a professor, and has a PhD!

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. — NKBJ

Not demonstrable on the basis of anything I’ve said. There is an obvious conflict between such beliefs and scientific materialism.

I've read the Wiki page. Note this paragraph:

Despite this early interest, most scientists ignored Stevenson's work. According to his New York Times obituary, his detractors saw him as "earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition." Critics suggested that the children or their parents had deceived him, that he was too willing to believe them, and that he had asked them leading questions. In addition, critics said, the results were subject to confirmation bias, in that cases not supportive of the hypothesis were not presented as counting against it. Leonard Angel, a philosopher of religion, told The New York Times that Stevenson did not follow proper standards. "but you do have to look carefully to see it; that's why he's been very persuasive to many people."

So, well aware of the criticisms, but again, I don't find it persuasive, in light of the volume of data.

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. — NKBJ

Aha! You win the lucky door prize. In actual fact, I think there is a new consensus emerging against this very idea, but the fact that you state it so baldly is very helpful, thank you. So let's just reflect on that before considering what that might be.

This is how scientific consensus works — DingoJones

Who is it that said 'science progresses one funeral at a time', and why did he say it?

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. — NKBJ

That comes as no surprise. That's why what he says can't be trusted, and that's why we'd have to look into the matter ourselves. Well, not all of what he says can't be trusted, but the certainly the spin.

You haven't ruled that out. I don't need an alternative to the alternative. — S

You're dissembling, S. All you've said from the very beginning of this thread is, 'I don't care what "evidence" this Stevenson says he's got, we know that this reincarnation stuff is bullshit. And we know it, because science says it couldn't be true, so it's not scientific to believe such things'. Is that a fair paraphrase?

the molecular structure of the brain are what creates consciousness, because there is no proven account of anything else. — NKBJ

This is the crack in the egg, you know.

I do not know, but presumably he was speaking to its fallibility. Thats true, scientific consensus can and has been wrong....then through science corrected. Thats why science is such a powerful tool/method, it is self correcting.
When no one believed Darwin, he just showed them more evidence until others were forced to accept it. Thats what this Stevenson dude needs to do, and hasnt. If the facts are in his side he will be vindicated. So far that hasnt been shown yet you remain convinced...the charges laid to you on this matter remain accurate.

You haven't ruled that out. I don't need an alternative to the alternative.
— S

You're dissembling, S. All you've said from the very beginning of this thread is, 'I don't care what "evidence" this Stevenson says he's got, we know that this reincarnation stuff is bullshit. And we know it, because science says it couldn't be true, so it's not scientific to believe such things'. Is that a fair paraphrase? — Wayfarer

Funnily enough, no. That was an amusingly ridiculous twist on what I said. But, as amusing as that was, it is an evasion nevertheless. To remain on point, you must explain why I would need an alternative to the alternative I've already given. If I have to, I'll answer it for you. Here goes. I don't need an alternative to the alternative I've already given. That you just don't like the alternative I've given and have responded with red herrings is not a valid response.

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. — S

What do you mean? I have no agenda . . . and I have I attacked what you say? I had no intention of that.

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? — S

I scored a point? Yay!!!

But, extraordinary claims are made in court too. So, if such ridiculous unscientific testimony is permitted there, where people are sentenced to life, and sometimes to death, why is it inappropriate to permit it here?

There is an obvious conflict between such beliefs and scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

I think there is a new consensus emerging against this very idea, but the fact that you state it so baldly is very helpful, thank you. So let's just reflect on that before considering what that might be. — Wayfarer

And there you go contradicting yourself again.

So, well aware of the criticisms, but again, I don't find it persuasive, in light of the volume of data. — Wayfarer

The size of a pile of trash doesn't magically turn the trash into gold.

What do you mean? I have no agenda . . . and I have I attacked what you say? I had no intention of that. — Merkwurdichliebe

Alright, fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I scored a point? Yay!!!

But, extraordinary claims are made in court too. So, if such ridiculous unscientific testimony is permitted there, where people are sentenced to life, and sometimes to death, why is it inappropriate to permit it here? — Merkwurdichliebe

And, out of those small number of cases where it has been admitted, how has it fared?

Also, I've already accepted that it is evidence, the issue is one of strength or credibility of evidence. I shouldn't have to keep clarifying this.

The size of a pile of trash doesn't magically turn the trash into gold. — NKBJ

Well said. :grin:

Thats what this Stevenson dude needs to do, and hasnt. If the facts are in his side he will be vindicated. So far that hasnt been shown yet you remain convinced...the charges laid to you on this matter remain accurate. — DingoJones

Well, he can't, because he's dead (unless, of course.....)

But in all honesty - how do you think you would go trying to raise a grant for this kind of research? I think it would be a career-killer in almost any university, wouldn't it?

All you've said from the very beginning of this thread is, 'I don't care what "evidence" this Stevenson says he's got, we know that this reincarnation stuff is bullshit. And we know it, because science says it couldn't be true, so it's not scientific to believe such things'. Is that a fair paraphrase?
— Wayfarer

Funnily enough, no. — S

hmmm, let's see:

The notion of any post death existence is generally scoffed at by Western materialist types, but is it really so absurd?
— Inyenzi

Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. Only fools take seriously such presumed possibilities. — S

An example of credible evidence would be the science supporting the claim that Earth isn't flat. An example of incredible evidence would be some chump just pointing out that some people say some stuff about supposed extraordinary events which could easily be made up, and there being no way of knowing the claim to be true. — S

(On first introduction of Stevenson)

"Generally ignored or maligned" - or rightly discredited? To me, that rings of confirmation bias from you. I don't trust your spin, and I don't think anyone else should, either. We'd have to look into it ourselves, because you can't be trusted. You clearly have a stake in this, you're emotionally invested. — S

Wayfarer is adept at this sort of thing. He is intelligent and knowledgeable, but he misapplies his skills. He does not approach matters like this objectively. — S

So I think you've made your point perfectly clearly. And I respect it: as I've said from the outset, I get why you or anyone wouldn't want to acknowledge these stories could be true. It's a taboo subject in Western culture, and there are solid reasons for that.

And there you go contradicting yourself again. — NKBJ

I thought for a moment there you might have understood what I was driving at, but regrettably not.

The size of a pile of trash doesn't magically turn the trash into gold. — NKBJ

Quite. But the same can be said of the critics.

I was reading an essay in Aeon about research in epigenetics:

When researchers at Emory University in Atlanta trained mice to fear the smell of almonds (by pairing it with electric shocks), they found, to their consternation, that both the children and grandchildren of these mice were spontaneously afraid of the same smell. That is not supposed to happen. Generations of schoolchildren have been taught that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible. A mouse should not be born with something its parents have learned during their lifetimes, any more than a mouse that loses its tail in an accident should give birth to tailless mice.

This apparently is being validated in numerous studies. It overturns what had been a pretty hard and fast dogma in neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, namely, that 'acquired characteristics' (let alone memories!) can't be inherited. But now it appears that they might be. So if there's some way that 'memories can be transmitted between generations', then at least there's an analogy or metaphor for the possibility of this past-life memory phenomenon.

Spoken like a true believer. We must accept the pile of trash as gold, or else we're succumbing to a taboo. Accept Jesus into your life, or you're going to hell. You must have faith, and only then you will see.

And don't think that I'm just going to stop pointing out that your last several replies to me have been blatant red herrings.

It's more like this: that either there is no evidence at all for the possibility of a genuine past-life memory, or there is at least one genuine case. And if there is any genuine case, then you can't rule out the possibility - which is what you're trying to do, right? You want to be able to say, impossible, it can't happen, and draw a line under it, as a matter of principle. But I'm taking issue with the principle, as I really don't believe that in all of these research data, there is not a genuine case.

And, why is it 'taboo'? I mean - serious question. Not just trying to score points or annoy you. I think we would both agree that such beliefs are taboo in mainstream Western cultural discourse. So the question is, why?

But I'm taking issue with the principle, as I really don't believe that in all of these research data, there is not a genuine case. — Wayfarer

The problem is that you have no way to assess the likelihood that there is a genuine case.

It's more like this: that either there is no evidence at all for the possibility of a genuine past-life memory, or there is at least one genuine case. And if there is any genuine case, then you can't rule out the possibility - which is what you're trying to do, right? You want to be able to say, impossible, it can't happen, and draw a line under it, as a matter of principle. But I'm taking issue with the principle, as I really don't believe that in all of these research data, there is not a genuine case. — Wayfarer

That just goes to show that you've hardly been paying any attention to what I've been saying. Do you have any recollection of what I've actually said? I have made clear my acceptance of the possibility a number of times. You even quoted my response to that. Remember, "pigs might fly"? The obvious hint being that mere possibility is woefully insufficient, and that the possibility of extraordinary events you're biased towards can be met with the possibility of extraordinary events which you react to with irrational disdain, even though they're roughly on par. It's an effective tactic for bringing out double standards. No one likes their precious trash being compared to flying pigs, ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster, and so on. But what's brilliant is that it doesn't matter whether they like it or not, because it ain't about that. It's about logic.

And strength of belief counts for nothing. Come on, Wayfarer. You should know that. Emphasising that you "really do believe" doesn't mean jack.

But the same can be said of the critics. — Wayfarer

I don't see the connection.

This apparently is being validated in numerous studies. It overturns what had been a pretty hard and fast dogma in neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, namely, that 'acquired characteristics' (let alone memories!) can't be inherited. But now it appears that they might be. So if there's some way that 'memories can be transmitted between generations', then at least there's an analogy or metaphor for the possibility of this past-life memory phenomenon. — Wayfarer

You're conflating our growing understanding of how DNA, RNA, certain viruses in our cells, and possibly even the good bacteria in your entire body, all contribute to how your body works, including your brain. We've known for a long time now that certain environmental stimuli can activate, deactivate, and alter any of those components for generations to come. It has nothing to do with spirits or souls.

:wink:

So if there's some way that 'memories can be transmitted between generations', then at least there's an analogy or metaphor for the possibility of this past-life memory phenomenon. — Wayfarer

And why is it that you give this one farfetched possibility special treatment? Also, you really should put the word "memories" in scare quotes, like BBC News did when they reported on this. That article was written by a professional, who goes by professional standards. A health and science reporter working for BBC News has to abide by high journalistic standards to do with accuracy and impartiality, whereas you don't seem to care a great deal about that sort of thing. You seem more like a Fox News type, given your style of writing here in this discussion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25156510

The problem is that you have no way to assess the likelihood that there is a genuine case. — Janus

You mean, other than the documented cases being discussed? My judgement is that there are too many corroborations in those cases to be dismissed as coincidence. You might disagree, which is perfectly OK.

That just goes to show that you've hardly been paying any attention to what I've been saying. — S

It means you don't want to acknowledge what you've said. When I read it back to you, you sidestep it.

We've known for a long time now that certain environmental stimuli can activate, deactivate, and alter any of those components for generations to come. It has nothing to do with spirits or souls. — NKBJ

The Buddhist view of re-birth is that there is no 'spirit or soul' in the first place - and yet they accept the veracity of past-life memories. I think the idea that there is a means by which memories can be transmitted between generations provides an at least in-principle analogy for the means by which it could occur.

Furthermore, the very fact of epigenetics and transferred memories is changing the very notion of what 'inheritance' amounts to. It used to be completely ruled out, but experimental evidence has forced changes. As you say, this is how science works. And as in physics, biology is become less and less focused on so-called 'fundamental particles', however conceived, that are the purported grounds of agency. In other words, the hold of materialism is weakening. Of course it's a long way from anything like belief that there could really be past-life memories, but it's perhaps not as remote as it might have been a few generations ago.

My judgement is that there are too many corroborations in those cases to be dismissed as coincidence. You might disagree, which is perfectly OK. — Wayfarer

I don't disagree if by that you mean that I believe there are not "too many corroborations in those cases to be dismissed as coincidence"; I disagree in the sense that I don't believe that whether or not there are sufficient corroborations such that they ought not be dismissed as coincidence could be adequately assessed by anyone other than the one who spoke with the children and other testifiers and compiled the data. I mean he would be in the best position to judge, provided he was not biased in some way; and even then i don't see how he could definitely know it.

If for example, it was being claimed that children knew things they could not possibly have known by "normal" means, then those purported facts that purportedly could not be known by normal means would need to be established as well-documented facts and not merely hearsay. And then it would need to be established that the parents and children could not possibly have had any "normal" access to those facts. All of that is nothing more nor less than what scientific rigour demands. I doubt it would be possible to establish all that, which means that this could not count as a scientifically rigorous study, for the simple reason that it relies too much on hearsay and anecdote.

The additional point is that I can't see how it could possibly matter whether we are reincarnated or not, if we have no way of definitely knowing one way or the other, and even then...! As I said before, if I had an experience of remembering past lives that was vivid and compelling enough I might come to believe in rebirth, but I would never expect this to be sufficient evidence for anyone else to believe and I can't see how that belief would change what I do in this life in any case, because the simple fact of reincarnation would not tell me anything about what I ought to do, or how I ought to live; that would require further items of faith or vivid and compelling experiences. And I could never rule out the possibility that I might be under some kind of illusion or delusion.

The other thing which no one seems to have mentioned here, is that even if such stories were accepted as veracious, a better explanation might be that the children were somehow accessing some kind of collective memory.

It means you don't want to acknowledge what you've said. When I read it back to you, you sidestep it. — Wayfarer

I've acknowledged what I've said. I haven't acknowledged your uncharitable characterisation of it, for obvious reasons. And besides, what's wrong with sidestepping a sidestep? You've completely sidetracked the discussion we were having about the alternative explanation you don't like. You know, the one you don't like because it isn't as magical. But then you don't like explanations which are too obviously magical, either. You're picky. It has to be magical, but subtle enough to be bullshitted into appearing more credible than things like flying pigs and ghosts.

If for example, it was being claimed that children knew things they could not possibly have known by "normal" means, then those purported facts that purportedly could not be known by normal means would need to be established as well-documented facts and not merely hearsay. And then it would need to be established that the parents and children could not possibly have had any "normal" access to those facts. All of that is nothing more nor less than what scientific rigour demands. I doubt it would be possible to establish all that, which means that this could not count as a scientifically rigorous study, for the simple reason that it relies too much on hearsay and anecdote. — Janus

Exactly. With this in mind, the question is why Wayfarer is trying to sell this as something that it's not, and why he is giving special treatment to one farfetched possibility over others, and why he is coming up with this bullshit rationalisation about it being a taboo subject. And the best explanation for that seems to be that he is biased.

Actually, he has mentioned the conflict with "mainstream" science a few times, which is basically an admission that it's not proper science. (It fails the high standards).

If for example, it was being claimed that children knew things they could not possibly have known by "normal" means, then those purported facts that purportedly could not be known by normal means would need to be established as well-documented facts and not merely hearsay. — Janus

That’s what the research comprises, though. Stevenson's program ran from the early 1980'2 until his death in 2007. He did a lot of field trips and interviewed thousands of subjects. He was well aware of the scope for fraud, wishful thinking and deception, and tried to prevent those factors distorting his cases. The examples I've mentioned above are but four out of a much larger set.

You've completely sidetracked the discussion we were having about the alternative explanation you don't like. — S

What is the alternative explanation? Isn't it that Stevenson was wrong/misled/duped?

What is the alternative explanation? Isn't it that Stevenson was wrong/misled/duped? — Wayfarer

Yes, basically. I asked you how you can reasonably rule that out. You evaded that question. And bear in mind that reason isn't the same as faith. Having faith in Stevenson or those he interviewed is not a valid response.

the best explanation for that seems to be that he is biased. — S

I've acknowledged that the possibility of past-life memories doesn't conflict with my philosophy. If that amounts to 'bias' then so be it.

But the really salient post in all this was this one:

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. — NKBJ

That is exactly what I mean by 'scientific materialism', and why it conflicts with such beliefs. (Note also that the ontological conclusion about 'genes and molecular structures' is presented as being 'how science works', when it's actually a metaphysical statement based on a methodical postulate, although I don't expect this to be understood.)

I asked you how you can reasonably rule that out. You evaded that question. — S

OK - I don't believe Stevenson was duped or mislead. Obviously, the consensus on the Wikipedia page is that 'scientists believe' that he was so duped. But I don't agree. Furthermore, the only thing that would come close to evidence for that claim, would be to re-investigate all the cases, and demonstrate that all of the many pieces of evidence were the consequence of confirmation bias and wishful thinking. And I don't believe anyone will do that. They will console themselves with the simple belief, that it simply must have been the case.

And that, I swear, is my last word, for at least the next two days, as I have other duties pressing, and really can't repeating the same thing over and over.

He can be aware of fraud, wishful thinking and deception while still drawing the wrong conclusions about the data based on confirmation bias, or even his own wishful thinking. Those are not mutually exclusive. People are aware of wishful thinking yet still succumb to it, as with bias and many other things so your counter argument holds no water.

Sure. Absolutely acknowledge that. As I said from the outset, my aim was to draw attention to these cases, so as to demonstrate the falsehood of the claim that 'there is not a shred of evidence', when in fact, there's quite a bit.

I've acknowledged that the possibility of past-life memories doesn't conflict with my philosophy. If that amounts to 'bias' then so be it. — Wayfarer

You keep going back to this, but that's missing the point. I'm not taking issue with the possibility. I'm taking issue, as have others, with claims of yours like that the evidence is suggestive of past lives. I'm taking issue whenever your wording is impartial, inaccurate, begging the question, or an instance of loaded language. I'm taking issue in how you've responded to my claim about the credibility of the evidence. I'm taking issue, as are others, about your faulty reasoning, like when you appeal to high numbers. You claim you know about the scientific method, yet you make a very basic error like that. Did you not know about this:

Philosophically, Bacon is particularly interesting for two reasons: In part II of the Novum Organum he tried to improve on existing conception of scientific method by expounding a method of induction which was not simply induction by simple enumeration.

But even that is more in line with the scientific method than what you're talking about. At least an example of induction by simple enumeration could consist in actually seeing hundreds of white swans before concluding that all swans are white. That actual seeing is a stronger form of evidence than hearing testimony about white swans.