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. — Wayfarer

It's shocking that you're continuing to address that straw man of my claim, in spite of your doing so having been exposed as fallacious, and in spite of this discussion being a public record of what has been said, meaning that anyone here can go back and check for themselves. Page 1, near the top of the page, third reply to the opening post, first sentence.

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. — Wayfarer

He says he "tried to prevent those factors distorting his cases" but how do we know this is so? We rely on his word, no? Bias could cause him to deceive even himself. The important thing about scientific studies is that they should be able to be precisely repeated, which allows others to check the results, which is obviously not possible in this case.

Bias could cause him to deceive even himself. The important thing about scientific studies is that they should be able to be precisely repeated, which allows others to check the results, which is obviously not possible in this case. — Janus

Sure, roger all that. And read up on the replication crisis. The point is, were he reporting asthma, or moles, nobody would think twice about it, but as the claims are regarded as extraordinary, then the goalposts are shifted much higher standards are demanded.

Yes, I am aware of the difficulty involved in replicating some kinds of studies. Epidemiological studies and other kinds of statistical studies come to mind. What that means for the 'softer" sciences is that one may not be warranted in drawing conclusions from such studies. The important thing is that various studies, not necessarily precise replications but analogous, be done, and if they all seem to point to the same or similar conclusions, then we may have more warrant for accepting them.

Also if a study indicates some conclusion, then some plausible mechanism for said conclusion which is consistent with other accepted scientific findings and theories will strengthen the plausibility of the conclusion. For example think about the epidemiological studies that indicate that smoking increases the risk of lung and other cancers.

Sure, agree with all that too. Had he been researching that kind of subject, like illnesses or something of the kind, as I say, nobody would quibble - well, unless there was some quotidian reason to do so. But the subject matter is said to be 'extraordinary', and it is obvious that it arouses strong emotions.

The same kind of thing happens in other areas of PSI (parapsychology) research. I recall a statement by a leading sceptic - one of the "professional debunkers" - who acknowledged that the statistical support for remote viewing would be accepted were it for some everyday kind of claim, but because of the 'extraordinary' nature of this claim, that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. And then the whole argument becomes one about statistics, and what might constitute 'extraordinary evidence', not about the actual subject matter. But then, the whole area of PSI research and the professional debunkers is extremely nasty and quite often vitriolic. So, I think the philosophical question is - why is that? Why is it that evidence of anything like psychic phenomena or past-life memories provokes such vitriol? I think the answer to that question, which really is the philosophical question, is pretty clear, as I said - that it does appear to undermine the consensus attitude of scientific materialism by which a lot of people make decisions on what is and isn't to be accepted.

It seems odd to me, though; because speaking for myself, I'd love it if psychic and spiritual phenomena turned out to be real. How much richer would that make life? And I'd love it if there were rebirth; although obviously I'd prefer to be able to remember my past life or lives; but even if not, I guess it might mean that all the effort that goes into self-knowledge and dealing with your issues would not be wasted as it would if you simply die and cease to exist.

Just to be clear I don't by any means insist or even assume that we just die and cease to exist; I have suspended judgement on all that, but I definitely try to avoid indulging in wishful thinking because I can't see any value in it. I think whichever way you look at it what is important is this life and how you able to live it; and that is the important thing; to really live it.

Anyway, sermon over...

Hey no probs. At least it's a civil discussion, which for this thread is something.

In the Buddhist view of life, the inevitability of re-birth is never regarded as an unambiguously good thing. (The exception is schools such as Pure Land, in which re-birth in the 'land of bliss' is said to be certain through faith in Amitabha's vow.) But often in Buddhist literature, the mere fact of re-birth is not viewed with any kind of elation. (Likewise, the existence of paranormal powers, 'siddhi', are regarded as a dangerous distraction from the path - even if they're understood to be real.)

I suppose my attitude is to be able to regard such matters with neither dread nor fascination - that, I think, is a 'middle way' kind of attitude. And I agree with your sentiment about 'really living' but in the hustle of day-to-day life I find it's often hard to be sure if I'm really doing that.

By the way, there's a 1999 interview with Stevenson here. The book that is mentioned, Old Souls, was the first thing I read about him.

The point is, were he reporting asthma, or moles, nobody would think twice about it, but as the claims are regarded as extraordinary, then much higher standards are demanded. — Wayfarer

Of course they are, and rightly so. We've been over this. If you claim otherwise, then as I've said multiple times now, you have a burden of justification. And you just won't be able to reasonably meet that burden. The logical consequences would work against you. When confronted with the logical consequences of applying the same standard as ordinary claims across the board, it seems you'd go for special pleading in order to exclude those logical consequences which you'd find objectionable, given how you've reacted to my earlier mentioning of flying pigs, ghosts, and the like. You don't want to include them. They aren't your cup of tea, like past lives are. But that's not being reasonable. Special pleading is an informal logical fallacy.

Good God, I hate speculation, but I love to speculate. :kiss:

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. — Janus

I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to decipher the nuances of types-of-impossibility. Our position here is simple, and I think it can be expressed clearly:

We begin with a list of possibilities, many with little or no accompanying evidence. When we discover that one of them is impossible, we strike it from the list. The concepts remaining in the list are possible, as far as we know, and as far as the evidence takes us. The arrival of new evidence will (obviously) be followed by whatever reassessments are necessary and appropriate.

Doesn't that about cover it? :chin: :smile:

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

I rather think that science has no belief about "what creates consciousness", as there is (as yet) insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. There are plenty of theories, and plenty of work going on to extend, and maybe even justify, these theories. That is how science works.

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

I think this is the core of our problems, in this topic, and in many others too. We insist - and why not? :smile: - on discussing matters that aren't cut and dried. There isn't as much evidence as we would like. There are lots of unknowns, and some of them are difficult or impossible to overcome. That's life. We need to get past these obstructions, perhaps by getting better at handling these uncertain matters?

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. — Wayfarer

Whew! That's a relief.

You are just repeating the same contradictory stuff over and over. You want to claim science is inherently inadequate, but somehow also claim that it supports your view. Any time someone here refutes your position on the former, you flee to the latter and vice versa. That's called being a moving target and it's bad philosophy.

Whew! That's a relief.

You are just repeating the same contradictory stuff over and over. You want to claim science is inherently inadequate, but somehow also claim that it supports your view. Any time someone here refutes your position on the former, you flee to the latter and vice versa. That's called being a moving target and it's bad philosophy. — NKBJ

Blunt. Beautifully blunt. I like it. :grin:

Janus
7.2k

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. — Janus

What perplexes me is anyone who cannot see that if one has not established a thing as IMPOSSIBLE...it is at very least...POSSIBLE.

You continue to confuse what actually MAY BE...with what is possible.

If there are no life forms of any sort on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol...

...it is impossible for there to be any sentient life on any of those planets.

That is a given.

But right now...here...if the question is, "Is it possible that there are sentient beings living on one of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol?...

...the answer is absolutely YES.

It is possible. Just as sure as it is POSSIBLE there are no sentient life forms on any of those planets.

The possibility has nothing to do with the Reality. It has to do with establishing the reality.,

But...apparently you cannot see that...or cannot acknowledge that.

Way it goes.

I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to decipher the nuances of types-of-impossibility. — Pattern-chaser

That's fine; you are under no obligation to do that.

Doesn't that about cover it? :chin: :smile: — Pattern-chaser

Apparently for you it does. :smile:

Sure, I don't think anything in philosophy is 'cut and dried". That's why many people think philosophy is a waste of time and energy. That's also why so much time and energy is spent on philosophy forums talking past one another. :lol:

I do my best :blush: