Ok.

If reincarnation is true then we expect people to have verifiable memories of past lives.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable or it becomes a matter of "anything goes" and although we'd have confirmation of a theory it would be impossible to know if we're wrong. If we can't find out whether or not we're wrong then it becomes possible that we could be believing a theory that's actually wrong/incorrect. That's not good from any angle.

The only way a theory of reincarnation based on memories can be proven wrong is if the absence of past life memories is inconsistent with reincarnation but that isn't the case. Ergo, reincarnation theories predicated on memories of past lives are unfalsifiable and so, aren't scientific theories.

How do you want to tackle this serious flaw in reincarnation theories?

Note that using memories of any kind is out of the question for the following reasons:

1. False but true memories. False in the sense that a person who recalls has "memories" (of past lives) does so by chance and true in the sense that these "memories" match actual experiences of a dead person

2. The absence of memories don't necessarily imply the falsity of reincarnation because memory is imperfect - basically, we forget.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable or it becomes a matter of "anything goes" and although we'd have confirmation of a theory it would be impossible to know if we're wrong. — TheMadFool

Just a quick clarification. If something is not falsifiable, it is impossible to have confirmation of it as a theory. Confirmation of something means that it has not been proven to be false. If you invent an idea in your head that cannot be falsified, it means you have never attempted to confirm it against reality, or you cannot confirm it against reality. Falsification means it must be falsifiable when applied against reality. In other words, there are clear properties that match, and cannot match with reality. A dog is falsifiable for example, because it has clear properties that are not a cat. So If I believe something to be a dog, when I apply it I must have clear distinctions that must be matched. If I try to match the identity of a dog to a cat, I will be proven false, because the real properties of a cat falsify my attempt to label it as a dog.

If reincarnation is not falsifiable, then it has not, and cannot be confirmed. Reincarnation must match certain specific rules and limits. We would then use those as markers against reality to see if our claim that what is happening in reality, is true or false in regards to reincarnation.

As such, your point here:

The only way a theory of reincarnation based on memories can be proven wrong is if the absence of past life memories is inconsistent with reincarnation but that isn't the case. — TheMadFool

I don't feel is quite correct. First, it must be shown that between two people, A, and B, both must share the memory of A, even though B was never in the situation in which A formed that memory.

Think back to Phlogistim. There was the theory of Phlogistim and oxygen. But one thing which was confirmed for sure, was that certain things caught on fire.

So let us pretend that science does eventually two people, A and B, share a memory A had, that B was not there for. This is so we can clarify the what falsification for reincarnation would mean. If this were the case, several different theories would form. One might be brain wave resonance that extends through space and time like quantum mechanics. One might be that its rare, and might just be random chance. These are all theories that at least base themselves on testable things. They have clear definitions of what they are. They may be wrong, but they are identifiable.

Where does this leave reincarnation as a theory in all of this? If we know that memories are formed in the brain, how do you say that a person today is the same person of yesterday when their brains are different? I suppose one way to do this is to keep brain scans of famous people and see how similar they are to another. So over decades, you could have a pool of brains of famous people. When someone has a memory of a famous dead person's experience (because lets face it, no one has past memories of non-famous people), we could examine their brain and see how similar it was to the dead celebrity. This allows something we can falsify. If the brains match, then maybe we can say nearly identical matching brains have a chance of triggering similar memories. We could call this, "Reincarnation" if we wanted to.

This is a falsifiable theory of reincarnation based on memories, if it is actually true that one can have the memories of a dead person. If however you include a soul into this mix, you cannot create a falsifiable theory. That is because you cannot define a soul in a way that can be applied to reality with clear properties. I can say, "Memories belong to the mind," and that is falsifiable, because we might be able to show that memories do not belong to the mind. However, we have never been able to do that. You can say, "Memories belong to the soul," but since you cannot clearly define a soul, we have no way to apply this claim to reality.

Science deals in what can be applied to reality. If you cannot find a way to apply it to reality, it has no chance of being an identifiable thing in reality with clear rules and definitions of what it is. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

If something is not falsifiable, it is impossible to have confirmation of it as a theory. — Philosophim

Please read up on the scientific method.

Ergo, reincarnation theories predicated on memories of past lives are unfalsifiable — TheMadFool

Stevenson interviewed children who claimed to recall previous lives. He documented many such cases over a period of 30 years - something in the vicinity of 2,800 cases. In each of them he recorded interviews with the subject and then tried to validate specific claims that the child made about their purported previous life, including, where they lived, what their occupation was, how they died, things that they owned, and innummerable other facts about the cases. He employed researchers to do this, and got documentation including birth and death notices and newspaper accounts, and then attempted to match the documentation against the story. Like a cold-case detective, if you like.

He rejected any cases he thought were susceptible to cheating or manipulation (and there were many). But still, many remained that appeared genuine. Now a lot of people, including a lot of scientists, insist that he wasn't thorough, or that he was guilty of confirmation bias, or that his methods were faulty. Maybe that's true! But really that doesn't have any bearing on your argument. Whether he was a fraud or a charlatan or not, it remains the case that the body of research he produced is quite possible to falsify in principle: if you could show that the claims were false, or that the child was coached, or that the evidence was planted, then you falsify the claims. If you can't come up with a better explanation than that the child actually did remember these specific facts, then you have failed to falsify the case. But either way, it's not true to claim that it's something that 'can't be falsified', as it can be. Belief in 'going to heaven' can't be falsified, obviously. But in this case, you have empirical claims to deal with. So it's the one kind of 'after-death theory' which can be falsified.

Science deals in what can be applied to reality. If you cannot find a way to apply it to reality, it has no chance of being an identifiable thing in reality with clear rules and definitions of what it is. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? — Philosophim

Regardless, if one of these subjects makes a claim 'if you go to that house, and look under the floorboards near the fireplace, you will find there's a green metal box in there which has a watch and some spectacles in it' (to make up an example of the kinds of cases Stevenson often found) without ever having been into the house, then whatever science you have, has to deal with the fact that the subject knows something. Whether you have a theory about how that is possible is a different matter, but if it happened, it's a fact that science has to deal with. (Which is why, in my opinion, many scientists are very adamant that what Stevenson's subjects claimed could not have happened.)

//ps// I guess what I’m saying is that people don’t think Stevenson’s work is pseudoscience because of his method, but because of the content. That’s what’s interesting about it.//

A leg of a lamb, most definitely, doesn't survive death - it decays or, if consumed, is digested, a process that destroys the leg. — TheMadFool

The leg is a leg before the lamb dies; and it remains a leg after the lamb dies. Ergo, it survives death.

SO it seems you have more in mind when you talk about surviving death. So what is it? There's more to the definition of soul; there's something about essence, or spirit, or life, that differentiates it form a leg of lamb.

Please read up on the scientific method. — TheMadFool

If you wish to end this discussion, that's fine, I don't mind. But we're here to discuss and show each other what we think of the issue. I did not simply dismiss your argument and tell you, "Please read up on neuroscience." I gave you some links, and explained some points.

If I am wrong in my claim in my post, point out where my flaw is, show me why, and we can continue to discuss. I can be wrong, its happened before! If not, I've stated my points, and we can be done.

The leg is a leg before the lamb dies; and it remains a leg after the lamb dies. Ergo, it survives death.

SO it seems you have more in mind when you talk about surviving death. So what is it? There's more to the definition of soul; there's something about essence, or spirit, or life, that differentiates it form a leg of lamb. — Banno

Putrefecation

Digestion

if you could show that the claims were false, or that the child was coached, or that the evidence was planted, then you falsify the claims — Wayfarer

I don't think showing Stevenson faked his data serves to falsify the theory of reincarnation; all that we can do with it is show his study is unreliable.

If something is not falsifiable, it is impossible to have confirmation of it as a theory. — Philosophim

What I know about the scientific method is that a hypothesis is formulated and based on it certain predictions are made. If and when these predictions are observed, the hypothesis is confirmed. In case the predictions are not observed, the hypothesis is refuted.

Putrefecation

Digestion — TheMadFool

Putrefaction is occasionally seen as the natural process of the body returning to the Earth, and henc eof the soul returning to the cosmos.

Digestion - I suppose no one reads Stranger in a Strange Land anymore, but ritual cnibalism s not uncommon, even amongst Christians.

SO, where are we in regard to finding a coherent notion of Soul?

Purification is occasionally seen as the natural process of the body returning to the Earth, and henc eof the soul returning to the cosmos.

Digestion - I suppose no one reads Stranger in a Strange Land anymore, but ritual cnibalism s not uncommon, even amongst Christians.

SO, where are we in regard to finding a coherent notion of Soul? — Banno

So, you concede that the leg of a lamb and a soul are not the same - the former decays beginning at death while the latter doesn't.

I gave you the generally accepted meaning of "soul" as 1. that which survives death and 2. transmigrates into another body.

We can begin now to ask how we might know that something, the soul, survives death? The consensus seems to be the existence of memories from past lives. However, this memory method is flawed because memory is imperfect - we forget, we misremember.

Any ideas?

I don't think showing Stevenson faked his data serves to falsify the theory of reincarnation; all that we can do with it is show his study is unreliable — TheMadFool

He didn't present a theory of reincarnation; he investigated children who claimed to remember previous lives.

Putrefaction is occasionally seen as the natural process of the body returning to the Earth, and henc eof the soul returning to the cosmos. — Banno

you concede that the leg of a lamb and a soul are not the same - the former decays beginning at death while the latter doesn't.[/quote]

... — TheMadFool

I gave you the generally accepted meaning of "soul" .... — TheMadFool

No, you didn't.

That would be more like "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal."

You entirely left out the "spiritual or immaterial" part.

Honestly, I don't know why I bother sometimes.

You entirely left out the "spiritual or immaterial" part. — Banno

The spiritual comes much later but do go on... :chin:

He didn't present a theory of reincarnation; he investigated children who claimed to remember previous lives. — Wayfarer

If he concluded from these investigations that past lives are something real, then he's working under the rubric of the theory of reincarnation.

I said "If something is not falsifiable, it is impossible to have confirmation of it as a theory."
— Philosophim

You replied

What I know about the scientific method is that a hypothesis is formulated and based on it certain predictions are made. If and when these predictions are observed, the hypothesis is confirmed. In case the predictions are not observed, the hypothesis is refuted. — TheMadFool

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Hypotheses.html

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable, but there is a much stronger requirement that a testable hypothesis must meet before it can really be considered scientific. This criterion comes primarily from the work of the philosopher of science Karl Popper, and is called "falsifiability"."

Look, I've made the same mistake of critisizing someone's points without anything to back it in the past. I get how it feels, and I'm not going to rag you for it. Just please do a little research on a claim before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about next time.

So back to your point

A scientific theory must be falsifiable or it becomes a matter of "anything goes" and although we'd have confirmation of a theory it would be impossible to know if we're wrong. — TheMadFool

You now know that you cannot have confirmation of a hypothesis if the hypothesis is not falsifiable. If reincarnation is not falsifiable, then it has not, and cannot be confirmed. If you would like to chat about a few ways I've tried to bring reincarnation into a scientific method, we can continue. If you are not interested in discussing how we can make a reincarnation theory that is falsifiable, then you have your answer.

The scientific method works like this:

1. Formulate Hypothesis H

2. If H (is true) then predictions X, Y, Z

3. If predictions X, Y, Z are observed then H is confirmed

Falsifiability of H is possible only if the failure to observe predictions X, Y, Z implies that H is false. In the case of reincarnation the failure to observe instances of past life memories doesn't entail that reincarnation is false but finding cases of people who remember past lives confirm reincarnation. This is a case of a non-scientific hypothesis - reincarnation can be confirmed but not falsified.

Ignoring the math bit... (I hope you'll forgive me I was never any good at that),

Strictly from the I'm going to assume typical method of assessing past memories (you question a healthy, mentally sound adult or adolescent or even pre-teen).... the things we've seen/read/otherwise been informed about in life, especially today with movies and TV vividly reside in our brain. It wouldn't be atypical to "recall" or otherwise see something presented to one in a dramatic fashion at an early age ie. a riveting novel or dramatic TV or movie especially when under an altered state of mind say hypnotism.

From the philosophical angle, in regards to empiricism (I had to look that up), the previous paragraph kind of seems to be supported by that.

As far as empiricism in general it simply seems to be a description of what is mandated by the human experience. If you can't hear or see let alone being deprived of all five senses from birth... obviously your mind would not be able to grow and develop. Not quite sure what the antithesis of empiricism is but am curious.

Edit: Also the theory(?) of genetic memory may have some relevance here. From what I remember supposedly if say you were from a mountainous region and lived there for thousands of years, you may find mountains oddly familiar or even non-mountainous regions "odd" or something. Though from a religious/metaphysical perspective, which is completely different, it's a common concept. Afterlife, "life after death", "shall not die", etc.

1. Formulate Hypothesis H

2. If H (is true) then predictions X, Y, Z

3. If predictions X, Y, Z are observed then H is confirmed — TheMadFool

That's not how a hypothesis works. Here is the definition of falsifiability.

"Criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false."

Here are some examples and explanation. https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html
---
1. An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
2. A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
3. Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch."

None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.

How to Tell if Something is Falsifiable

In most cases a falsifiable statement just needs one observation to disprove it. A Statement that is not falsifiable usually needs some sort of exhaustive search of all possibilities to disprove it.
---

Falsifiability of H is possible only if the failure to observe predictions X, Y, Z implies that H is false — TheMadFool

Your above statement matches to what a non-falsifiable statement is. It is not about a failure to observe what we want that makes it falsifiable. It is if we have a clear statement of what would make it false, and cannot meet that standard in our observation.

In your case of reincarnation, you are saying its wrong because of an absence of evidence, which indeed does not make it falsifiable. You are claiming that someone has actually had a past life experience. In your declaring this is confirmed, you need to have a hypothesis that is falsifiable. Is it possibly false that they did not have past life experiences? What hypothesis could prove it wrong that they had past life experiences?

I can introduce one. "If we have an accurate first hand account of a previous dead person's experience, and another person accurately matches that first hand record of the dead person's experience, without knowing anything about the dead person, or their experiences, then we can claim the dead person was reincarnated."

There are several falsifiables here.

1. We must have an accurate first hand account of the dead person's experience. After all, if they are reincarnated, they will only have this memory as a first hand experience.
2. The person in question must know nothing about the previous person, or about their recorded first hand experience.

So when you mean there is a claim to reincarnation, as in a hypothesis, what were the falsifiables of that claim? If there are falsifiables, then we can actually say the exploration of reincarnation actually started with a scientific hypothesis. But if there are no falsifiables to this claim, then that is not a hypothesis, and is not scientific. In other words, there is no non-scientific hypothesis. Its either a scientific hypthesis, or it is not a hypothesis.

So when you mean there is a claim to reincarnation, as in a hypothesis, what were the falsifiables of that claim? — Philosophim

As a matter of interest, have you read any of the research, i.e. interviews with children who claimed to recall earlier lives and whose claims were investigated? for example:

In Sri Lanka, a toddler one day overheard her mother mentioning the name of an obscure town (“Kataragama”) that the girl had never been to. The girl informed the mother that she drowned there when her “dumb” (mentally challenged) brother pushed her in the river, that she had a bald father named “Herath” who sold flowers in a market near the Buddhist stupa, that she lived in a house that had a glass window in the roof (a skylight), dogs in the backyard that were tied up and fed meat, that the house was next door to a big Hindu temple, outside of which people smashed coconuts on the ground.

Stevenson was able to confirm that there was, indeed, a flower vendor in Kataragama who ran a stall near the Buddhist stupa whose two-year-old daughter had drowned in the river while the girl played with her mentally challenged brother. The man lived in a house where the neighbors threw meat to dogs tied up in their backyard, and it was adjacent to the main temple where devotees practiced a religious ritual of smashing coconuts on the ground.

The little girl did get a few items wrong, however. For instance, the dead girl’s dad wasn’t bald (but her grandfather and uncle were) and his name wasn’t “Herath”—that was the name, rather, of the dead girl’s cousin. Otherwise, 27 of the 30 idiosyncratic, verifiable statements she made panned out. The two families never met, nor did they have any friends, coworkers, or other acquaintances in common, so if you take it all at face value, the details couldn’t have been acquired in any obvious way.

I discussed this once, with a prominent figure in Western Buddhist circles, who dismissed the entire story. He declared that this case, and all cases like it, were coincidences, that the child’s apparent memories were simply things she made up that just happened to resemble the scenario she described.

In fact I know several Western Buddhists who are likewise dismissive of Stevenson’s entire oeuvre. (Belief in rebirth is the major divide between secular and traditional Buddhists, in some accounts.)

In any case, Stevenson went doggedly on with his research, ultimately assembling quite a few thousand such cases. But in this matter, no matter what evidence, a lot of people will simply refuse to accept that such a thing as past life memories could occur, and that there must be another explanation - something I do understand as it's a cultural taboo in the West.

Hi Wayfarer,

In any case, Stevenson went doggedly on with his research, ultimately assembling quite a few thousand such cases. But in this matter, no matter what evidence, a lot of people will simply refuse to accept that such a thing as past life memories could occur, and that there must be another explanation — Wayfarer

Honestly, I do not know Stephenson's research, nor am I qualified to judge it. Were there falsifiables in his research? That is truly all that matters if we are going to claim he had hypothesis.

Science is not about confirming your biases. It is finding that even after you try to disprove your bases by coming up with alternative explanations and tests, that only one thing remains "true". I think that is what some people misunderstand about science. You are trying to disprove your hypothesis to get to a conclusion, not prove your hypothesis.

If Stephenson tried to disprove that reincarnation was the possible explanation using sound hypotheses, and was unable to, then we can say his work was scientific. I do not know his methods, or his hypotheses unfortunately.

If you've noticed, I've tried to come up with a few ways to make reincarnation scientific. But lets follow Stephen's work. I did read a little, and he stated that reincarnation apparently only happened in nearby areas, and that only kids between the ages of 3-5 had any former memories.

We could take his work, and try to repeat it in another area of the world, like Africa, or India. Science is also not an opinion. It doesn't matter if people think, or don't think what you are doing is science. If you meet the definitions of science, you are doing science.

My problem with the OP is they are not interested in proposing a proper hypotheses for reincarnation. They are trying to claim that, "Look, I have a belief that has some evidence, but its not scientific." Exactly. Evidence for your belief is not science. When your belief has survived all attempts to disprove it, then you have science.

Were there falsifiables in his research? That is truly all that matters if we are going to claim he had hypothesis. — Philosophim

Sure. If you could show his results were bogus, then you would falsify the children's claims. That's what I kept saying to MF. His cases comprise thousands of alleged memories that have been checked against documentary and witness accounts. Prove they're fallacious, and you've falsified his research.

Science is not about confirming your biases. It is finding that even after you try to disprove your bases by coming up with alternative explanations and tests, that only one thing remains "true". I think that is what some people misunderstand about science. You are trying to disprove your hypothesis to get to a conclusion, not prove your hypothesis. — Philosophim

Again - sure! The backstory to Stevenson's research is that Chester Carson, who invented xerography, privately endowed a Chair at the University of Virginia to engage in this research program. This was partially because Carson's wife was a theosophist, and they had interests in suchsubjects.

But Stevenson himself had previously been a professor of psychology, and as far has he was concerned, he was simply following an empirical research program. Which is that, there are children - from many regions, not just the East, although it is reported more frequently in Eastern cultures - who would say, as soon as they could speak, things like 'you are not my parents! This is not my family! My name is so-and-so from I'm from such and such a place'. He would record the interviews, then try and validate what the children said by investigating their stories. How is that not 'empirical'?

If you meet the definitions of science, you are doing science. — Philosophim

As I've said, I think Stevenson's research meets all the criteria, except for one: the subject matter! That's the point! If you read the Wikipedia entry you will come away convinced that he was fraudulent - and that's because the predominant belief in the culture in which Wikipedia is edited, is that reincarnation is a fringe belief and that such research must be pseudo-science because of its subject matter.

He would record the interviews, then try and validate what the children said by investigating their stories. How is that not 'empirical'? — Wayfarer

Such duplicity! Not less than a few days ago, in a post to me, you were discarding the whole of neuroscience because it's results could not be exactly replicated under precise laboratory conditions with control groups and proper statistical analysis. Now you're trying to claim 'having a chat' counts as the sort of evidence we should be taking seriously?

Such duplicity! Not less than a few days ago, in a post to me, you were discarding the whole of neuroscience because it's results could not be exactly replicated under precise laboratory conditions with control groups and proper statistical analysis. — Isaac

Such misunderstanding! The whole point of the other conversation was entirely different. What I was arguing about then was that you couldn't understand the faculty of reason by analysing neurological data. This is a completely different situation and argument. (By the way, do you have any knowledge of or views on Hacker and Bennett's book, Philosophical Foundation of Neuroscience? It seems to me that it suggests the kinds of criticisms that I was making in that other, entirely unrelated thread.)

What I was arguing about then was that you couldn't understand the faculty of reason by analysing neurological data. — Wayfarer

The idea you were attempting to refute is irrelevant. The point is simply that the level of replicability you were criticising neuroscience for lacking was already way above the level of replicability you're here saying is unjustified as a reason for rejecting ideas about past lives. If neuroscience can say little about reason because it's results are difficult to replicate, then the same must be true of Stevenson. I'm aware of the fact that you presented other reasons why you think neuroscience cannot speak about the faculty of reason (which I also disagreed with), but that doesn't detract from the fact that you tried to discredit their results using the replication crisis. That, in itself, is duplicitous if you then ask people to take conclusions seriously from an even less rigorous source.

By the way, do you have any knowledge of or views on Hacker and Bennett's book, Philosophical Foundation of Neuroscience? It seems to me that it suggests the kinds of criticisms that I was making in that other, entirely unrelated thread. — Wayfarer

I have read excerpts from it. It think a lot of it is actually quite good, but that's definitely off topic here. Here we're talking about the extent to which the scientific method can be applied to past lives. I think we need to be careful about having a double standard for our acceptance of experimental evidence.

I'm aware of the fact that you presented other reasons why you think neuroscience cannot speak about the faculty of reason (which I also disagreed with), but that doesn't detract from the fact that you tried to discredit their results using the replication crisis. That, in itself, is duplicitous if you then ask people to take conclusions seriously from an even less rigorous source. — Isaac

It's a completely different issue. 'The nature of reason' is a philosophical question par excellence. I dispute that it will ever be subject to empirical analysis, for the Kantian reason that without reason there can be no empirical method. The faculty of reason is not something you're ever going to see in data, because it is of its nature abstract, and because you can only ever find it by using it. 'What is reason?' might constitute an entire semester in philosophy, without ever coming to a conclusive answer.

Whether a child 'remembers' that was in a red sports car that came off the road and killed him in a 'previous life', is a simple empirical claim. You go back and find records that correspond with the alleged memory. You either find them, or you don't.

It's a completely different issue. 'The nature of reason' is a philosophical question par excellence. I dispute that it will ever be subject to empirical analysis, for the Kantian reason that without reason there can be no empirical method. The faculty of reason is not something you're ever going to see in data, because it is of its nature abstract, and because you can only ever find it by using it. — Wayfarer

I understand these reasons, they're beside the point. The replication crisis was not raised in support of the above argument (it would be irrelevant to it). It was raised as a completely separate issue attempting to cast doubt on the results of neuroscience in general. It is in this context I'm raising the issue.

If you truly believe that such simple, uncontrolled, un-analysed, unreplicated experiments tell us something about the nature of reality beyond death, then it is duplicitous to raise the replication crisis at all, in any context. It's simply not a crisis as far as you're concerned.

To be clear, you said...

We associate certain areas of the brain with certain types of mental activity because they consistently correlate - the subject reports some type of activity, or is placed in some recognised situation and the same area consistently registers. — Isaac


The drawing of such implications from fMRI studies, especially psychological or ethical implications, is precisely where many major issues of replicability have been found in the ‘replication crisis’. — Wayfarer

And also

The review I linked to draws on a large study of fmri data and raises fundamental questions about its accuracy and replicability in many respects. — Wayfarer

You're clearly here implying that lack of strict rigourously controlled replicability casts doubt on the findings arising from any such experiments. A level of rigour you are now abandoning when the results point toward something you favour.

The underlying issue in the 'nature of ethics' and 'nature of reason' argument is that of neurological reductionism: the contention that by understanding the brain or brain-states, you thereby have an insight into the nature of such higher-order functions as reasoning and ethical judgement. I'm arguing against that on the basis that the nature of reason and ethical judgement is not, in principle, a matter for the sciences generally or for neuroscience in particular.

The relevance of the replicability issue in that context, is simply that it's possible to read all kinds of conclusions into these kinds of studies, because the questions that are being seen through them are themselves so broad or general. I'm not questioning brain science because it's not scientifically sound, but because it's not intended to deal with issues such as 'the nature of judgement'. I really hope you can see that distinction.(The article I linked to makes a similar point.)

I mean, your approach is naturally to look to science, as that's where your training and inclinations lead you. Well and good. I have near and dear relatives who've benefitted greatly from neuroscience, and on the level at which it is useful, it is verging on miraculous. (Hey, it IS brain science). I'm NOT casting doubt on neuroscience qua neuroscience, but on neuroscience qua neural reductionism. Do you get the distinction?

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, I understand that 'belief in reincarnation' is a cultural taboo in the modern West. I'm not arguing that anyone here should believe it. Stevenson is thought to have been a well-meaning dupe by many people, and maybe they're right. But what is philosphically interesting, is that this is because of what he was researching, not the way he went about it. The subject matter itself is controversial, because it goes against many deeply-held beliefs.

That's not how a hypothesis works. Here is the definition of falsifiability. — Philosophim

1. An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
2. A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
3. Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch. — Philosophim

It is not about a failure to observe what we want that makes it falsifiable. It is if we have a clear statement of what would make it false, and cannot meet that standard in our observation. — Philosophim

Well, are you saying the natural deduction rules contraposition and modus tollens are wrong? :chin:

Contraposition
1. P -> Q
2. ~Q -> ~P....1 Contraposition

Modus Tollens
1. P -> Q
2. ~Q
3. ~P......1, 2 Modus Tollens

Well, are you saying the natural deduction rules contraposition and modus tollens are wrong? :chin: — TheMadFool

An honest question. No, science does not, because each of those statements are hyptheses which have falsification, and have not been proven false.

Lets go with Modus Tollens because its easy.

Lets put a falsification statement to Modus Tollens. My hypothesis will be, "if P -> Q, then It can never be P, when its ~Q". Clearly it can be false if I observe that it is ~Q and also P.

So, I try.

~Q
~Q -> P
P -> Q
But this is a contradiction

We have a clearly falsifiable statement, but we are not able to show it to be false. Therefore this hypothesis is both sound, and confirmed.

Now of course we can make more hypotheses, and in fact, science encourages it. I might introduce, "We can say, if P-> Q then P can't ever lead to ~Q"

Turns out after applying that we get P -> (Q v ~Q), and we discover something new while trying to disproving our hypothesis.

To have a viable scientific hypotheses about reincarnation, you need a hypothesis which is falsifiable, and then you must demonstrate that it is not proven false in application.

By all means, feel free to try to prove Contraposition as false. It also has clear circumstances we can think on to show that it is false. If you can't prove it is false, while thinking of situations that would show it to be false, you are doing science, and confirming your hypothesis.