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. — Wayfarer

I think you do not have a clear grasp of what falsifiable means. Falsifiable does not mean you prove something false. Falsifiable is when we can invent a scenario in which it would be false. We then experiment, trying to show that it is false. If we CANNOT show it is false, then we have confirmed our hypothesis.

Check the conversations between TheMadFool and myself on defining what a hypothesis and falsification are about.

As I've said, I think Stevenson's research meets all the criteria, except for one: the subject matter! — Wayfarer

If you think his research meets the criterion, you must show it to be falsifiable. There is a mental trap we can fall into where we blame people who don't believe what we believe, as somehow being unreasonable. It is likely true that there are scientists who scoff at his research while not looking at it. But, if he submitted his research findings to peer review, then a journal would seriously analyze his methods to see if they were scientific. You don't think reincarnation as a viable field wouldn't be cool or profitable to many scientists out there looking for grants and jobs?

If you want to prove the scientists wrong, its very simple. Look at his research and think on falsifiables. Here's one for example, "If a child or the parent is not aware that the study is about reincarnation, and we ask uncoached questions about having a previous life, 1 out of 500 children between the ages of 3-5 will report having a previous life that we can find a 70% match to."

I read a little bit about his stuff, and his 1 out of 500 cases was about the frequency he was able to get of reincarnation.

We can then refine his hypotheses, "If the above criteria are met, and we are to be certain that the 1 500 chance is not random chance, we do not expect more than 1 in (some statistical max) to report on a previous life that does not meet a 70% match".

And so on. They physics we use to type on the internet hasn't been proven true. No one has ever been able to prove it false. THAT is what falsifiable means. That is what science does.

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. — Philosophim

:lol:

Thanks

It seems that a theory of reincarnation that's based on the existence of verifiable memories of past lives is unfalsifiable, ergo isn't a scientific theory. — TheMadFool

Even unscientific theories can be true. Also, if a person remembers a past life how can we be sure it is their past life? It may be someone else's life they are remembering.

Well if a crying smiley face is the best you can reply with, then you're letting us all know you're not interested in a civil and intelligent discussion. That's a shame, you struck me as someone who would better than that.

Well if a crying smiley face is the best you can reply with, then you're letting us all know you're not interested in a civil and intelligent discussion. That's a shame, you struck me as someone who would better than that. — Philosophim

Sincerest apologies but there really isn't anything you can say against contraposition or modus tollens in re its application in the scientific method.

Sincerest apologies but there really isn't anything you can say against contraposition or modus tollens in re its application in the scientific method. — TheMadFool

Do not post false apologies; actually address the point. I never said anything against these logic proofs in the application of science.

We're on the philosophy forums, a place where we expect a little higher quality of communication and behavior. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of science. If you believe this to be in error, then address this accusation seriously. Whether right or wrong, you will have respect for showing intellectual honesty and a respectful debate. If not, you will come across to people not as TheMadFool, but simply TheFool.

Falsifiable does not mean you prove something false. Falsifiable is when we can invent a scenario in which it would be false. — Philosophim

That is an artificial distinction. You're making it more complicated than it is. His hypothesis was: there are children who remember previous lives. Falsification of that hypothesis would be to show they did not remember previous lives.

You don't think reincarnation as a viable field wouldn't be cool or profitable to many scientists out there looking for grants and jobs? — Philosophim

No, it would definitely not be 'cool'. It would be regarded as pseudo-science.

Despite...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." — Wikipedia

That is an artificial distinction. You're making it more complicated than it is. His hypothesis was: there are children who remember previous lives. Falsification of that hypothesis would be to show they did not remember previous lives. — Wayfarer

That is a basic hypotheses that does not cover the reality of reincarnation. That is like saying, "There are children that are happy. It is false if I can never find a child that is happy." Congrats, we know that children are happy.

That does not lead to the conclusion that "Children are happy because God made them so."

Same with reincarnation to your hypotheses. Yes, kids can claim they lived other lives. Now you need to refine your hypotheses. If you claim, "They remember other lives because they are reincarnated," you need to think of ways that you could potentially prove this to be false.

And that's not difficulty. "Can we repeat the findings world wide? Can we rule out that its not a story or coincidence? (Statistics helps with this one). Your problem is you think science is about affirming truths. It has never been about affirming truths. It is about tearing down everything you can until something stands which cannot be torn down. It is about trying to disprove your belief, not confirming your belief.

No, it would definitely not be 'cool'. It would be regarded as pseudo-science — Wayfarer

Of course it would be cool. Do you realize the potential of it? The truths it could open up to the mind? Perhaps there would be a linked human consciousness or a world soul, or even a God. There are PLENTY of interested parties who would be greatly interested in VIABLE scientific theories. You are making an assumption that people didn't bother to check his work. The more likely, and realistic explanation that fits within the way of the world, is that his work did not pass the high bar of science.

Again, I am very willing to accept a viable scientific test that would show that reincarnation could not be shown to be false, and is the only reasonable alternative to certain phenomenon. I would read up on it. Find the core hypotheses that he developed, and examine his testing methods, not just his results. See if out of all the possibilities that could be, you feel that there is no other alternative to reincarnation.

Then come tell me! If you did, I would think it very cool. Until then though, I see no evidence of hard science being done here, only psychology and some wish projection.

Do not post false apologies; actually address the point. I never said anything against these logic proofs in the application of science.

We're on the philosophy forums, a place where we expect a little higher quality of communication and behavior. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of science. If you believe this to be in error, then address this accusation seriously. Whether right or wrong, you will have respect for showing intellectual honesty and a respectful debate. If not, you will come across to people not as TheMadFool, but simply TheFool. — Philosophim

Please understand the following

1. Given a scientific theory T, a prediction is made, say P. In other words : If T then P = T -> P

2. Observing P is confirmation of theory T

3. If P is not observed i.e. if ~P then by modus tollens ~T.

(1) T -> P
(2) ~P
(3) ~T.....1, 2 Modus Tollens

Put differently, not observing the prediction P amounts to a falsification of T.

If this isn't clear, I suggest a book on logic.

Just because something can't be disproven, that doesn't mean it can't be proven

I just grammar edited my last post. We might not be able to disprove that there is a supernatural order, but that doesn't mean we might not find a proof for it someday

To reach a theory, what is considered a theory, there needs to be a lot of evidence and no better explanation. If we reached a place where the scientific community considered there to be sufficient evidence this would mean we has specific details that are considered evidence. Your op does not deal with specifics. Once you get into specifics, yes, it can be falsified.

For example, one of the ways people have gathered some evidence is by interviewing children who know specific details of what the children themselves think of as past lives - who they lived as before. The researchers then investigate the details. Did someone live there with that name, that life, that family - sometimes they can even interview the family. Then they look for alternate explanations - if the child'd knowledge seems way beyond chance, for how that child might know this. They do this with many cases, and try to rule out other ways the child could have what is considered too much correct information about something they couldn't know about.

So you end up with a theory, should it be accepted as one, based on ruling out other explanations.

So individual cases AND the theory in general could be falsified by demonstrating other or better explanations for the knowledge the children have or are supposed to have.

In some ways this would parallel research on what someone might be able to remember from the age of two, only more so. Perhaps the child did not remember what happened when they were two, perhaps they were told by a family member and so on.

Perhaps the statistics supporting the theory are incorrect. This could also falsify the theory.

case by case dismantle, refute the statistics, refute any assumptions or arguments that rule out other ways the children could have 'so much' or so much correct information.

AS researched so far, any theory of reincarnation could be falsified. It can also be judged insufficient which is also the case for many.

Please understand the following

1. Given a scientific theory T, a prediction is made, say P. In other words : If T then P = T -> P

2. Observing P is confirmation of theory T

3. If P is not observed i.e. if ~P then by modus tollens ~T.

(1) T -> P
(2) ~P
(3) ~T.....1, 2 Modus Tollens

Put differently, not observing the prediction P amounts to a falsification of T.

If this isn't clear, I suggest a book on logic. — TheMadFool

First, how about reading and addressing my explanation first? You are talking about things that I am not posting.

I never said those rules were wrong. I stated they can also be scientific, because we can make a hypothesis about them that is falsifiable.

(From my post)

"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."
(Post finished)

And you agree right here: "Put differently, not observing the prediction P amounts to a falsification of T."

So why are you being this way? I'm coming to you as a person who believes in science, and I'm not laughing at your attempts to make reincarnation scientific. I come into your thread, treat you with respect, and you don't bother to return it.

I get it. I made a point that struck a nerve because you realized you might be wrong on what falsification entails. I've been around long enough to know that. But I also invited you to "not be bothered by it, and that I will respect you in your engagement, no matter the end result". I gave you the chance to let go of the immaturity and reengage seriously, but you haven't.

Perhaps you'll be open to mature and serious engagement in other threads, but I'm done in this one. I will be replying to others in this thread, but I think it would be best for both of us if we ignored each others from now on.

Your op does not deal with specifics. Once you get into specifics, yes, it can be falsified — Coben

I'll give you a simple scenario to think about. I'm over at your place for the night. We go to sleep and are woken up by loud noises coming from the bathroom. I say it's a raccoon - this is my hypothesis. How would we falsify it? By entering the bathroom, turning on the lights, and looking for a raccoon, right? No raccoon, my hypothesis is wrong.

In the case of memory-based proofs of reincarnation, the theory is metempsychosis and if that's true, there should be people with memories of past lives. How do we falsify such a theory of reincarnation? By checking for people who remember past lives and if we find none, just like we didn't see a raccoon, the theory should be falsified. Unfortunately, unlike the raccoon scenario, not finding people with memories of past lives does not falsify reincarnation because people could've forgotten, memory being imperfect as it is. In other words, reincarnation theories based on memories is consistent with both people remembering and people not remembering past lifes and so are unfalsifiable.

Sorry.