0
   

Can science agree with the concept of life after death?

 
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:03 pm
@Leonard,
jeeprs wrote:
It is true, of course, that some will want the evidence to support reincarnation. It is equally true that some will want the evidence not to support it. Both are pre-judgements, don't you think? It is amazing the things that people are willing to consider if confronted by data that challenges a core belief.


This is the same problem I'm running into with xris above.

The acknowledgment of no evidence is not a pre-judgment. If there's no evidence, it doesn't mean that people are necessarily discriminating against reincarnation. The burden of proof lies on those who are saying it is reincarnation, not on those who say the argument doesn't logically follow that reincarnation exists. No one needs evidence to say there's no evidence for something.

Also, saying there's no evidence does not mean that one can't consider it could exist. Of course, this acknowledgment most of the time means nothing -- I could draw a Hampherfish (a creature I just made up) on a piece of paper and say I shouldn't commit to the belief that it could never exist. By saying that a Hampherfish could exist, am I being open-minded, or just stupid?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:12 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;94488 wrote:
This is the same problem I'm running into with xris above.

The acknowledgment of no evidence is not a pre-judgment. If there's no evidence, it doesn't mean that people are necessarily discriminating against reincarnation. The burden of proof lies on those who are saying it is reincarnation, not on those who say the argument doesn't logically follow that reincarnation exists. No one needs evidence to say there's no evidence for something.

Also, saying there's no evidence does not mean that one can't consider it could exist. Of course, this acknowledgment most of the time means nothing -- I could draw a Hampherfish (a creature I just made up) on a piece of paper and say I shouldn't commit to the belief that it could never exist. By saying that a Hampherfish could exist, am I being open-minded, or just stupid?


"Could exist" might mean, that it is logically possible that the Hamperfish exist. That is, that the notion is not self-contradictory. Or, it can (and usually does) mean that there is some real possibility the HFish exists. Which is to say, there is some evidence that it does. That is actually exists other than a thought or a drawing. It is true that it is not self-contradictory (as far as I know) for the Hfish to exist. But there is no real possibility that it does.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:19 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;94491 wrote:
"Could exist" might mean, that it is logically possible that the Hamperfish exist. That is, that the notion is not self-contradictory. Or, it can (and usually does) mean that there is some real possibility the HFish exists. Which is to say, there is some evidence that it does. That is actually exists other than a thought or a drawing. It is true that it is not self-contradictory (as far as I know) for the Hfish to exist. But there is no real possibility that it does.


That's the distinction I was looking for. Thanks!

That said, I've been provided no evidence that suggests reincarnation is a real possibility. So at best that guy is acknowledging a possibility that may be logical (and I say may be, because I don't even know if the concept of reincarnation is logical), but not a real possibility.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:25 pm
@Leonard,
Stevenson spent somewhere in the vicinity of 30 years working on this information, and was thoroughly versed in empirical research methods, the possibility of fraud, contamination, suggestion, etc etc. He discarded many cases for exactly that reason. The ones remaining are difficult to explain by other means. But note, again, he never said this was 'proof of re-incarnation' - just 'suggestive' of it.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:29 pm
@Leonard,
kennethamy wrote:
You claim that they could not have known these details "by any rational means", by which I suppose you mean that they could have known it only if they actually remembered it. Well, of course that is the issue. The question now is this: what are the chances that the children actually remembered what Stevenson claims they remembered, as contrasted with the chances that there were some misunderstandings, or even fraud committed? I am not denying that it is possible that the children are reincarnated, you understand. What I am saying is that it is more probable that some error was made by the researchers, or that some fraud was perpetuated, than that the children actually remembered what it is claimed they remembered.


Let's assume for a moment the children did in fact remember something relating to these other people, even detailed things.

How does this suggest reincarnation?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:44 pm
@Leonard,
If you interview a child, ask them a number of detailed questions about what they remember, and then go an validate the responses against interviews with witnesses, newspaper archives, etc etc, and the story checks out, what would constitute an alternative explanation? I mean, I suppose you could say that it could be some kind of telepathic episode - some have suggested that - but how is that a better explanation?

Again, what is important here is that there is a body of evidence, empirical data. It is not made up, fabricated, or fraudulent. But many will go to extraordinary lengths to challenge it, simply because it threatens their idea of what is 'normal'. Stevenson, of course, found this all of his life. He was always battling prejudice, unsuccessfully in the end.

People will generally believe what they want to believe.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:56 pm
@Leonard,
jeeprs wrote:
If you interview a child, ask them a number of detailed questions about what they remember, and then go an validate the responses against interviews with witnesses, newspaper archives, etc etc, and the story checks out, what would constitute an alternative explanation? I mean, I suppose you could say that it could be some kind of telepathic episode - some have suggested that - but how is that a better explanation?


I'm not suggesting that I have an explanation. I don't. But there's also nothing suggesting reincarnation is the answer.

Quote:
Again, what is important here is that there is a body of evidence, empirical data. It is not made up, fabricated, or fraudulent. But many will go to extraordinary lengths to challenge it, simply because it threatens their idea of what is 'normal'. Stevenson, of course, found this all of his life. He was always battling prejudice, unsuccessfully in the end.


No, what we have here is just a body of empirical data, not evidence. It's not evidence for anything. It has no 'context', so to say, yet. Also, I'm not suggesting that it was fabricated or fraudulent. It's just unexplained.

Again, again, and again I've stated that I'm not discriminating against reincarnation or anything else simply because it isn't my idea of normal. That is not what is going on. What is going on is that I'm seeing people conveniently offer up random explanations and claiming a few unexplainable occurrences are the supporting evidence, and I'm calling them out. It's speculation, nothing more.

And it's not that I'm saying speculation is even bad, but should we consider this "real possibility" thing? I mean, I could speculate anything I want right now. What if there's a being who lives on a planet a few thousand light years away who's channeling these memories into the children's brains? I'm speculating, and why is reincarnation considered any less absurd?

Quote:
People will generally believe what they want to believe.


Indeed, and that's what I'm saying. People tend to filter the world to confirm what they already believe.

That said, I think scientists should consider what happened and attempt to discover an explanation. This requires that the occurrences be reproducible - so it's time to look for another group of children.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 07:16 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;94496 wrote:
Let's assume for a moment the children did in fact remember something relating to these other people, even detailed things.

How does this suggest reincarnation?


I suppose that if they remembered, then they were there at the time. And if the time was before they were born, that does suggest reincarnation.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 07:18 pm
@Leonard,
"There is nothing suggesting reincarnation is the answer". Can I ask, have you actually read any of Stevenson's work? If, not having read any of the evidence, you decide, in advance, that Stevenson cannot have been correct in suggesting re-birth as an explanation how can this amount to anything other than a pre-judgement? You are basically dismissing an explanation without really having considered the evidence.

There are people engaged in this research here and there in the world. As I remarked previously, it is a fast track to obscurity from a career viewpoint, unless, of course theCIA find a way to exploit it.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 07:25 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;94499 wrote:
If you interview a child, ask them a number of detailed questions about what they remember, and then go an validate the responses against interviews with witnesses, newspaper archives, etc etc, and the story checks out, what would constitute an alternative explanation? I mean, I suppose you could say that it could be some kind of telepathic episode - some have suggested that - but how is that a better explanation?

Again, what is important here is that there is a body of evidence, empirical data. It is not made up, fabricated, or fraudulent. But many will go to extraordinary lengths to challenge it, simply because it threatens their idea of what is 'normal'. Stevenson, of course, found this all of his life. He was always battling prejudice, unsuccessfully in the end.

People will generally believe what they want to believe.


The question remains, what is more likely: That reincarnation explains the data, or that there is a natural explanation of the data? Imagine the revision in what we (believe) we know, in order to suppose that reincarnation is the correct explanation. One question: Where were these kids in the period between the time when what they are supposed to remember, and the time they did the remembering? And that is but one of the questions that must arise on the hypothesis that these kids were reincarnated. The mind boggles.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 07:45 pm
@Leonard,
Actually, fair question, when I get home from work tonight (AU time), I will try and enter summaries of some of the cases. I do realise it is challenging for many people, but as I have remarked, in Asia everyone just says 'what is the big deal?'
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 09:47 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;94507 wrote:
"There is nothing suggesting reincarnation is the answer". Can I ask, have you actually read any of Stevenson's work? If, not having read any of the evidence, you decide, in advance, that Stevenson cannot have been correct in suggesting re-birth as an explanation how can this amount to anything other than a pre-judgement? You are basically dismissing an explanation without really having considered the evidence.


I've read everything wikipedia and it's derivative links have to offer, but I haven't read any of the books.

Would you like to make a thread on the matter?

I just sat down with three people and we picked, at least what we know of his research, apart. I think I have about hundred questions now.
0 Replies
 
Absolution phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 10:30 pm
@Leonard,
The thing with science, it is a method of seeking. Nothing is predetermined with science. So if there is an afterlife, science would grow to accompany it and would attempt to explain the nature of the after life as well. So no worries!
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 10:50 pm
@Leonard,
That is a nice ideal, but in practise it is completely different. Many aspects of what is considered acceptable to study are culturally determined and most 'mainstream' scientists will regard research into anything reagrded as paranormal with a great deal of suspicion. As you can see from the post above yours, pens are already poised to immediately shred anything I might care to provide about the research findings of Dr Ian Stevenson. The fact that the mainstream is so hostile to these ideas is almost as interesting as the idea itself.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 11:14 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;94526 wrote:
That is a nice ideal, but in practise it is completely different. Many aspects of what is considered acceptable to study are culturally determined and most 'mainstream' scientists will regard research into anything reagrded as paranormal with a great deal of suspicion. As you can see from the post above yours, pens are already poised to immediately shred anything I might care to provide about the research findings of Dr Ian Stevenson. The fact that the mainstream is so hostile to these ideas is almost as interesting as the idea itself.


Doesn't it trouble you that if you were right, most of what we think we know about the world we live it would have to be trashed?
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 01:05 am
@Leonard,
Yes, in that I do not have any material regarding his works (as I had stated), and don't have the time to do that line of research in the near future (as many you may have gathered, my field of research is kind of fixed, and heavy enough as it is) I would greatly appreciate your providing some more information here, jeeprs, on as many of the case studies as possible.

One big factor that seems to come out in what you have said so far (regarding his studies) is that we have a lot temporal/spatial close-quarter events . . .or so it at least appears, so far. That is something that I would tend to see as being questionable (but I'll wait for further information). I tend to think that if we were to have a better clue of something as reincarnation being a natural truth, we'd have much more common and universal evidence for it over a larger range of human and pre-human thought . . . which our best evidence for such cultural groups does not seem to bear out at all. (which tends then, to point to a much more narrow, religious belief-system origin)

However, we will have to keep in mind, nevertheless, exactly what can be more precisely and demonstrateably-so shown to be required for memory formation in and of itself. Firstly, we can state with a high degree of accuracy that memory formation requires a certain brain build, and that with the death of brain cells carrying the formation and chemical necessities for long-term memory building & sustaining, that memory is destroyed. To have that exact same memory, we would have to have that exact same brain build . . . and that will almost totally cause us to have a material degree of exact personality trait.

The concept of reincarnation, however, will be no big deal to worry over, basically, in Asia, in the same way that we can understand that 'going to heaven or hell' is no big deal to worry over in Christendom at large. The fact in and of itself carries no weight, other than as a record of a religious belief-system developed tenet from millennium past. Now, we must test it against the present knowledge of how nature works . . . at least for starters (and then again, as brought out in above posts, it may be that reincarnation would not be the better interepretation of the data and investigation results).
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 01:16 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;94529 wrote:
Doesn't it trouble you that if you were right, most of what we think we know about the world we live it would have to be trashed?


Maybe the world you live in. It doesn't affect my view of the world that much, one way or the other.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 03:46 am
@Leonard,
OK, Ian Stevenson. This case is taken from Old Souls, by Thomas Shroder. Old Souls is a journalistic account of several field trips Shroder took with Stevenson in the 90's to Lebanon and India where he observed some of the interviews and recorded his experiences.

To recap, Stevenson held a privately-funded chair at the University of Virginia in the 'Department of Perceptual Studies', a unit mainly concerned with studies of what are commonly known as 'paranormal phenomena'. Stevenson researched children who remembered their previous lives and in the course of his career, investigated over 3,000 cases over 35 years. His modus operandi was to interview the children and their families and try and corroborate their stories. He was meticulous in his methodology and skeptical in his own way, with a file he kept in his office of 'extravagent claims', with many cases who claimed to have been Jefferson or Naploean or Mary Magdalene and the like (1). He was said to have discarded far more cases than he finished on the grounds they were either fraudulent or couldn't be documented.

According to his obituary 'His magnum opus [was] a 2-volume, 2268-page monograph reporting over 200 cases in which highly unusual birthmarks or birth defects of the child corresponded with marks, usually fatal wounds, on the previous person.

Dr. Stevenson saw this research as indicating a possible third factor, in addition to genetics and environment, in the development of human personality. His emphasis, however, was always on the evidence, and his greatest frustration was not that other scientists dismissed his interpretations of the evidence, but that most of them did so without even bothering to read the evidence that he had so painstakingly assembled.' (2)

He retired in around 2004 and died in 2007.

Now extracting cases from the Old Souls book is quite time consuming as it is written as a narrative rather than case studies. However, one was that of Daniel Jirdi, a Lebanese boy who, from the time he could speak, claimed to remember his previous life as one Rashid Kardegge, a mechanic who had died in a car accident outside Beirut, 18 months before Jirdi's birth. He was first interviewed at age 9 during which interview he gave details of who was in the car, where they were travelling to, and the circumstances of the accident. Prior to this, from the age of 2-3, he remembered the name Rashid Kardegge, that he had lived in a town called Kfarmatta, which he had not visited, but could pronounce. He remembered details of the previous life, such as his occupation, and so on. His family were Druze, and the Druze accept re-incarnation; however the father had claimed to be skeptical. One weakness in this case was that the families had met before Stevenson did the first interview; in this meeting, the child appeared to know Rashid's sister and called out her name as soon as he saw her.

Subsequently a newspaper clipping of the accident was located, with great difficulty, on microfilm, by Stevenson's researchers, which neither family had seen. It confirmed some details of the accident which were unknown to any of the family, but which Daniel had been able to give an account of.

There are a number of other cases in Shroder's book. The pattern is always the same; child, usually from when they can speak, claims to be in the 'wrong family' or says 'you are not my mother', etc. Many of the cases in India involved a lot of travel on very poor roads to remote villages. Stevenson was meticulous in cross-checking, interviewing, digging up press stories, and the like. As mentioned above, he found a number of cases where children had birthmarks corresponding to the site of fatal injuries in the previous existence. These were always sort of 'trophy cases'. There are also a number of cases which were closed due to lack of corroboration or the possibility of fraud, and so on. But the most solid of the cases are very difficult or impossible to explain by other means, as I note below.

Reactions - as observed previously, most scientists ignore Stevenson. A skeptical researcher, Paul Edwards, wrote a book called Reincarnation: A Critical Examination, highly critical of the concept of reincarnation. He was obliged to acknowledge, however, that Stevenson's responses, correspondence, documentation and general demeanour were always extremely thorough and professional, which left him with no choice but to claim that all the children interviewed, and their parents, the witnesses, and so on, were lying, consciously or otherwise. In itself, this is interesting, because it shows that the best the most skeptical and diligent of researchers could come up with about Stevenson's data was that it was all a massive conspiracy of some kind; the implications of the evidence itself could not be disputed. (There have been suggestions that they were a result of some kind of 'telepathic transfer of information' however this is obviously no less outlandish than the re-incarnation you are trying to disprove.)

My take - I didn't finish the Old Soul's book. Once you get over the fact that re-birth might actually happen, it is not that exciting (I hate to admit). But I encourage anyone interested to look into Stevenson's work and form their own view; I certainly don't want to persuade anyone reading this post that 'reincarnation occurs' but I would take exception to any suggestion that Stevenson was fraudulent, sloppy, mislead, or deluded, simply because what his data suggested 'could not possibly be the case'. He always conducted himself with a considerable degree of professional diligence and went to a lot of trouble to ensure that the evidence he collected would stand up to critical scrutiny, and I for one would like to honour that.

1. indeed one of the compelling, and somewhat poignant, facts about Stevenson's cases is the extremely ordinary nature of the remembered lives; far from being celebrities or princesses, most of the remembered lives were exceedingly ordinary and often ended in tragic or futile circumstances.
2. http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/publicationslinks/Stevenson-s-Obit-Emily.pdf
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 04:00 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;94507 wrote:
"There is nothing suggesting reincarnation is the answer". Can I ask, have you actually read any of Stevenson's work? If, not having read any of the evidence, you decide, in advance, that Stevenson cannot have been correct in suggesting re-birth as an explanation how can this amount to anything other than a pre-judgement? You are basically dismissing an explanation without really having considered the evidence.

There are people engaged in this research here and there in the world. As I remarked previously, it is a fast track to obscurity from a career viewpoint, unless, of course theCIA find a way to exploit it.
Exactly the reaction i was referring to. Certain subjects get an automatic reaction in general and most intently by science, it could not possible be true...
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 05:36 am
@Leonard,
xris wrote:
Exactly the reaction i was referring to. Certain subjects get an automatic reaction in general and most intently by science, it could not possible be true...


That's not my reaction.

And I keep clarifying this over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

jeeprs wrote:
Many aspects of what is considered acceptable to study are culturally determined and most 'mainstream' scientists will regard research into anything reagrded as paranormal with a great deal of suspicion.


Kennethamy's point is that scientists, no, people in general, do get over their preconceptions after a while. If there was really enough evidence for an afterlife, it would be accepted eventually by science, like Absolution said. There's no reason not to believe this - look at all the things in science we initially thought couldn't possibly be true, like Galileo's round earth hypothesis, and now are considered mainstream.

Jeeprs and xris, you guys really think scientists would just choose to be ignorant and dismiss evidence because of some deep-seeded prejudice? Then you guys have to explain why, not just by saying the same 'science has a 'mainstream' prejudice' - give me some examples. I have many examples which point to the contrary.

EDIT: Oh, and while you're at it, you have to account for Ian Stevenson, the man in the spotlight here! He has had tons of people evaluate his work, not just dismiss it due to some mainstream prejudice, from what I can see. Some even think his methods were genius.
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 10:46:45