Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
How do you explain this boy's story?
hermitwin
Veteran
The Boy Who Lived Before
0
Comments
http://www.amazon.com/Children-Remember-Previous-Lives-Reincarnation-ebook/dp/B004EYSWWG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1387886658&sr=8-2&keywords=ian+stevenson
I believe he is dead now but for 40 years he went across the planet documenting children who supposedly remember past lives. These children are from a huge variety of cultural and religious backgrounds, not just cultures who believe in rebirth.
It was also interesting to find out that more people apparently believe in rebirth then they do a heaven. I was fascinated to learn about a Muslim sect and a tribe that lives up by the arctic and how they viewed rebirth.
He was always very scientific about it, always airing on the end of some sort of corruption rather then true memories, but there is a certain percentage of the hundreds of children where records were able to be found and so many things come together it makes you go.. wow.
he never came up with any theories as to what the system of rebirth was about, just studied the children, many into adulthood.
90% of the children forget the "memories" by age 10. Those that don't it actually appears to have a fairly negative impact on their lives for the most part.
A lot of buddhists use this work as "proof" of rebirth.. I'd have to submit that in terms of "proof" of some sort of after/previous life, this is about as close its ever going to be.
And most people manage to believe in reincarnation, ghosts, and heaven at the same time. It's fascinating, isn't it?
He was a respectable professor in University of Virginia.
Do you think he would risk his career by embarking on an unscientific research?
It is interesting that people who has no experience doing reasearch has the gall to question the scientific validity of the work of a university professor, of a renowned university, no less.
University of Virginia is ranked No. 2 for 2013 for the best Public School in US.
His research is non-scientific because there is literally nothing that can disprove his theory and because he ignored deep flaws in his methods of gathering data. That isn't just my opinion. And yes, he had a long career investigating parapsychology. He didn't risk his career doing this; this WAS his career and he had lots of private funding by various rich people who also had an interest.
Here is the big flaw: His theory is that evidence of past life memories can best be observed in young children (and also birth marks are supposed to reflect past life traumas, don't forget that huge part of his theory). Now, scientifically, a child can claim to remember things that appear to be from another life due to various reasons. Making things up from pure imagination ("let's pretend" is a universal childhood game). Repeating things he or she observed and overheard. Being coached by adults who don't understand how leading questions can contaminate a response.
So the scientist shows up and asks a bunch of questions and tries to match the answers to details of someone who died. He interviewed thousands. A huge percentage of these he was able to spot obvious coaching and figure out where the child got the details. So those didn't count in his study. He threw those away. He pointed to the tiny percentage where the link was not obvious to him and claimed that he'd succeeded. In what? Even those cases, the scientists who took a closer look at some of them discovered more obvious reasons why the child's statements did not match what we actually knew. So he simply threw out those cases and pointed to the remaining ones as proof of his theory. Quite simply, this is a case where only positive results are counted and no amount of negative results can ever have an effect on his overall conclusion.
I very against the scientific establishment having narrow minded views on things and i see nothing wrong with examining any phenomenon.
Scientific breakthroughs are made not by scientists who work on ccomfortably accepted topics, but by those called quacks who followed a differnt path.
I think I upset you because you're a fan of the guy or his research. If you believe he's a visionary that is misunderstood by the rest of the scientific world, then just count me as one of the skeptics that failed to appreciate his genius. Neither I nor the other skeptics of the world really spend a lot of time debating the scientific evidence for the paranormal.
Dr. Stevenson's final conclusion, based on the interviews I read and in his own words, seemed to be that he had provided "evidence for reincarnation, but not compelling evidence".
The only way we'll know for sure is after we die. And at that point, we won't be able to communicate with anyone here, except the rare bona-fide spirit medium, and hardly anyone believes them, so there's no way to prove anything. So it's up to each person to decide based on their own reasoning and reading of research, testimony, and so forth.
@hermitwin, thanks for this very interesting video. Birth and rebirth cycles (or samsara) is the basic belief in Buddhism. I am surprised at some comments that didmissed it. After all, we are in the Buddhist forum. Or are we not?
Until then one life. Then we die.
Kind of NT1 but also kind of important to make progress into the Path . . . which I do trust and find working as advertised without the fairy dust and tinsel . . .
and now for a science anthem:
I believe I can fly
I believe I can touch the sky
I think about it every night and day
Spread my wings and fly away
I believe I can soar
I see me running through that open door
I believe I can fly
I believe I can fly
I believe I can fly
I am arguing against unfair criticism of a scientist by people who are not scientists largely because of their own prejudices.
There is no evidence to suggest that Stevenson was a Buddhist or believer in reincarnation.
Here was a scientist who investigated what others claimed to be cases of reincarnation.
He adhered to the scientific rigours of an objective research. He had nothing to gain by being bias for or against proof of reincarnation.
He investigated the cases and he reported what he found. And he is maligned by people who do not understand how scientific research is conducted.
I personally take no position on whether his research came to accurate conclusions. I am skeptical that his studies show what you want them to show.
Mind you, if you are familiar with the academic environment. If stevenson’s research was so flawed, it would have been rejected by the university of Virginia. He would have lost all his credibility amongst his peers.
It is too easy to make baseless claims.
Besides which, I have taken no position on whether his work is valid or not. I said, "Stevenson's work has been lauded by some, but heavily criticized by many." Is there something untrue about that statement. Or is his work accepted by most scientists? If you believe that, then you are welcome to show me some references...since that is the tack you are taking.
What is untrue about my statement that, "I think you have missed that there were many in the scientific community who were very ambivalent toward his work. In fact, one of the criticisms was that he did not follow strict scientific research protocols." If you've read much about him and his work, then you know that that is a fair statement.
But finally, I go back to something I said previously: "I personally take no position on whether his research came to accurate conclusions." As to reincarnation or rebirth, I am open-minded. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the two concepts. I have read nothing to prove it either way.
be prepared though, the books are scholarly... ie pretty damn monotonous and boring for such an interesting subject LOL.
http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html
. . . and another view that might be of interest . . . before the usual defence/attack mechanism incarnates again . . .
http://blog.paradigm-sys.com/buddhism-reincarnation-science-parapsychology/
Be kind guys, we are all on the side of dukkha as a scientific truth . . . m m m . . . perhaps . . .
:wave:
In my personal opinion Stevenson was not aware enough of confirmation bias. He was looking critically at the cases that he investigated (though some would say it wasn’t critical enough) but he didn’t really have a critical look at his hypothesis at all. All he was looking for was confirmation.
And he did seriously believe in reincarnation before he started investigating it; he was raised with the idea.
Stevenson couldn’t find -in some rare cases – the alternative explanation for the past-life tales that children “spontaneously” came up with. For those rare cases his explanation was – putting it mildly -insufficient. He had no clue at all how reincarnation could work.
In my own confirmation biased mind this looks a lot simpler. All the stories have an alternative explanation. In many cases this explanation can be found; it is either wishful thinking combined with asking children a lot of leading questions, or it is fraud.
In a few cases the flaw in the story is difficult to find, but there’s a good explanation for that.
Never the researcher is actually there when for the first time children express fragments of what later becomes “the memory”. There is always room for contamination of the raw material. The fact that we can’t always put our finger on where and how this contamination took place proves nothing.
People love to say they are skeptics, thinking that means they are not gullible. But to me it means their minds are closed.
If science cannot explain this phenomenon it just means science is lacking, not that the phenomenon doesn't exist.
So it seems no amount of evidence is enough to convince me that we have scientific proof of reincarnation/Heaven/ghosts/etc? A famous quote is that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Anecdotes and strange coincidences almost never rise to the level of proof needed. Flawed studies that leave open other, more realistic conclusions do not rise to that level. We already know people can fool themselves when it comes to seeing evidence for their beliefs when none exists. Show me proof that this time, it's not just the usual bag of wishful thinking and errors in thinking that all the others turned out to be, and I'll be shouting for joy.
The biggest error is thinking most of us skeptics don't want to believe. That's entirely wrong. I really do want it to be finally proved that an afterlife or spirits or some God actually exists. I really do. If we had actual proof that scientists could replicate, or undeniable evidence that reincarnation existed or Heaven and Hell were real or God appeared and told us to cut it out and get back to worshiping Him, then people can stop arguing about it, stop killing people over fighting who has the true belief, and get on with our lives. Just think how that would change the world!
And I'm willing to admit this blindness to what seems obvious to others behind their beliefs might be a fault in me. I am also color blind, and have to take it on faith that the red shirt I am wearing is not the same color as the green tie. Maybe some mechanism in my mind that creates belief when necessary is lacking. I've spent my life around true believers and it does feel like they are seeing something that I can't.
We put our faith in science, yet its limitations are the reason most people still seek answers elsewhere. When phenomena occur that defy scientific laws they should stimulate our interest and wonder, not trigger the rejection reflex.
Yes, on the one hand, we are selective on what needs to be proved. There are many things we just accept. But when things become more controversial, when things are the most significant, then we want some higher level of proof.
But in your example of the sun rising, you put the emphasis on the part of the scientific method that is key to the whole concept. Replication. That particular replication occurred 365 times last year. Approximately 23,360 times in my lifetime. And guess how many times that replication did not occur in my 64 years. Exactly 0 times. In fact, in all of recorded history, 100% replication, 0% failed replication. 100% replication. That's as good as scientific proof gets.
Now, turning to something more nebulous -- prayer. 100% replication of success by praying. No. Absolutely not. Little replication. But the good scientist would not say "Prayer does not work". He would say there is no reliable evidence that prayer works. He doesn't reject. He leaves the door open because, yes, there are things that happen that science is unable to prove.
I know a psychologist who ran into a client just as the client's 3-year old child was getting exasperated with her father, saying "The LAST time, when I was the mommy and you were the little boy, you had to do what I said!" An overactive imagination? Maybe. But maybe not.
What do we know about sidhis and tummo? If it exists and we haven't measured it maybe it is because people who practice those things keep it secret for our own good.
you would not need other's evidence to know that there were past births of your own
then
that is 100% confidence
Yogic flying or 'full lotus hopping' does not seem to be so verifiable, other siddhis . . . develop spontaneously through practice and service.
:scratch: