Past Lives and Regression
- Thread starter CatherineW
- Start date
I personally think all fields should get adequate funding. I'm just stating that non-promising fields tend to get less funding. So far, the hypothesis of a reincarnating soul has zero evidence, and the evidence would need to be quite extraordinary.
That's why I said evidence as well as proof. Some fields do not require absolute mathematical proof. I would expect at least some good evidence to be found, I mean he spent his whole life on it. Science can be difficult, the methods need to be rigorous.
But his methods had flaws. I haven't even read anything about it and I can see that. The anecdotal reports of children are not compelling evidence. Children make up stories, and they do not understand a clear separation between reality and make-believe. I would probably enjoy reading about it, the same way I enjoy the theories of Rupert Sheldrake. It sounds like they both make the same qualifications, they admit their findings could be interpreted in many ways, and that they are far from conclusive.
Last edited:
Well, he found plenty of evidence.
Pretty much every field does not require proof. Math is the exception. I am surprised that someone defending science against the infidels does not now this.
And he was as rigorous as possible given the study subject.
You can see the flaws without having read his work. Wow. You must be psychic. Also your objection above comes as close to mathematically proving you have not read nor do you understand how he went about his work.
Let's note: you are defending science and telling me it is rigorous. Then you make objections about something you have not read, and objections that show you misunderstand what you are talking about. A little role modeling instead of talking out of your ass might be in order.
Sounds like that, hm. I've heard rumors about people's work, too.
And I'll bet I will never read where you admit when you said there is no evidence you were in fact incorrect.
Perhaps you were confusing evidence with proof.
So no evidence is the same as compelling evidence. Interesting. I'll have to remember that. Dr. Stevenson was very cautious given the subject of his research. He knew he did not have enough evidence - notice that phrase - to have reincarnation be considered a theory by other scientists. I am assuming you have not read his work, which is irritating. More irritating is that you did not even read the article you are quoting
further down on the page.....
I mean you guys are just lazy. Sorry.
Perhaps if you guys actually read his work, or hell, even the articles skeptics write in response to his work, we could have an actual discussion.
I mean I know you are the rational, science advocates and everything, but hey
I think your critical thinking skills are pretty messy.
I am guessing you also have no idea how he went about hs work. Hint: that skeptics article is misleading and missing information about how he did his research.
Oh, but I did read the whole article, which you clearly had not read. It misrepresents how he went about his work.
I mean I know it's an internet article and everything so it must be true - sort of like children's stories must be true and that's why, lol, stevenson just wrote them down as if they were - but me I don't assume that these things are always correct.
Call me rigorous.
But keep on talking about work you haven't read. I am sure other people will keep up the dialogue with you.
Me, nah.
Oh, yes, and I like the strategy of not admitting you did not read the article but just snatched the first handy quote that supports your position.
I love the honor in that one.
I'm merely pointing out a glaring flaw in his evidence. I meant to say children do not understand the separation between reality and make believe. To be truly rigorous, the child would have to say something that they could not have otherwise known or invented. Otherwise, the alternative explanation, that they were not actually reincarnated, but simply imaginative- is the more parsimonious explanation.
I should read this scientist's work in order to comment on it, and to that extent, perhaps my statement is unfair. But it seems to be such an obvious fault that I can't help pointing it out. Apparently, other scientists have made the same criticisms.
I could also suggest that the child inherited it's memories genetically. Even that would be controversial, but it makes more sense than a soul. Sure, it's materialistic, but materialism has so far proven unstoppable as a scientific theory.
Either reincarnation is purely material, the recycling of particles, with the added component of human culture, or there is a unique, individual soul that transcends death. I propose this thought experiment. If you copied every particle of a person in atomic detail, would they act the same as the original?
I should read this scientist's work in order to comment on it, and to that extent, perhaps my statement is unfair. But it seems to be such an obvious fault that I can't help pointing it out. Apparently, other scientists have made the same criticisms.
I could also suggest that the child inherited it's memories genetically. Even that would be controversial, but it makes more sense than a soul. Sure, it's materialistic, but materialism has so far proven unstoppable as a scientific theory.
Either reincarnation is purely material, the recycling of particles, with the added component of human culture, or there is a unique, individual soul that transcends death. I propose this thought experiment. If you copied every particle of a person in atomic detail, would they act the same as the original?
unless of course reincarnation has scope to all forms of life, from the microbe upwards.
Why do you assume it's either or?
It would be an interesting experiment, let's hope it works. For the safety of future transportations.
If it's not material, what is it? If it isn't individual, then how can there be a specific set of regressed memories? Of course it would have to transcend physical death with memories intact. We know that any damage to the brain results in loss of memory, so what is the mechanism?
if people cannot provide the mechanism this does not mean they are wrong. If you have no experiences and no one you respect who does, I can certainly understand skepticism. But we should not confuse a believer's inability to provide a mechanism some sort of proof. Phenomena that were experienced by individuals that only much later were confirmed by science, but were confirmed, also had mechanims experiencers could not have provided. See, Rogue Waves for a very concrete example.
Oh?
By the time science proves or disproves reincarnation, you will be long dead, possibly having wasted your time in false expectations, or missing out on something extraordinary about your situation ...
It could be that we somehow can , through our DNA or RNA, pass on certain memories that our ancestors went through. In the future the scientists might be able to determine if this is happening but for the time being it cannot be proven.
Could you come up with 'any possibilities' that made sense, or for which there was evidence? I think not.
'most'? Steady on, that's a wild claim!
My deduction, that I am unconvinced by some badly thought out out horse puckey with plot holes? Holes you haven't explained away, but which actually create more problems? Please, listen to yourself.
Do I need to? If he'd 'proven' re-incarnation, it would be accepted scientific fact. It isn't, so he hasn't, so why would I waste my time?
I don't believe in souls, but you have to, to believe in reincarnation, and then an expanding population is a problem, which hasn't been explained satisfactorily. Come on, don't be so open minded your brains fall out.
I don't have to prove anything, I'm not making the claim. I merely pointed out some holes in the theory, which do not have satisfactory explanations.
Until you come up with sound explanations, and proof, well, yes, the case is closing, ...
That doesn't explain how the numbers add up, does it? Are you trying to say that there are _exactly_ the same number of 'souls' present on Earth at any one time, or some place where they wait?
Got any proof for any of it?
How come you cannot see these answers for yourself?
Do you not think it would have some rather important ramafications, if true?
But you see no value in that?
I think you are just scared to have it disproven. Well, wake up, it already is.