The Debunkers Quest

[ChrisR]

You think that your experiences constitute proof of reincarnation. I don't.

If you could just quote me on where I stated that my memories are proof of reincarnation, I would be very grateful because really, I don't remember saying that, I don't remember anybody on this forum saying that, and that is the crux of what I've been trying to say in my last few posts. Or perhaps you are just seeing the bits that your skeptical mind wants to see? : angel

 

[Aqualung]

If you could just quote me on where I stated that my memories are proof of reincarnation, I would be very grateful because really, I don't remember saying that, I don't remember anybody on this forum saying that, and that is the crux of what I've been trying to say in my last few posts. Or perhaps you are just seeing the bits that your skeptical mind wants to see? : angel

Entirely possible. I'm human. I make mistakes like everyone else.


But I think an equal measure of it is that I really don't know what it is that you believe. Since this is apparently a forum for discussing past lives and memories, though, I thought that it wasn't too much of a stretch to believe that you, personally, took your experiences as proof that reincarnation is real.


If I'm wrong in this, please correct me. I prefer not to make mistakes like that, but I can't if you don't tell me what it is that you do believe.

 

[Nightrain]

One of the underpinnings of skeptical cynics is the ultimate denial that there is any proof of anything that is not within the confines of traditional Newtonian Science. In my opinion numerous qualified researchers have conducted well-ordered and repeatable experiments which give clear indication that there is something beyond what we are able to normally perceive by our senses. This is just one of many papers that are available online.

Extrasensory Models of Cognition
by: Patrizio E. Tressoldi, Lance Storm, Dean Radin


Abstract: The possibility that information can be acquired at a distance without the use of the ordinary senses, that is by “extrasensory perception” (ESP), is not easily accommodated by conventional neuroscientific assumptions or by traditional theories underlying our understanding of perception and cognition. The lack of theoretical support has marginalized the study of ESP, but experiments investigating these phenomena have been conducted since the mid‐19th century, and the empirical database has been slowly accumulating. Today, using modern experimental methods and meta‐analytical techniques, a persuasive case can be made that, neuroscience assumptions notwithstanding, ESP does exist. We justify this conclusion through discussion of one class of homogeneous experiments reported in 108 publications and conducted from 1974 through 2008 by laboratories around the world. Subsets of these data have been subjected to six meta‐analyses, and each shows significantly positive effects. The overall results now provide unambiguous evidence for an independently repeatable ESP effect. This indicates that traditional cognitive and neuroscience models, which are largely based on classical physical concepts, are incomplete. We speculate that more comprehensive models will require new principles based on a more comprehensive physics. The current candidate is quantum mechanics.

For those genuinely interested in reading more on these subjects, you may find considerable material, which may help to debunk the debunkers:


Dr. Ian Stevenson


Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, University of Virginia Press, ISBN 0813908728, 1966.


Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, (second revised and enlarged edition), University of Virginia Press, ISBN 9780813908724, 1974.


Cases of the Reincarnation Type Vol. I: Ten Cases in India, University of Virginia Press, 1975


Cases of the Reincarnation Type Vol. II: Ten Cases in Sri Lanka, University of Virginia Press, 1978


Cases of the Reincarnation Type Vol. III: Twelve Cases in Lebanon and Turkey, University of Virginia Press, 1980


Cases of the Reincarnation Type Vol. IV: Twelve Cases in Thailand and Burma, University of Virginia Press, 1983


Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects Volume 1: Birthmarks and Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects Volume 2: Birth Defects and Other Anomalies. (2 volumes), Praeger Publishers, ISBN 0-275-95282-7, 1997


Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect. Praeger Publishers, ISBN 0-275-95282-7, 1997. (A short and non-technical version of Reincarnation and Biology, for the general reader)


Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation, (revised edition) ISBN 0-7864-0913-4, 2000, (A general non-technical introduction into Reincarnation research)


European Cases of the Reincarnation Type. McFarland & Company, ISBN 0786414588, 2003


Telepathic Impressions: A Review and Report of 35 New Cases, University Press of Virginia, 1970


Unlearned Language: New Studies in Xenoglossy. University of Virginia Press, ISBN 0813909945, 1984


Xenoglossy: A Review and Report of A Case, University of Virginia Press, 1974


A World in a Grain of Sand: The Clairvoyance of Stefan Ossowiecki, ISBN 978-0-7864-2112-1, (with Mary Rose Barrington and Zofia Weaver), McFarland Press, 2005.


Dr. Dean Radin Entangled Minds


The Conscious Universe


Dr. Larry Dossey The Power of Premonitions


The Extraordinary Healing Power of Ordinary Things


Healing Beyond the Body


Reinventing Medicine


Be Careful What You Pray For...


Prayer is Good Medicine


Healing Words


Meaning & Medicine


Recovering the Soul


Space, Time & Medicine


Dr. Russell Targ Limitless Mind


Mind Reach (Co-authored with Dr. Harold Puthoff)


Joseph McMoneagle The Stargate Chronicles


Remote Viewer 001


The Ultimate Time Machine


Remote Viewing Secrets


Dr. Gary Schwartz The Afterlife Experiments


The Energy Healing Experiments


The G.O.D. Experiments


Dr. Charles Tart The End of Materialism


Michael Newton Journey of Souls


Memories of the Afterlife


Destiny of Souls


Life Between Lives


Dr. Roger Woolger Other Lives, Other Selves (1987)


The Goddess Within (1989)


Healing Your Past Lives (2004)


Body Psychotherapy and Regression in Tree


Dr. Helen Wambach Reliving Past Lives


Life Before Life


Dr. Carl G. Jung Psychology and the Occult


Synchronicity


The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious


Man and His Symbols


Undoubtedly the Skeptical Dictionary has already tried to discredit some of the above people because some of them tried LSD, were associated with the Theosophical Movement, or employed a dishonest interpreter. However, the overall effect of their bickering does not drown out the growing perception that there is something out there that we are not yet able to understand or quantify. Ultimately those who do not know...cannot! And those who KNOW...understand!

 

[Sunniva]

I would like to add a few articles by Jim B. Tucker, who is the medical director of the Child and Family Psychiatry Clinic, and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia.Jim B. Tucker's bioDue to the size of the pdf I can only upload one, but if you follow this link to google scholar hopefully there are a few more articles on top of the list. This is not meant for you to deflate, but as examples of how the research is actually conducted in the field.

View attachment jse_19_1_keil.pdf

jse_19_1_keil.pdf

 

[Aqualung]

In my opinion numerous qualified researchers have conducted well-ordered and repeatable experiments which give clear indication that there is something beyond what we are able to normally perceive by our senses.

Ah, but this is the most important question: is your opinion correct?

This is just one of many papers that are available online.

Unfortunately, it isn't exactly great evidence of ESP. It's really nothing but fluff around the list of meta-analyses, which are also not great evidence. For some information why, and an explanation of why the Honorton meta-analysis in particular is untrustworthy, you might be interested in this link.

Undoubtedly the Skeptical Dictionary has already tried to discredit some of the above people because some of them tried LSD, were associated with the Theosophical Movement, or employed a dishonest interpreter.

I've never seen anyone try to debunk the results of a study based on the past activities of its conductors - unless, of course, their past activities were falsification of studies. I certainly haven't seen the Skeptic's Dictionary site attempt to do so.


I'm out of time for now, and I don't think I would ever be able to work through that entire massive list anyway. Thank you for the links, though, both of you; I'll check them out if I have time.

 

[dlorde]

This is just one of many papers that are available online.

Extrasensory Models of Cognition
...

I started reading this, and discovered that from the introduction they talk about the relation between quantum mechanics and consciousness, starting with the idea that consciousness 'collapses the wave function', which has long-ago been dropped (now we understand more about the whole business - I'm happy to explain if anyone's interested). The historical time line is correct, but QM has moved on. In the next section, they suggest that supporting evidence for QM and consciousness being connected is that the way certain neural circuits involved in perception process their inputs can be characterised using a quantum rather than a classic formalism. Leaving aside that relation between these specific low-level processes and consciousness is not explained by the authors, the suggestion that a having a QM formalism in common means a some kind of connection, is equivalent to saying coastlines and plants are connected because their shapes share a fractal formalism, or that the breeding of rabbits, the spirals of shells, and the curve of waves are connected because they share a Fibonacci formalism... :freak:


But they do this kind of thing all the way through - pulling in various unrelated snippets of QM, taking them out of context and suggesting they support ideas to which they have no apparent relevance. The paper is laid out on a very conventional way, and looks the part, with plenty of references, but these opening 'musings about analogies and possibilities' are disturbing - I was beginning to suspect hoax, but the references check out. A decent referee should have picked up the QM formalism mistake at least (as should the authors).


Given the quality of their introductory comments, I find it hard to put much faith in their meta-analysis, which is notoriously difficult to do well (particularly open to selection & confirmation bias).


There may well be a connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics, but this paper doesn't help shed any light - in fact it's very disappointing.


ETA: looking at the Journal of Quantology website, they appear to espouse a common misunderstanding of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM (Bohr's 'Complementarity') despite that Bohr himself flatly denied the that the subject has any direct impact on the outcome of a measurement


Ouch... I didn't want to make it a rant - it just happened: angel


Sorry.

For those genuinely interested in reading more on these subjects, you may find considerable material, which may help to debunk the debunkers:
...

Wow, that's quite a list! Some infamous names, too - Targ & Puthoff, C.G. Jung... Don't know whether to start with them or leave them to the end

 

[dlorde]

...
Then I came across a site that actually offered sceptics money to prove that there was no afterlife - very interesting indeed. I wonder why no sceptic has ever won that prize!

Because, although you can (in principle) prove that there is an afterlife, it's impossible to prove there isn't It's the 'Black Swan' problem.

 

[dlorde]

...
This is not meant for you to deflate, but as examples of how the research is actually conducted in the field.

Attached Files
jse_19_1_keil.pdf (72.9 KB, 3 views)

In the discussion section of that paper, they have some very interesting figures for child reincarnation reports:

The median distance between subject and previous personality is 14 km, and only a handful of cases involve a distance of more than 500 km. The interval of about 50 years between the death of the previous personality and the birth of the subject is unusual as well, though not unique. While the median time is only 16 months, there have been a few cases with a similar time span.

This seems a fair bit different from the adult reports I've seen - do you know if anyone has looked at the differences between


reports at different ages?


I'm wondering if they widen geographically and temporally with age, or whether are there qualitative differences between child reports and adult reports?

 

[Sunniva]

Hiya

Do you know if anyone has looked at the differences between reports at different ages?

To my knowledge no one has done that, but it would make an interesting study. However, I suppose one of the reasons why it hasn't been done (yet) is that the group of adults, who claim to remember past lives actually is very small, while the number of children is quite large. That would obviously cause a discrepancy in the comparison of the two groups that would make the results of such a study unreliable.


A study conducted by E. Haraldson of Reykjavik University showed that out of all the individuals Ian Stevenson had interviewed in childhood about their possible past life memories about 45% still claimed to have some or clear memories, while 51% claimed that they had no memories at all.


Of the 45%, after further questioning, one revealed to be unsure of the source of the memories, another only remembered talking about a past life and one revealed that she might only remember, because her memories had been so talked about in her family. Excluding those left Haraldson with 38%, who would affirm that they still had memories of a past life.


Examining the assumed past life memories of the 38% it seemed that memories of death and trauma were more prevalent now than when they were children. Childhood phobias, which were believed to be related to past lives, also seemed to be resistant and in some cases even more resistant than the memories themselves. Of the 38%, who reported still having past-life memories as a continuation of their childhood memories, five stated that they most clearly remembered


persons that they knew in the previous life, four remembered clearly events or circumstances that led to their death, or how they died, and three most clearly remembered what they used to do or sometimes did. When they were asked what they recalled second most clearly, four stated it was the mode of their death. Three subjects stated that it was the people that they had known, three stated what they used to do in their previous life, and two remembered where they had lived.

I'm wondering if they widen geographically and temporally with age, or whether are there qualitative differences between child reports and adult reports?

This would indeed be interesting. In Haraldson's study all the subjects were from Sri Lanka and no mention is made of their actual memories. I'm not the expert to answer your question, I simply haven't read about enough cases to have a qualified answer, but an unqualified answer (based on my experiences on this messageboard) would be that it actually seems to be the other way around, which is something we've often discussed. Geographically, adults tend to remember past lives in a context that is somewhat similar to their present one (i.e. primarily the US and Europe, although memories of past lives outside those places also occur). Based on the stories available on these forums, children at the age of three and four have remembered (supposed) previous lives in e.g. Arab countries and China, while several American children (primarily members on this forum are from the US) have remembered lives in Europe. Chronologically however, adults seem to have much wider span than children.


Sorry for the long answer - I hope you didn't fall asleep


Oh, and by the way if you want the paper about the study by Haraldson, just say so :thumbsup:

 

[dlorde]

However, I suppose one of the reasons why it hasn't been done (yet) is that the group of adults, who claim to remember past lives actually is very small, while the number of children is quite large. That would obviously cause a discrepancy in the comparison of the two groups that would make the results of such a study unreliable.

Yes; it's easy enough to allow for variations of group size in a statistical analysis, but confidence levels do drop off fairly rapidly with decreasing sample size (when you start with small sample sizes).

...
Sorry for the long answer - I hope you didn't fall asleep

Not at all, that was interesting information.

Oh, and by the way if you want the paper about the study by Haraldson, just say so :thumbsup:

Yes please, that would be useful - I'm curious to see the numbers involved, amongst other things. Do you have a link or a reference?

 

[deborah]

Dr. Helen Wambach did studies in the 1970's that you might find useful. Regarding her book:

She approaches her research and studies as a psychologist and it is filled with dates, facts and very interesting stories regarding the regressions she did in the early 1970's. There is a lot of historical research -- and graphs showing the percentage of people in history in relation to memories and that MOST memories..usually 80-90% are not famous or rich people..but poor..common everyday Joe's.

 

[Sunniva]

I'm curious to see the numbers involved, amongst other things.

Hahah, I thought you would. Well, the numbers are fairly small, but from the beginning Haraldson sets out to investigate the cases that Stevenson examined in Sri Lanka only.


I will upload the article later when I'm at another computer :thumbsup:

 

[dlorde]

Thanks both :thumbsup:

 

[Sunniva]

The article is too big for me to upload unfortunately, but here's the reference:


Haraldson, E. 2008. Persistence of Past-Life Memories: Study of Adults Who Claimed in Their Childhood to Remember a Past Life. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 22, No. 3. (pp. 385–393).

 

[dlorde]

The article is too big for me to upload unfortunately, but here's the reference:
Haraldson, E. 2008. Persistence of Past-Life Memories: Study of Adults Who Claimed in Their Childhood to Remember a Past Life. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 22, No. 3. (pp. 385–393).

Thanks for that Sunniva, I found the PDF online, so I'll have a browse. That should keep me quiet for a while...

 

[deborah]

So what did you think of the article dlorde? Have you had time to read it?

 

[dlorde]

So what did you think of the article dlorde? Have you had time to read it?

I did read it, yes, and it was very interesting.


For some reason all the subjects were in Sri Lanka (convenience? - Stevenson's 60s & 70s study subjects were Sri Lankan).


There were only 42 subjects (although as a one-time human biology researcher, I know the difficulties involved in finding subjects!), all over 19 years old, with 30 from the original Stevenson study (so only 12 collated by Haraldsson himself).


Over half (55%) said they no longer have any past-life memories, and 12% were sure they still had. Overall, 38% said they thought they still had some kind of past life childhood memory.


There were some interesting anomalies, e.g. subjects of Stevenson that were traced and interviewed remembered more statements as children than those not interviewed, suggesting that the interviews unintentionally prompted recall statements (either authentic or confabulatory), etc.


Haraldsson says that 'phobias are a common characteristic of children who claim past-life memories', but only 12 connected their fears with past lives, and of those only 7 still had the phobias.


I could go on (there's more!), but the overall impression was that in a small sample size, few still found their past life memories relevant to their adult lives.


So interesting, but ultimately unsatisfying.

 

[Sunniva]

I'm glad you liked the article - I found it quite interesting too.

For some reason all the subjects were in Sri Lanka (convenience? - Stevenson's 60s & 70s study subjects were Sri Lankan).

As I understood it this was specifically a re-investigation of Stevenson's Sri Lanka-cases, so it was not merely a question of convenience

So interesting, but ultimately unsatisfying.

I agree, but I do think that the study shows some interesting tendencies. I find it equally interesting that some of the subjects didn't remember anything of their claimed past lives and that some still did as adults.


This was a short study, but it would have been nice to know if there were other patterns among those two groups such as education, social status, mental/physical health, etc. that could hint at a possible reason why some remembered while others did not.


I agree with you to some extend that the study is unsatisfactory. First of all it bothered me that the sample size was so small. Secondly I failed to see the implication of his study (which I suppose is mainly due to the low sample size). I do like his approach of investigating adults, who claimed past life memories as children and I would like to see a more thorough study of this (that is an investigation of a much larger group of individuals from different geographical areas).


However, such a project would take years to complete and would require a large sum of money. At least in my field of academia economy is too often the factor that determines whether a subject will be researched or not and I tend to think that this field suffers under this too.

 

[Nightrain]

Randi's Prize: What sceptics say about the paranormal, and why they are wrong...


Robert McLuhan doesn't have any credentials that he cares to share in order to back up his credibility, but his research and intellectual background is as objective and fair as any that I've encountered regarding the various issues of psi including reincarnation.


He has written a book, "Randi's Prize: What sceptics say about the paranormal, and why they are wrong...", which approaches each issue as a skeptic, but he doesn't stop at that, because he goes behind the substance of each skeptical argument with the instinct of a blood hound. What he finds is remarkable evidence that most skeptical arguments are founded, first, on their firm belief that all psi is either impossible, fraudulent, or misguided. In addition McLuhan shows in many instances, that many of the well-respected skeptics have, themselves, intentionally employed fraudulent, or misapplied logic and statistics in order to not only misinform the public, but to slander legitimate psi research and deprive legitimate scientists of necessary research funding.


What is most remarkable are the number of cases in which skeptics have accused people of the very same behavior that they, themselves, have engaged in. And, it isn't just Robert McLuhan, who has found this information. Much of it has been personally experienced and documented by Russell Targ, Charles Tart, Dean Radin and others.


When one googles information regarding skeptics and the arch-skeptic, James Randi, one is overwhelmed by countless references and information attesting to how we have been saved from the likes of fake psychics and spoon-benders. Mr. Randi's publicity machine has been quite effective with their media releases, but if one looks hard enough, there are some interesting reports detailing his conspiracies to fraudulently discredit the research efforts of scientists.


Why would anyone want to discredit such an innocuous field of inquiry? Some say it is because they want to stamp out any reference that would give evidence of a spiritual consciousness. Perhaps their fear is, itself, evidence of reincarnation, or some kind of memory when church persecution attempted to purge the physical sciences. Up to the 17th Century many people died and were imprisoned trying to prove that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Now, that the physical sciences have finally replaced or overturned church doctrine along with other superstitions, many people will do anything to prevent the reemergence of spirituality on any level.


It is believed by some well-meaning and intelligent people that skeptics help to keep us mindful of objectivity. For this reason skeptics are allowed on many forums and venues in order to project the appearance of balance and objectivity. However, the reality seems to be that the spiritual viewpoint is usually at a disadvantage of being the minority viewpoint, and the only purpose of the skeptics is to maintain superficial doubt without directly addressing the proponent evidence. Most often the skeptics haven't even read the material and they debate it based only on their general opinion that the proponent is either misguided, mistaken or downright dishonest.


I have a problem with people who's purpose in life is to criticize the work of others. Of all the research done in the field of psi and reincarnation, the only research done by skeptics has been sparse, biased and miscalculated. And, when one considers the harm done by skeptics to the reputations of researchers, it is difficult to understand why they still maintain any credibility, themselves. Above all, my greatest beef with skeptics of reincarnation on this Forum is that they tend to make it unsafe for some people to post their questions or share their experiences. Generally, I suspect that most people who come here for the first time are already full of doubt and fear, because their experiences are already not the kind of things they would publicly divulge. And, when the person coming here is a bewildered and desperate parent trying to understand the strange comments coming from their toddler, the very worst thing they want to read anywhere on this Forum is that Reincarnation is a woo-woo belief of fuzzy-brained New Age enthusiasts with too much time on their hands.


I have no doubt that someone will answer this post with demands for sources or comments about the dangers of believing or having too much of an open mind. And, their comments will seem all too reasonable. I can only respond beforehand, that skeptics should do more reading before they comment here, because it is the welfare of the children which is at stake--children, who are presently being told not to mention anything of their memories to anyone else for fear of rebuke--children, who are being punished for telling lies--children, who are being remanded to the care of skeptical doctors--children, who's parents are in desperate need help instead of ridicule.

 

[Florence]

Hi John,


It is my opinion that Mr. James Randi is a fake. He has been around for YEARS.....as long as I have...and has offered one million dollars to anyone who can prove they are psychic or gifted in some manner. No one will ever win that money because he has made his living off of that offer. It is his claim to fame. I sincerely doubt that Mr. Randi even HAS a million dollars. No one any longer offers themselves up for an evaluation as they now realize it just gives him an oportunity to tout HIMSELF.


Years ago Edgar Cayce offered himself to science to try and understand his gift. They pulled off his fingernail and stuck him with pins while he wa in trance to try to prove he was a fake. He was soo angry that he never offered himself again


I have an interesting book. I have had it for years and forgot I had it. It's called "Exploring Reincarnation" by Hans TenDam... It is an immense body of research into the subject. He describes many diferent authors studies and what they believed...such as Cayce, Wambach, Stevenson, Joan Grant, Allan Kardec and many many more. He goes into great detail on both sides of the issue. In the end he sides with Reincarnation....At the end of each chapter he gives a list od additional reading and the authors...


Getting back to Mr. Randi....I have often wondered what his past life was about since he seems to dedicate his entire life to de-bunking everything but his checkbook. It is his passion......

 

[Sunniva]

Hi Nightrain


I know you feel very strongly about this and I respect your opinion, but I have to say that I do not share it.


I can only highly disagree with the general misconception that scientists are the bad guys, who are only out to destroy everything we believe.


First of all, there's no need to victimize ourselves. If we choose to go out into the world and say: here's the truth - take it or leave it! Then we must also accept the reaction. We must also accept that there is no individual truth - there are individual beliefs, but that is different.


Secondly, if we choose to play in 'their' field, that is science, we must play by the rules. Critique is what drives science and instead of becoming insulted we should learn from it. There are many, too many, 'researchers' in reincarnation, who are not serious - so we probably shouldn't throw stones at mr. Randi.


In my work as an archaeologist I meet people regularly, who believe that the pyramids were built by aliens, that Dinosaurs and humans lived together or that a highly advanced civilization ruled the earth from Atlantis thousands of years ago. I am used to being 'on the other side of the fence' when trying to tell them that it can't be, that the facts say otherwise. I am used to being called narrow-minded when I won't accept homebrewed theories and I've been told that I'm part of the big conspiracy to hide the real truth from people. So I'm fully capable of seeing this situation from their, the sceptics and the scientists, point of view.


I am truly sorry if some people feel they can't post their experiences here, because of fear they might be questioned. I have not at any point felt intimidated, this is still a safe place regardless of sceptics being around or not.

 

[Nightrain]

I can only highly disagree with the general misconception that scientists are the bad guys, who are only out to destroy everything we believe.

I may come on strong at times; but it is not because I am distrustful of science. It is only because of my encounters with fanatics who try to abuse science into the role of crushing any evidence of life after death. They are characteristically snide, dishonest, arrogant and incredibly hypocritical when they accuse honest researchers of fraud and gullibility. And, they are no better, in my mind, than the church's inquisition, which finally lost its hold on Western society only a short 300 years ago.


I wonder, from a purely non-scientific point of view, whether such people were not, themselves, the same souls who persecuted witches, herbalists and psychics in the name of the church not that long ago. Their style seems almost the same. And, were it not for the relative freedom we have to express our beliefs today, I am confident that hard-core skeptics would have all such people imprisoned. It hasn't been that long ago that there were laws in the United States against psychics giving readings for any purpose other than "entertainment".


I have the deepest respect for science, and my personal sentiments are deeply appreciative of the sacrifices made by scientists whose efforts have brought us out of the dark ages. However, I would also warn that there lies a danger of establishing in science the same infallible authority that was once given to the Church. We should be constantly vigilant to maintain science as an "ology" rather than an "ism" by which we judge others.


In the same respect, our interest in reincarnation should be with learning and growing, rather than spreading some kind of belief system. I welcome input from any source that helps us to think beyond our pre-conceived notions. However, it doesn't take superior powers of perception to see through the motives of many JREF followers, whose only purpose is to disrupt and discredit those who have dedicated their lives to the research and study of reincarnation and psi phenomenon. One need only read their spurious criticisms and research their motives as Rob McLuhan has done in his book, to see how their activities have slandered legitimate research and held back science in the name of a new God, called "materialism".

 

[Nightrain]

As a follow-up to my previous post in which I compared certain fanatical skeptics to the inquisition, I came across the following quote by Stuart Hameroff:

In November 2006 I was invited to a meeting at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California called “Beyond Belief” (http://beyondbelief2006.org/). Other speakers and attendees were predominantly atheists, and harshly critical of the notion of spirituality. They included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Patricia Churchland, Steven Weinberg (the least venal), Neil deGrasse Tyson and others who collectively vilified creationists and religious warriors. But the speakers also ragged on the notion of any purpose or meaning to existence, heaped ridicule on the very possibility of a God-like entity (and those who believed in such an entity), declared that scientists and philosophers should set society’s moral and ethical standards, and called for a billion dollar public relations campaign to convince the public God does not exist.

You can find the full text here.


Like Hameroff, I have no particular interest in religion. But, it does seem that the fanaticism of some influential scientists is like the Spanish Inquisition in reverse -- the scientists are burning the believers. And, in this case the believers seem to include anyone who even attempts to conduct scientific research into psi phenomenon, or who remains open minded enough to entertain the possible existence of anything not directly measurable.

 

[Sunniva]

(...)declared that scientists and philosophers should set society’s moral and ethical standards, and called for a billion dollar public relations campaign to convince the public God does not exist.

From a sceptic point of view it would make more sense to put out such a reward to someone, who could prove that God does exist . The other way around would be far too easy! : angel :tongue:


I've read your link and I must say that I don't understand it at all : angel Lots of scientific terms and concepts that I don't get, so basically I can't judge whether his arguments are really valid or whether the critics were correct. However, a basic problem I have with the general argumentation and use of science within reincarnation research is that the result is assumed. Whenever a scientific study into reincarnation is conducted it's usually setting out to prove reincarnation or spirituality or God, etc.


Basically, believers don't want the truth unless the truth fits them. If a study was conducted and the result was that reincarnation wasn't actually 're-incarnation', but a psychological effect taking place in a specific center of the brain and that it had nothing to do with spirituality, would we then accept the results?


All the scientific studies on reincarnation that I've read is in my eyes build on a wrong premise, i.e. "we are collecting evidence to prove reincarnation is real". However the consequences of that premise are massive. It means the soul exists, that there is an afterlife and ultimately that some divine being exists. We have no physical evidence to back this up however unless we use what is already known and interpret it so that it fits our theory. An example of this is 'the God Particle'. This term comes from physics and has nothing to do with 'God' or spirituality, but explains a sort of multi-purpose particle. However, certain religious groups have taken this concept and used it as proof that 'God' exists, because 'the real scientists said so' :freak:


Long story short Basically I think we should just accept that reincarnation is faith, not science.

 

[Nightrain]

Randi's Million Dollar Challenge


Very often one will hear the skeptical question being put forth, "If psychic phenomenon is real, why doesn't someone accept James Randi's One Million Dollar Challenge?". Personally, I have to congratulate Randi for contriving such a successful public relations gimmick, for it has seriously turned public opinion in his favor during the past several years.


However, I have read and seen numerous accounts which demonstrate how impossible it would be for anyone to pass his tests. For one thing, he and his representatives either avoid people who could demonstrate certain phenomenon, or he devises tests which purposely sidetrack the demonstration. My own opinion, after seeing him in action, is that he is a proven trickster and mentalist who has already perpetrated hoaxes and was part of a 1977 controversy with other CSICOP members in which the results of a replication experiment involving the Mars Effect were altered by secretly introducing lower quality samples, then writing an article in The Skeptical Inquirer, which diverted attention from their replication experiment by questioning the quality of the original test samples.


In Chris Carter's book, "Parapsychology and the Skeptics", he goes into great detail documenting the history of organized skepticism; and it is easy to see why no one has been able to win the Million Dollar Challenge, and why no good medium in their right mind would ever consider walking into that den of...Well, let's just call them deniers, because "skeptics" is just too good a word. After all, a skeptic is someone who practices a healthy trait of critical judgment. A denier, on the other hand, is usually someone who dogmatically maintains their belief in erroneous information, even when the information has been invalidated.

 

[Green26]

A long read, but an interesting article on the myth of the million dollar challenge:


http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge


I posted this recently on another forum to a skeptic when the topic of some of my paranormal experiences came up and she brought up the subject of the million dollar challenge as put it forward as proof that there are no psychics etc, only con men. I told her Randi himself was a con man and provided this article. She wouldn't even look at it nor respond to my concerns about the challenge, just kept flogging the same old dead horse that there were no psychics, only frauds and Randi's challenge was proof of that. Just goes to show how willing skeptics are to get to the bottom of things.


Skeptics are not identical to scientists IMO and their purpose is basically to affirm their beliefs about the non-existence of reincarnation, psychics etc by means of rhetorical tools such as Randi's challenge and mock those who don't share their views. It's funny how they view themselves as people without self delusions, yet they display the same attributes and behavior and cognitive dissonance as religious fundamentalists. Skeptics have a lot more in common with the religious than they care to imagine, and it really bothers me that they also see themselves as scientific, as they don't really help science progress IMO. Just like religious fundamentalists.


A video by Victor Zammit who explains why the challenge is bogus from a legal perspective:

 

[Sister Grey]

Skeptics are not identical to scientists IMO and their purpose is basically to affirm their beliefs about the non-existence of reincarnation, psychics etc by means of rhetorical tools such as Randi's challenge and mock those who don't share their views. It's funny how they view themselves as people without self delusions, yet they display the same attributes and behavior and cognitive dissonance as religious fundamentalists.

Yes, I've noticed that and completely agree. I was surprised, really, as to how violently and passionately skeptics respond to anything that's not completely in line with their world view. I was thinking that they had more of an agnostic, 'don't know', 'show me' mind set, but nope. I sometimes think it'd be easier to change the minds of the religious fundamentalists than it would be that of the self-described 'skeptics'.

 

[Mama2HRB]

I, too, think this particular set of skeptics are not skeptics but just want to prove their point and are willing to go to great lengths to do so.


I would be much more interested in someone who was open to a bunch of different tests that were overseen by a group of other well known skeptics and mediums.

 

[Jim78]

I think skeptics would try to debunk anything that doesn't fit into their world view. I had a friend debunk the whole idea of reincarnation based solely on the fact that I didn't remember which exit I used to leave the GPO in 1916, even though I told him that I only remember being in the building....not leaving it. He expected me to have complete recall of that life. Although I was able to tell him where I was in the building. Still though, skeptics find their own answers and screw the evidence.

 

[SeekerOfKnowledge]

I had a friend debunk the whole idea of reincarnation based solely on the fact that I didn't remember which exit I used to leave the GPO in 1916, even though I told him that I only remember being in the building....not leaving it.

You should have asked them whether they remember their first day at school. Yes? Probably so. Do they also remember how they entered the building and classroom? Do they remember how they left it?
Well, I remember that my grandparents were there, that I was in the yard, that I was in a classroom... but I do not remember how I went from the yard to the classroom and back. According to your friend, this would mean that I never had a first day at school.
Don't remember something you "should" remember? Not really an argument as long we don't remember each single detail even from our current life if you ask me...