Reincarnation

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is a very interesting video about reincarnation. It is a speech, with a case study, by Dr.Jim Tucker, Professor at the University of Virginia, US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l7bcb3aoGc

Hope you like it.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Robbie]

Thanks, will defo watch.

[BeRational]

By default reincarnation does not exist, so nothing to discuss.

[SteveH]

By default reincarnation does not exist...

What does this mean, other than "I don't believe in reincarnation"? Why, in any case, does that leave nothing to discuss?

[torridon]

With no theoretical underpinning of how this could happen, curious anecdotes are going to remain just curious anecdotes.

[Sriram]

Here is one more good video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6M-nXjh_9I

[Nearly Sane]

By default reincarnation does not exist, so nothing to discuss.

This is just gibberish. There is a set of evidence, no matter how weak it might be, which related to the philosophical idea of reincarnation. You can examine and dismiss the evidence, or decide it is insufficient to justify beluef but something either does happen or it does not (exists isn't really a useful verb for a process).

[Nearly Sane]

With no theoretical underpinning of how this could happen, curious anecdotes are going to remain just curious anecdotes.

Which can be bound together with a hypothesis, however weak, of reincarnation. I would suggest that what we have is 'almost no theoretical underpinning off f how this might happen' but that we cannot dismiss a possibility that some underpinning could be developed if it were investigated. Note Sriram posts from a viewpoint that all such things are at least 'nature's so can be subject to naturalistic methods of investigation in theory.

[BeRational]

What does this mean, other than "I don't believe in reincarnation"? Why, in any case, does that leave nothing to discuss?

The default position is that reincarnation is a myth.

To change the default position the person making the claim has to demonstrate that it is a real thing.

Until this happens, there is nothing to discuss.

[BeRational]

Which can be bound together with a hypothesis, however weak, of reincarnation. I would suggest that what we have is 'almost no theoretical underpinning off f how this might happen' but that we cannot dismiss a possibility that some underpinning could be developed if it were investigated. Note Sriram posts from a viewpoint that all such things are at least 'nature's so can be subject to naturalistic methods of investigation in theory.

It can be dismissed until it is demonstrated.

[Nearly Sane]

It can be dismissed until it is demonstrated.

If it is dismissed, then it can never be demonstrated. You can't form a hypothesis and then say because it isn't demonstrated we just dismiss it. That way no progress could be made.

[BeRational]

If it is dismissed, then it can never be demonstrated. You can't form a hypothesis and then say because it isn't demonstrated we just dismiss it. That way no progress could be made.

The null hypothesis is that reincarnation does not happen.

[Nearly Sane]

The null hypothesis is that reincarnation does not happen.

And again, you can't demonstrate something is you assume that it doesn't happen. In this case we have some unexplained events for which Sriram suggests a hypothesis of reincarnation. In order to demonstrate it, there needs to be formulation of how it would be demonstrated and falsified. If you just dismiss it, then no demonstration can take place.

[BeRational]

And again, you can't demonstrate something is you assume that it doesn't happen. In this case we have some unexplained events for which Sriram suggests a hypothesis of reincarnation. In order to demonstrate it, there needs to be formulation of how it would be demonstrated and falsified. If you just dismiss it, then no demonstration can take place.

He has to show the null hypothesis to be wrong.

That is his job, not mine.

Quoting anecdotes will NEVER change the null hypothesis. He needs to demonstrate it.

There are an infinite number of things like this. Do you want to waste your time discussing them all?

Unicorns do not wear hats on Sunday!

Now what?

[Nearly Sane]

He has to show the null hypothesis to be wrong.

That is his job, not mine.

Quoting anecdotes will NEVER change the null hypothesis. He needs to demonstrate it.

There are an infinite number of things like this. Do you want to waste your time discussing them all?

Unicorns do not wear hats on Sunday!

Now what?

You seem very confused. My post makes clear that it for a hypothesis to progress beyond being simply that then it has to be demonstrated. At no point does it suggest that you have to do it. The proponents of the hypothesis need to formulate how it can be shown, and how it might be  falsified. If everyone dismisses a hypothesis though, until it is demonstrated, it can never be demonstrated since it will have been dismissed and no effort will be made to demonstrate it.

[Gordon]

He has to show the null hypothesis to be wrong.

Not quite, since the 'null hypothesis' is really a statistical approach: that there will be no significant differences between things that have been measured or in associations between groups.

The null hypothesis isn't a statement of agnostic assumption that 'something' doesn't exist because there is no evidence since there needs to be at least two 'somethings' that can be measured so as to test the null hypothesis that these 'somethings' aren't significantly associated with each other in some way.

[Gordon]

The null hypothesis is that reincarnation does not happen.

That is a claim and not a null hypothesis.

[BeRational]

You seem very confused. My post makes clear that it for a hypothesis to progress beyond being simply that then it has to be demonstrated. At no point does it suggest that you have to do it. The proponents of the hypothesis need to formulate how it can be shown, and how it might be  falsified. If everyone dismisses a hypothesis though, until it is demonstrated, it can never be demonstrate since it will have been dismissed and no effort will be made to demonstrate it.

It is not our job to endlessly look at stupid propositions.

Nothing is dismissed, it is just ignored until such time as he can provide evidence.

[BeRational]

That is a claim and not a null hypothesis.

Really?

I may be wrong, but I thought we are trying to show that reincarnation DOES take place?

Like the null hypothesis would be that the world is flat.

You then have to work to show that the null hypothesis is wrong, but showing that it is in fact round.

[Nearly Sane]

It is not our job to endlessly look at stupid propositions.

Nothing is dismissed, it is just ignored until such time as he can provide evidence.

And again I didn't say it was your job to demonstrate it, indeed I specifically said it wasn't. And calling it a 'stupid proposition' is begging the question. If nothing is dismissed, why did you write 'It can be dismissed until it is demonstrated.'?

[torridon]

Which can be bound together with a hypothesis, however weak, of reincarnation. I would suggest that what we have is 'almost no theoretical underpinning off f how this might happen' but that we cannot dismiss a possibility that some underpinning could be developed if it were investigated. Note Sriram posts from a viewpoint that all such things are at least 'nature's so can be subject to naturalistic methods of investigation in theory.

I don't think we can call reincarnation a hypothesis until there is at least some definition of what it is that is being reincarnated; if we don't know what it is we are testing for, we cannot test for it. 

[Gordon]

Really?

I may be wrong, but I thought we are trying to show that reincarnation DOES take place?

Like the null hypothesis would be that the world is flat.

You then have to work to show that the null hypothesis is wrong, but showing that it is in fact round.

Nope - that the world is flat isn't a null hypothesis.You need to understand that the 'null hypothesis' has a specific meaning that involves measuring things and then using statistical tests.

For example: 'there will be no significant difference in the mean weight of 5th year pupils in School A compared with 5th year pupils in School B' is a null hypothesis, and from that measurements would taken and analysed to see if the data supported the no difference claim, where 'significant' means calculating the risk of random chance, where the convention is that this should be less than 5%.

The usual approach is for a researcher to show the null hypothesis to be wrong and that there is a significant difference, where this is usually in favour of an alternative hypothesis. There is then the risks of Type 1 errors (rejecting the null when it should be accepted) and a Type 2 (accepting the null when it should be rejected).

[BeRational]

Nope - that the world is flat isn't a null hypothesis.You need to understand that the 'null hypothesis' has a specific meaning that involves measuring things and then using statistical tests.

For example: 'there will be no significant difference in the mean weight of 5th year pupils in School A compared with 5th year pupils in School B' is a null hypothesis, and from that measurements would taken and analysed to see if the data supported the no difference claim, where 'significant' means calculating the risk of random chance, where the convention is that this should be less than 5%.

The usual approach is for a researcher to show the null hypothesis to be wrong and that there is a significant difference, where this is usually in favour of an alternative hypothesis. There is then the risks of Type 1 errors (rejecting the null when it should be accepted) and a Type 2 (accepting the null when it should be rejected).

I got the example of the flat Earth being used as an example from here:-

http://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/null-hypothesis/

[Nearly Sane]

 

I don't think we can call reincarnation a hypothesis until there is at least some definition of what it is that is being reincarnated; if we don't know what it is we are testing for, we cannot test for it.

The problem there is that I would suggest that Sriram would argue that there is 'some definition' of what is being reincarnated. I think also Sriram would point out that there is a lot of ideas in physics currently which have similar issues but we don't just dismiss them. I would argue that the reasonable reaction to Sriram's claims are how do you progress to show that the claims are true, and ask for further definition rather than simply write it off if you find the idea of sufficient interest to do so. I'll be honest here and say I have no interest in going to youtube to watch a video on this, but that applies to a video on String 'Theory' as well.

[Gordon]

I got the example of the flat Earth being used as an example from here:-

http://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/null-hypothesis/

You aren't expressing it as hypothesis since you are just saying 'the world is (or isn't) flat'. If I say 'there are no pink unicorns' that is just a claim as well.

It needs more that a simple statement since it requires measurement and analysis: a method is required, in this case involving a basis to accept or reject reincarnation since a null hypothesis is still a hypothesis.