Reincarnation

[BeRational]

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.

In the site is says the null hypothesis is the current accepted position.
So, could I say the accepted position at the moment is that people do not get reincarnated.

H0 = 0
Then H1 > 0 would be the alternate.

Then to show the null hypothesis wrong, all someone has to do, is show 1 example of it happening.

Is this closer?

[Gordon]

In the site is says the null hypothesis is the current accepted position.
So, could I say the accepted position at the moment is that people do not get reincarnated.

H0 = 0
Then H1 > 0 would be the alternate.

Then to show the null hypothesis wrong, all someone has to do, is show 1 example of it happening.

Is this closer?

The issue here is that you are seeing reincarnation as something around which you can frame a hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis (null or otherwise) then it implies a method to test and either accept or reject your hypothesis (null or otherwise).

You can certainly measure so as to show whether the world is flat or not but how do you propose to measure reincarnation. I suspect that like me you will reject it on the basis that there is no credible evidence without you needing to frame a hypothesis at all.

So I suspect you are using 'null hypothesis' instead of just saying there is no credible evidence.

[BeRational]

The issue here is that you are seeing reincarnation as something around which you can frame a hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis (null or otherwise) then it implies a method to test and either accept or reject your hypothesis (null or otherwise).

You can certainly measure so as to show whether the world is flat or not but how do you propose to measure reincarnation. I suspect that like me you will reject it on the basis that there is no credible evidence without you needing to frame a hypothesis at all.

So I suspect you are using 'null hypothesis' instead of just saying there is no credible evidence.

Yes I agree.

But in the example on the site it said the null hypothesis is the currently accepted position (like the world is flat).

The advocates of reincarnation have the burden of proof to come up with a demonstration and some method to show that the accepted position is wrong.

All we ever get though is anecdotes, and someone stating a sincere belief, none of which is ever going to be good enough.

In the same way that no matter how many people say they have been abducted by aliens, simple anecdotes alone will never suffice.

I think we agree on this.

[Enki]

Just to get back to Sriram's original post, and in the interests of balance, it might be illuminating to read these skeptical comments about an interview which Jim Tucker gave in 2014, and also what J. I. Swiss(the blogger) regards as good scientific evidence.

http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2310-evidence-for-reincarnation.html

[Sriram]

Just to get back to Sriram's original post, and in the interests of balance, it might be illuminating to read these skeptical comments about an interview which Jim Tucker gave in 2014, and also what J. I. Swiss(the blogger) regards as good scientific evidence.

http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2310-evidence-for-reincarnation.html

Yeah right! Skeptics!! 

There are skeptics about the String theory, about Dark Matter, about Dark Energy, about the Big Bang, about Evolution....even about the moon landing and the spherical earth....

There are no end of skeptics in this world and that does not in any way dilute the validity of any theory or hypothesis. 

[Sriram]

In this thread, I wanted to bring out the fact that serious research is going on is such areas as reincarnation and not every science professional regards them as 'woo'...or dismisses them as invalid. There are a growing number of people in the world who are taking these matters seriously and accepting them as possibly a part of our normal and natural lives.

I am happy that NS is boldly defending my ideas after all these years. Thanks NS. It is a welcome change and will hopefully break the psychological barrier that seems to have been created artificially by some people who have a problem with religious matters and who are unable to separate natural exotic phenomena from religious mythology.

I hope this will make future discussions more meaningful and constructive....instead of the standard response of ...'woo'...'confirmation bias'...etc...etc...etc.


 

[Nearly Sane]

In this thread, I wanted to bring out the fact that serious research is going on is such areas as reincarnation and not every science professional regards them as 'woo'...or dismisses them as invalid. There are a growing number of people in the world who are taking these matters seriously and accepting them as possibly a part of our normal and natural lives.

I am happy that NS is boldly defending my ideas after all these years. Thanks NS. It is a welcome change and will hopefully break the psychological barrier that seems to have been created artificially by some people who have a problem with religious matters and who are unable to separate natural exotic phenomena from religious mythology.

I hope this will make future discussions more meaningful and constructive....instead of the standard response of ...'woo'...'confirmation bias'...etc...etc...etc.

I'm not defending your view, I'm saying that I won't just dismiss an idea in itself without reason to do so. That doesn't mean I give any credence to your claims here. This has been a position I've consistently taken.

[BeRational]

Yeah right! Skeptics!! 

There are skeptics about the String theory, about Dark Matter, about Dark Energy, about the Big Bang, about Evolution....even about the moon landing and the spherical earth....

There are no end of skeptics in this world and that does not in any way dilute the validity of any theory or hypothesis.

Skepticism is a good thing and stops us simply believing anything we are told.

Please do not confuse this with people who just will obstinately not believe.

I am open to believe anything, given the relevant evidence.

Anecdotes, and personal incredulity simply do not count as valid evidence.

[Sriram]

I'm not defending your view, I'm saying that I won't just dismiss an idea in itself without reason to do so. That doesn't mean I give any credence to your claims here. This has been a position I've consistently taken.

In fact, that is my point too. It is not about reincarnation or Self  or after-life per se.  It is about the natural nature of these phenomena and the need to analyse them and understand them in that context instead dismissing them as religious beliefs.

[BeRational]

In fact, that is my point too. It is not about reincarnation or Self  or after-life per se.  It is about the natural nature of these phenomena and the need to analyse them and understand them in that context instead dismissing them as religious beliefs.

So what scientists are looking at this, and what evidence do they have that this is a real thing?

Stories, and anecdotes are worthless, unless you do not care about whether your beliefs are true or not.

[torridon]

In fact, that is my point too. It is not about reincarnation or Self  or after-life per se.  It is about the natural nature of these phenomena and the need to analyse them and understand them in that context instead dismissing them as religious beliefs.

The thread is "Reincarnation", so we are entitled to imagine it is about Reincarnation.  If your claim is that the phenomena described have a natural nature, then there needs to be a description of that nature, or a description of the natural mechanism that could account for the observations;  how else could we test for it.

[Nearly Sane]

In fact, that is my point too. It is not about reincarnation or Self  or after-life per se.  It is about the natural nature of these phenomena and the need to analyse them and understand them in that context instead dismissing them as religious beliefs.

And again no. It is precisely about the  concepts per se and whether there is any validity to them. Saying that they are actual phenomena in any defined sense is begging the question. What at best you have is a set of events, as yet I don't see that you can class them as a consistent phenomenon here, or indeed that any attempt to do so currently makes any sense.

[Sriram]

And again no. It is precisely about the  concepts per se and whether there is any validity to them. Saying that they are actual phenomena in any defined sense is begging the question. What at best you have is a set of events, as yet I don't see that you can class them as a consistent phenomenon here, or indeed that any attempt to do so currently makes any sense.

No...it is not about specific phenomena per se...though we have to talk about them to get to the point.  I am not here trying to prove or provide evidence for reincarnation or after life or anything of that sort.   Jim Tucker and Raymond Moody are trying to do that. 

I am only trying to separate natural exotic phenomena from religious beliefs....and pointing out that these cannot be dismissed as woo or religious beliefs...rather, they should be examined and efforts should be made to understand them as a normal part of our lives.

Well...and that is what I thought you were defending. If not, that is fine. We are back to square one. No problem! 


 

[Nearly Sane]

No...it is not about specific phenomena per se...though we have to talk about them to get to the point.  I am not here trying to prove or provide evidence for reincarnation or after life or anything of that sort.   Jim Tucker and Raymond Moody are trying to do that. 

I am only trying to separate natural exotic phenomena from religious beliefs....and pointing out that these cannot be dismissed as woo or religious beliefs...rather, they should be examined and efforts should be made to understand them as a normal part of our lives.

Well...and that is what I thought you were defending. If not, that is fine. We are back to square one. No problem! 


 

Again, you're begging the question by assuming that events equal discrete phenomena. Without a definition there is nothing to be dismissed.

[Sriram]

The thread is "Reincarnation", so we are entitled to imagine it is about Reincarnation.  If your claim is that the phenomena described have a natural nature, then there needs to be a description of that nature, or a description of the natural mechanism that could account for the observations;  how else could we test for it.

There are intelligent and focused people involved in trying to understand these phenomena. But it is unlikely that anyone is actually looking to understand it in the way you want to....what is the nature of the Self, how does it feel and smell, what is it composed of...and so on.      I don't think anyone is actually looking to 'understand' such matters, as though it is some external stuff......

Problem with habitual skeptics is that if we have evidence, you want the theory. If we have the theory, you want the evidence. As though someone ought to provide all this on a platter!! 

The problem is in the Two boxes syndrome.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/

[Nearly Sane]

There are intelligent and focused people involved in trying to understand these phenomena. But it is unlikely that anyone is actually looking to understand it in the way you want to....what is the nature of the Self, how does it feel and smell, what is it composed of...and so on.      I don't think anyone is actually looking to 'understand' such matters, as though it is some external stuff......

Problem with habitual skeptics is that if we have evidence, you want the theory. If we have the theory, you want the evidence. As though someone ought to provide all this on a platter!! 

The problem is in the Two boxes syndrome.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/

  Again no, if you have evidence - without some form of HYPOTHESIS, then it's just a set of events, or an event. Evidence, in terms of the methodology of investigation, needs to be in favour of something. A HYPOTHESIS with no evidence is merely an idea. It cannot be dismissed but neither is there any credence given to it. You aren't describing a syndrome, you're justifying your lack of methodology

[BeRational]

There are intelligent and focused people involved in trying to understand these phenomena. But it is unlikely that anyone is actually looking to understand it in the way you want to....what is the nature of the Self, how does it feel and smell, what is it composed of...and so on.      I don't think anyone is actually looking to 'understand' such matters, as though it is some external stuff......

Problem with habitual skeptics is that if we have evidence, you want the theory. If we have the theory, you want the evidence. As though someone ought to provide all this on a platter!! 

The problem is in the Two boxes syndrome.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/

The nature of the self is electrical impulses in the brain.

The common currency of the brain is electrical impulses, so sight, hearing, love, hate, beauty is all in this common currency somewhere.

[Enki]

Yeah right! Skeptics!! 

There are skeptics about the String theory, about Dark Matter, about Dark Energy, about the Big Bang, about Evolution....even about the moon landing and the spherical earth....

There are no end of skeptics in this world and that does not in any way dilute the validity of any theory or hypothesis.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Sriram. There are people who are skeptical about all sorts of things. There are people who are skeptical about a flat earth, about a pretend moon landing, about the supposed link between autism and the MMR vaccine, about the Bermuda triangle, about the illuminati, about UFOs, about the supposed other worldly origin of crop circles, about the idea that NDEs point towards a continuation of life after death. There are people who are skeptical about a naturalistic universe being all there is, about Darwinian evolution, about the idea that there is no god, about the idea of climate change.

It's often very worthwhile to challenge something rather than accept it without question. Surely you don't mind if Jim Tucker's methods, ideas and conclusions aren't put under the microscope. I thought you might welcome it. Perhaps I was wrong.

[Sriram]

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Sriram. There are people who are skeptical about all sorts of things. There are people who are skeptical about a flat earth, about a pretend moon landing, about the supposed link between autism and the MMR vaccine, about the Bermuda triangle, about the illuminati, about UFOs, about the supposed other worldly origin of crop circles, about the idea that NDEs point towards a continuation of life after death. There are people who are skeptical about a naturalistic universe being all there is, about Darwinian evolution, about the idea that there is no god, about the idea of climate change.

It's often very worthwhile to challenge something rather than accept it without question. Surely you don't mind if Jim Tucker's methods, ideas and conclusions aren't put under the microscope. I thought you might welcome it. Perhaps I was wrong.

I am sure Jim Tucker and his team are professional enough to know how to structure their research. Of course, their methods can be suitably reinforced or modified if and where necessary, to remove possibilities of error, through constructive suggestions.  That is probably an ongoing process of fine tuning.   That is fine.

But skepticism is a mental disease. It is similar to suspicion. It is a mental program that never goes away.

[torridon]

But skepticism is a mental disease. It is similar to suspicion. It is a mental program that never goes away.

That's a peculiar notion. I'd say scepticism is more a necessary mental discipline for research.  The number of wrong ideas is potentially infinite whereas the number of valid ideas is tiny by comparison, so we take the approach that any new idea needs to be validated.  We don't just accept something unquestioningly on somebody's say so.  Modern life would not be possible without these intellectual disciplines and to start disregarding such due diligence now would be a really bad idea.

[torridon]

I am sure Jim Tucker and his team are professional enough to know how to structure their research. Of course, their methods can be suitably reinforced or modified if and where necessary, to remove possibilities of error, through constructive suggestions.  That is probably an ongoing process of fine tuning.   That is fine.

They would need to propose a theoretical mechanism that could yield those observations and then construct tests to discern whether their hypothesis was correct, or was there some other causal factors leading to the observations.  I don't think they are anywhere near that; as far as I could see they don't even have a definition of exactly what it is that is being 'reincarnated'. Notions such as 'self' or 'soul' or 'spirit' are ambiguous, lacking the necessary precision and definition.

[Gordon]

I am sure Jim Tucker and his team are professional enough to know how to structure their research. Of course, their methods can be suitably reinforced or modified if and where necessary, to remove possibilities of error, through constructive suggestions.  That is probably an ongoing process of fine tuning.   That is fine.

I think the issue with Tucker, as highlighted in the blog, and in particular in the quotes of what he says, is that he doesn't have a research method (and all that this implies) at all: all he really has is a bunch of anecdotes that he'd rather like to be true.

But skepticism is a mental disease. It is similar to suspicion. It is a mental program that never goes away.

Nope - scepticism is healthy and is essential for navigating the average day.

[SteveH]

But skepticism is a mental disease. It is similar to suspicion. It is a mental program that never goes away.

You're thinking of cynicism, which is different. Scepticism (note correct spelling) is the correct scientific attitude to all claims, until the data confirms it.

[Maeght]

You're thinking of cynicism, which is different. Scepticism (note correct spelling) is the correct scientific attitude to all claims, until the data confirms it.

Absolutely.

[SteveH]

The trouble is that many people who proudly call themselves sceptics are really just irresponsible fuckwits - climate change deniers, for example.
Re. spelling: it appears that "skeptic" is "archaic and N. American", according to the New Shorter Oxford. However, since we are modern and mostly British, I stand by my earlier post.