Reincarnation

[Sriram]

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.

Nothing peculiar about it. Skepticism is a mindset. There are people who call themselves...'skeptics'...which is a general nomenclature without any specific context. It is an attitude people develop during adolescence and in some people it becomes a habit.  Their pride in their skepticism further reinforces and strengthens it. 

Habitual skepticism is just a way of discouraging or dismissing certain activities that the skeptics are unable to understand or are not comfortable with. 

I am not talking here about... 'constructive criticism'...which is a serious attempt to understand, help and encourage any endeavor by pointing out specific flaws or short comings.

Ok...Off to catch a flight...see yea.

[Shaker]

Scepticism gives us the scientific method and all that falls out therefrom.

Credulity gives us religion, people who think that they've been abducted by aliens, the international Jewish conspiracy, homeopathy, the Royal Family being shape-shifting lizards and people who think that reincarnation is real.

Given Dillahunty's Law ("I want to believe as many true things and as few false things about the world as possible") I'll take my chances with scepticism.

And by the way: since you don't do irony, regarding careful, critical thought as an adolescent trait is in itself an adolescent trait. I suppose we should all be thankful that at least you didn't pontificate that it's a sign of our "lower" animal nature

[Rhiannon]

Without scepticism we'd believe any old tosh, surely?

[Shaker]

Without scepticism we'd believe any old tosh, surely?

As we already see.

[ekim]

I think scepticism has its place but perhaps it is also necessary to be open to possibilities otherwise statements like these made by that eminent scientist William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, while president of the Royal Society, can thwart investigative expansion:
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax"
"Radio has no future".  on Marconi's experiments.
"I trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current".-  writing to Niagara Falls Power Company."

[Shaker]

I think scepticism has its place but perhaps it is also necessary to be open to possibilities otherwise statements like these made by that eminent scientist William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, while president of the Royal Society, can thwart investigative expansion:
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax"
"Radio has no future".  on Marconi's experiments.
"I trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current".-  writing to Niagara Falls Power Company."

Those are statements of anti-scepticism, surely?

[Nearly Sane]

I think scepticism has its place but perhaps it is also necessary to be open to possibilities otherwise statements like these made by that eminent scientist William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, while president of the Royal Society, can thwart investigative expansion:
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax"
"Radio has no future".  on Marconi's experiments.
"I trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current".-  writing to Niagara Falls Power Company."

scepticism isn't about being closed off from possibilities, it's simply arguing that for things to be taken beyond possibilities there needs to be some evidence and reason behind it. Kelvin's statements here are effectively the opposite of scepticism. (I see in me posting this Shaker has made the same point)

This is the point that I was making with BeRational yesterday. A sceptic doesn't dismiss reincarnation, just points out that currently there is insufficient evidence and reason to accept it. The idea that we either accept or dismiss something is not truly sceptical. Though if something has been falsified then it can be dismissed - though again as I was covering yesterday, there needs to be a sufficient claim to make it falsfiable.

[ekim]

Those are statements of anti-scepticism, surely?

What makes you say that?

[Enki]

I think scepticism has its place but perhaps it is also necessary to be open to possibilities otherwise statements like these made by that eminent scientist William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, while president of the Royal Society, can thwart investigative expansion:
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax"
"Radio has no future".  on Marconi's experiments.
"I trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current".-  writing to Niagara Falls Power Company."

Well as the motto of the Royal Society is 'NULLIUS IN VERBA', roughly translated as 'On the word of no one' or'Take nobody's word for it'', then a skeptical approach is encouraged. Indeed, by producing these statements by Lord Kelvin, you are supporting the case for a skeptical and challenging approach.
 

[Shaker]

What makes you say that?

Well ... the short statements that you quoted. To say: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible", or "X-rays will prove to be a hoax", or "Radio has no future", are all dogmatic statements of purported certainty, not scepticism. To say that heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible is to say that such things are ruled out of court once and for all and for ever. A properly sceptical statement in Kelvin's time would have been: "We currently have no evidence that heavier-than-air flying machines are technically feasible, and their existence is unlikely given the current state of our knowledge and technology. However, we must reserve judgement since we don't yet know what future evidence may lead us to." Last night I watched a Horizon documentary on time travel; though the general position is that Einstein was right and that the speed of light is an unalterable universal constant, some physicists are taking seriously the possibility of superluminal travel. There's no evidence for it and they're in a minority, but they're serious scientists, not swivel-eyed cranks.

That's long-winded but accurate. Perhaps that's why dogmatism appeals to people, fundamentally: it's quick, short, simple and easy, whereas reality is convoluted and complex. It's easier to say that flying machines are impossible than what I wrote, even though he was wrong and I'm right. Kelvin, by the way, died in 1907 so he lived long enough - by four years - to see himself shown to be wrong about h-t-a flight. See his Wikipedia page for a rather painful demonstration of how arrogantly wrong he was about how many things.

It's a shame that you picked a particularly egregious example, since Kelvin - just like Fred Hoyle, by the way - is principally remembered today in the history of ideas (rather than in physics, where the Kelvin scale is still widely used) for getting some very big and very important things completely and utterly wrong; in Kelvin's case, the age of the earth (because he didn't understand radioactivity), in Hoyle's case ... well, it's a long list.

[SteveH]

Am I correct in thinking that it was Hoyle who coined the phrase "Big bang", as a sarcastically dismissive name for a hypothesis he rejected in favour of the steady-state universe?

[Shaker]

Absolutely correct. It was supposed to be an insult, but those on the end of the insult adopted it as a sort of badge of pride (even though it's technically wrong in the specifics) and the name stuck. (Same as "Tory" by the way. Which of course remains an insult).

[SteveH]

(Same as "Tory" by the way. Which of course remains an insult).

[SteveH]

Absolutely correct. It was supposed to be an insult, but those on the end of the insult adopted it as a sort of badge of pride (even though it's technically wrong in the specifics) and the name stuck. (Same as "Tory" by the way. Which of course remains an insult).

Techically wrong because it isn't a rapid expansion in space, but a rapid expansion ofspace?

[Shaker]

Techically wrong because it isn't a rapid expansion in space, but a rapid expansion ofspace?

Pretty much, yes. It's expansion - in fact inflation, in modern terms - rather than an explosion, and (OK, pedantry alert at this point, possibly) it can't be big because it was the inflation of everything rather than the inflation-of-something-compared-to-something-else.

[ekim]

Well as the motto of the Royal Society is 'NULLIUS IN VERBA', roughly translated as 'On the word of no one' or'Take nobody's word for it'', then a skeptical approach is encouraged. Indeed, by producing these statements by Lord Kelvin, you are supporting the case for a skeptical and challenging approach.

I favour the words of the famous Inspector Clouseau "I know nothing and I know everything.  I suspect nobody and I suspect everybody".

[ekim]

NS and Shaker
OK, thanks.  I misunderstood what was being said.

[Enki]

I favour the words of the famous Inspector Clouseau "I know nothing and I know everything.  I suspect nobody and I suspect everybody".

 

[Sriram]

Hi...so...with all the evidence has anyone started accepting reincarnation as fact....yet??!!  Why not?!

Reincarnation and NDE's  are being researched by professional scientists and both areas have ample evidence. They fit in very well with the spiritual hypothesis of life. I am feeling quite vindicated...actually!

   

[Maeght]

Hi...so...with all the evidence has anyone started accepting reincarnation as fact....yet??!!  Why not?!

Because the evidence you talk about isn't strong enough by far.

Reincarnation and NDE's  are being researched by professional scientists and both areas have ample evidence. They fit in very well with the spiritual hypothesis of life. I am feeling quite vindicated...actually!
 

If these scientists had found sufficient evidence for reincarnation that was strong enough this would be world news. Its not.

[Sriram]

Because the evidence you talk about isn't strong enough by far.

If these scientists had found sufficient evidence for reincarnation that was strong enough this would be world news. Its not.

How much evidence would be 'world news'?  50000 cases...100000 cases...1000000 cases?   

These are such numbers available for NDE's, but it has not become world news!!   

In any case, I don't think it has anything to do with numbers. The type of evidence is not going to change. I mean to say that we are never going to have hard evidence  in the form of a soul being identified, numbered, secret coded...and then the same soul being found later in another body..... or anything like that.

It is going to remain anecdotal.

Even climate change, with all its evidence, is not really earth shattering news...at least not to all the people. There are skeptics even now. Skepticism is a mind set  that is almost impossible to eliminate.

[Robbie]

Morning sririam. Wanted to say I've watched half the docu you posted, I said I would comment and I will when I've seen it all. Not had much time but haven't forgotten.

[Sriram]

Morning sririam. Wanted to say I've watched half the docu you posted, I said I would comment and I will when I've seen it all. Not had much time but haven't forgotten.

Thanks Robbie...do watch it all. Try googling for Ian Stevenson too. 

Reincarnation may be culturally somewhat strange for you but it has also been a part of western philosophy and mysticism since at least the days of Pythagoras.

[Maeght]

How much evidence would be 'world news'?  50000 cases...100000 cases...1000000 cases?   

These are such numbers available for NDE's, but it has not become world news!!   

In any case, I don't think it has anything to do with numbers. The type of evidence is not going to change. I mean to say that we are never going to have hard evidence  in the form of a soul being identified, numbered, secret coded...and then the same soul being found later in another body..... or anything like that.

Did I mention numbers? No. It is the strength of the evidence which is important not numbers of anecdotes.

It is going to remain anecdotal.

And therefore weak.

Even climate change, with all its evidence, is not really earth shattering news...at least not to all the people. There are skeptics even now. Skepticism is a mind set  that is almost impossible to eliminate.

Climate change has been world news because there is a huge amount of strong evidence for it. Whether it is due to human activities is debated by some.

[Shaker]

Skepticism is a mind set  that is almost impossible to eliminate.

It's been eliminated pretty thoroughly in you and your lot by the look of it.