• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Scientific Evidence for Reincarnation by Dr Ian Stevenson

Risky Thicket

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
34,143
Reaction score
37,600
Location
With Yo Mama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dr. Stevenson to my knowledge never stated that his work was proof of reincarnation but rather that it provides empirical evidence.

 
In that case he is using sheer sophistry because proog and empirical evidence are the same thing.
 
Ancient Herald said:
Okay, I'll bite.

What is the difference then?

i truly can not see any.
Click to expand...

Evidence does not necessarily provide proof, it can remove doubt and suggest something is more likely.

Proof is generally reserved for mathematics and whiskey wherein it is absolute.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Dr. Stevenson to my knowledge never stated that his work was proof of reincarnation but rather that it provides empirical evidence.

Click to expand...


I have to watch this for 29 minutes ???

You cannot summarize it with intro/body/conclusion and subject/verb/object ???

So Bonehead English 101 and Technical Writing 301 in college and/or grad school did not work for you at all huh ???
 
William Rea said:
Evidence does not necessarily provide proof, it can remove doubt and suggest something is more likely.

Proof is generally reserved for mathematics and whiskey wherein it is absolute.
Click to expand...

Did you happen to watch his/her video WR ??

Just checking.

I did not, sorry.

If so can you summarize it for us please ??

Something philosophical in me regarding epistemology tells me that it is not Empirically possible to gather data and information on reincarnation.

However I'm all ears and very open minded on this.

:D
 
Riveroaks said:
Did you happen to watch his/her video WR ??

Just checking.

I did not, sorry.

If so can you summarize it for us please ??

Something philosophical in me regarding epistemology tells me that it is not Empirically possible to gather data and information on reincarnation.

However I'm all ears and very open minded on this.

:D
Click to expand...

It's kind of difficult to say if there is something there because it all relies on anecdotal statements but, he does at least acknowledge that there are flaws.

I too would like to hear what the OP is actually arguing.
 
William Rea said:
It's kind of difficult to say if there is something there because it all relies on anecdotal statements but, he does at least acknowledge that there are flaws.

I too would like to hear what the OP is actually arguing.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that a lot of posters here have not learned how to think logically, whether with deductive or inductive logic, or with more complex indirect proofs, to philosophize, and keep religion, Empirical science, philosophical speculation, and rank speculation separate.
 
I also don’t have time to watch a 29 minute video and would welcome an overview of its key points. I do admit to a general distrust of arguments presented in video form alone since the visual medium is more open to misleading presentation and sophistry.

Most of the evidence presented for reincarnation in repeats of the same kind of thing, typically boiling down to people having information they should not know but that would be known by someone who lived in the past. To me, that is evidence of the information being passed to the living person by some means or other, it doesn’t provide evidence of any consciousness or some other fundamental aspect of the individual being transferred or continuing. Reincarnation doesn’t have any consistent technical definition. If people are proposing some specific mechanism where something fundamental to an individual continues after death and can pass on to other people, that needs some kind of mechanism by which such transfer would be possible.

It’s like a person being in New York in the morning and London in the afternoon. That isn’t evidence of teleportation, it’s evidence of some kind of rapid transportation between the two cities.
 
Agree with the people calling for a summary of what is on the tape.

I very, very seldom watch videos presented in these discussions...and on those few occasions where I do...I almost always come away wondering why anyone thought the video was worthwhile.
 
d
Riveroaks said:
A.H. did you happen to watch the video yet?

I am still waiting for a written executive summary about a topic that I believe is impossible.
Click to expand...

I'll watch it and summarize it for you if you watch the video I posted about converting atheists.

Deal?
 
okay, here we go.

Dr. Stevenson's research is based upon the observation of how children behave in these instances and upon his interviews of them. in roughly around three thousand cases he has studied, the children seem to exhibit similar behaviors. they are:

Claims of remembering details of the past life.

Not accepting their biological parents as their "real" parents and wishing to return to the other parents.

Speaking of their past life in the present tense,

But, sometimes unusual birthmarks will appear on the child in which within the impervious life they suffered a violent wound that caused the previous life's death.

Here is a page that is about his research for you if you're interested:

Dr. Ian Stevenson's Reincarnation Research

Now, here are the counters to him.

The Skeptic's Dictionary:

Ian Stevenson - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

However, since you are a Christian, keep in mind what Christianity's stance on reincarnation is Which is talked about here:

https://bible.org/question/what-does-bible-say-about-reincarnation

Since I was raised a Christian, one of the things that has stuck with me is that i firmly believe that reincarnation does not exist and it is very possible that these children he interview are either playing a trick or are suffering from a psychological illness of some sort.

Because one huge problem with the issue of reincarnation, is where are all the souls coming from?

oh, and thanks for the kind words.
 
Here's a short summary of Stevenson's research.

Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics? - Bering in Mind - Scientific American Blog Network

Basically, he talked to a large number of children, and claims he found evidence that they knew about numerous details of other people's lives.

We might classify this as empirical evidence, but it's not scientific. He did not run a series of objective and repeatable experiments, designed to test his theory. He had no means to know if the parents had told the child stories, especially given how much of his studies were in societies with broad beliefs in reincarnation. There is no plausible scientific explanation for how the memories of a dead person would travel through time and space, and get inscribed on another brain. There isn't even a viable theory for how anyone could implant a memory in a brain without physical contact.

It's not science. It's codswallop.
 
Nietzsche says that we will live the same life, over and over again. God - I'll have to sit through the Ice Capades again. - Woody Allen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom