A Skeptics thoughts on Ian Stevenson's work on Reincarnation

#1
Maybe this has been posted before but it's probably worth posting it again, it's from 2013.

This is an example of a skeptic that keeps his mind open to evidence that is worth looking at. It is worth noting in the few comments that follow, how some people that call themselves skeptics, seem to quickly start frothing at the mouth and rubbishing Stevenson's work - admitting that they hadn't read it. Such people appear to me to be like loud mouthed yobs who would quickly turn a discussion into a fist fight if the 'discussion' were in person. In my view, in general there are far fewer proponents who seem so aggressive/defensive about their opinion. Though even on this forum there are signs of it now and again from both sides, thankfully not as extreme as those on other forums. :) I have been guilty of showing my Scottish aggression now and then too. (Usually as a reaction to someone - I know that's no excuse but we are what we are !:D)

Anyway that is an aside to what is an interesting article.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...e-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/
 
#2
How refreshing, a skeptic that understands the true meaning of the word. But then there's this guy:
Ha.

If you look hard and long enough you'll find correlations between anything. The reason why science doesn't take any of Stevenson's claims seriously is the same reason outrageous faith healing claims can't be taken seriously either - because at the end of the day they are anecdotes and anecdotes do not equal empirical evidence. If these claims to the paranormal were true I'd imagine they would be spot on the money, not this 27 out of 30 criteria found. Moreoever there's 7 billion people in the world , the majority of which (unfortunately) are uneducated. I'm sure if you look hard and long enough you can cherry pick a sample size large enough to make any outrageous claim.
Wow. Last I checked, there isn't one single theory that can muster a 100% accuracy rate. Makes me wonder how much this commenter actually knows about science.
 
#3
Wow. Last I checked, there isn't one single theory that can muster a 100% accuracy rate. Makes me wonder how much this commenter actually knows about science.
Not to mention that there are legitimate reasons why a reincarnated soul might not remember its past life with 100% accuracy: it's hard enough for many of us to remember with 100% accuracy the historical details of our current life; how much more difficult then for a past life?
 
#4
Now there's an intelligent skeptic.

There's clearly something there, even if it's not the single-soul reincarnation which most take as read.
Something along the lines of communal or grouped souls connecting across spacetime, maybe.

I don't know. But there is certainly something to try and explain. Those who simply point and laugh have got bigger personal problems than I.
 
Top