'20 cases suggestive of reincarnation'

[bfinn]

Much of the above discussion is worthless (if I may be so bold!) because lying, cultural conditioning etc. in no way explains how the children are able to provide large quantities of accurate information about people, past events & locations which in many (not all) cases they & their families & acquaintances have not (and pretty much could not have) had any connection with.

E.g. the child is able to identify names & relationships of people in an unconnected family & location, knows how to navigate around towns he/she has never visited, can identify and provide the history of possessions of the dead person, knows very intimate details that almost no-one else knows (e.g. what someone's dying words were), in some cases demonstrably knows things that absolutely no-one else knows (e.g. that the dead person buried such-and-such in the garden which is then dug up, or knowing that such-and-such is written on the back of a clock). In the stronger cases there are 30 or 40 individual items of this kind.

This is the central evidence that demands and lacks a conventional explanation.

Additionally (and though it is harder to quantify, having witnessed it himself Stevenson puts some emphasis on this aspect) the child typically behaves in an extraordinary way, often strongly believing and acting as if they are the person reincarnated rather than a young child - e.g. denying that their parents are their parents, insisting that they have children and grandchildren (we're talking a 2 or 3 year old here), trying to run away to their 'real' family in a distant town or village the parents have never spoken of or visited, acting towards the dead person's relatives in a quite inappropriate way (e.g. a toddler addressing to the dead person's adult children as if the toddler was their father).

I recommend you read Ian Stevenson's books for more details.

 

[cj.23]

Much of the above discussion is worthless (if I may be so bold!) because lying, cultural conditioning etc. in no way explains how the children are able to provide large quantities of accurate information about people, past events & locations which in many (not all) cases they & their families & acquaintances have not (and pretty much could not have) had any connection with.

Yes, I was thinking about the veridical side - but the issue is that in at least 80% of Stevensons cases the families had already made contact as I recall, so we are dealing with anecdotal recollections of the facts recorded after the event, often sometime after the fact, which while often multiply attested still remain anecdotal and subject to usual problems of confirmation bias, selective reporting, confabulation and all the other issues you get with testimony. Add to that the translation issues, and while extremely interesting, and supported by some other researchers like Haraldsson etc with their cases, I think it's too early to be too sure. I just think we should keep trying to investigate these cases.

I'm sorry you found our discussion worthless though! I shall ask Roy Stenman to comment I think...

cj x

 

[bfinn]

Yes, I was thinking about the veridical side - but the issue is that in at least 80% of Stevensons cases the families had already made contact as I recall, so we are dealing with anecdotal recollections of the facts recorded after the event, often sometime after the fact, which while often multiply attested still remain anecdotal and subject to usual problems of confirmation bias, selective reporting, confabulation and all the other issues you get with testimony.

That is true. But nonetheless I reckon the factual information conveyed is the strongest evidence in the cases. The behaviour stuff is all rather qualitative, and it's hard to put much weight on the birthmarks.

Add to that the translation issues, and while extremely interesting, and supported by some other researchers like Haraldsson etc with their cases, I think it's too early to be too sure.

I didn't think translation was much of an issue, in that Stevenson discussed it at some length and if I recall rightly was careful to use different translators on different occasions (or on occasion simultaneously) to avoid errors.

I just think we should keep trying to investigate these cases.

I agree with you there. One thing which I found slightly disappointing with the 20 Cases was that many of them dated from the 1940s or 1950s, which seemed rather long ago - though recent enough for data collection methods to be good, a more robust job would be done now (e.g. it could all be videoed).

 

[cj.23]

I note with some amusement James Randi deals with Sam Harris on Ian Stevenson in this weeks commentary. I politely disagree with his stance, as I do with his rejection of Radin's work. Radin needs properly critiquing, and Ersby has done a sterling job - that I respect - but I refuse to simply reject research because i am uncomfortable with the implications - I need to see why it is flawed, not just have it asserted because it does not fit our prevailing paradigm. Guess I took Kuhn to heart!

cj x

 

[CFLarsen]

Much of the above discussion is worthless (if I may be so bold!) because lying, cultural conditioning etc. in no way explains how the children are able to provide large quantities of accurate information about people, past events & locations which in many (not all) cases they & their families & acquaintances have not (and pretty much could not have) had any connection with.

E.g. the child is able to identify names & relationships of people in an unconnected family & location, knows how to navigate around towns he/she has never visited, can identify and provide the history of possessions of the dead person, knows very intimate details that almost no-one else knows (e.g. what someone's dying words were), in some cases demonstrably knows things that absolutely no-one else knows (e.g. that the dead person buried such-and-such in the garden which is then dug up, or knowing that such-and-such is written on the back of a clock). In the stronger cases there are 30 or 40 individual items of this kind.

This is the central evidence that demands and lacks a conventional explanation.

Additionally (and though it is harder to quantify, having witnessed it himself Stevenson puts some emphasis on this aspect) the child typically behaves in an extraordinary way, often strongly believing and acting as if they are the person reincarnated rather than a young child - e.g. denying that their parents are their parents, insisting that they have children and grandchildren (we're talking a 2 or 3 year old here), trying to run away to their 'real' family in a distant town or village the parents have never spoken of or visited, acting towards the dead person's relatives in a quite inappropriate way (e.g. a toddler addressing to the dead person's adult children as if the toddler was their father).

I recommend you read Ian Stevenson's books for more details.

What, in your opinion, is the best case for reincarnation?

Let's discuss it.

 

[bfinn]

I'd have to re-read the book to say which is the best case.

I recall that in one case Stevenson showed up on the scene before the families had met, which at least removes the usual doubt about the witnesses - does anyone know the name of that case? (Though I think it was less strong in other respects.)

 

[CFLarsen]

I'd have to re-read the book to say which is the best case.

When will that be?

 

[Rasmus55]

I'd have to re-read the book to say which is the best case.

I recall that in one case Stevenson showed up on the scene before the families had met, which at least removes the usual doubt about the witnesses - does anyone know the name of that case? (Though I think it was less strong in other respects.)

Hmm, does it remove the doubt? Based upon what, Stevenson's word? I don't think so. He would have to conduct his testing under controlled conditions with independant validation of his practices. That is the entire point to a scientific study, or at least so I've read but I'm no scientist (please correct me if I'm wrong). I grant you that you might not be able to get repeatable results here given the unique nature of what he's going after, although this could very easily have been remedied by independant verification concurrent with Stevenson's own investigations.

I suppose, however, if he argues for reincarnation and that the rates of awarness concerning past lives occur must frequently in children, a modern day study could be made to confirm his results. Why would children suddenly stop claiming to be reincarnated now for instance than at the time of Stevenson's alleged investigation?

Sorry to say that Stevenson is woo. He is a well cited source for the new age mystics. His data is old, tired, and of the same quality as the other credulous "scientists" in the paranormal field; unsubstantiated and anecdotal. He is credulous and clearly marketing himself to the believer. If we were to take what he says as true (that he heard stories from children), at best the most likely explanation is that the kids lied either on their own or with the assistance of their parents.

 

[bfinn]

Hmm, does it remove the doubt? Based upon what, Stevenson's word?

Yes - it removes the doubt other than of fraud by Stevenson.

I grant you that you might not be able to get repeatable results here given the unique nature of what he's going after, although this could very easily have been remedied by independant verification concurrent with Stevenson's own investigations.

It depends how independent you want it. E.g. many (perhaps most) of his investigations were witnessed by translators, who could be interviewed as to what they saw & heard. Yes, I suppose they could be in on a conspiracy too. But conspiracy theories get less and less plausible as the greater the number of people that have to be involved.

More than that and it wouldn't be 'very easy'. E.g. if you want an independent scientist trailing around after Stevenson verifying everything - that wouldn't be so easy. (And then the issue would arise about how independent that other scientist was - he could be in on it all too.) Stevenson's work was at least replicable - his interviews could have been replicated (even years later) by any other scientist who wanted to verify them.

Like I said, it would be more practical nowadays to provide some verification by videoing it all (though the video could itself be an elaborate fake).

I suppose, however, if he argues for reincarnation and that the rates of awarness concerning past lives occur must frequently in children, a modern day study could be made to confirm his results. Why would children suddenly stop claiming to be reincarnated now for instance than at the time of Stevenson's alleged investigation?

What makes you say that? Have children stopped claiming to be reincarnated?

Sorry to say that Stevenson is woo. He is a well cited source for the new age mystics.

So...? So if new age mystics cite quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics is false? Non sequitur.

His data is old, tired

What is 'tired' data? Does data degrade over time?
The age of data is irrelevant if it was gathered properly. (I have London stock market data going back to 1694. Is this 'old, tired data' which cannot be used? Stevenson's data is from the 1960s. Comparatively recent I'd say.)

and of the same quality as the other credulous "scientists" in the paranormal field; unsubstantiated and anecdotal

What would count as 'substantiated'? Multiple witnesses? He has those. And anyone else could have replicated Stevenson's interviews had they wanted to verify them.

'Anecdotal' - so is all testimony to be discarded? What about any scientist's testimony - e.g. research data - that can be made up just as easily.

He is credulous and clearly marketing himself to the believer.

I don't see any evidence of that in the 20 Cases book. On the contrary he seems to me to be careful & cautious in his claims, discussing possible mundane explanations, fraud etc. in depth for each case individually and for all collectively - I'd guess a third to a half of the book is taken up with such discussions. (Or is this not so?) And in the title of the book he says no more than that the cases are 'suggestive' of reincarnation (doesn't say they are proof of or examples of or even strong evidence of reincarnation).

If we were to take what he says as true (that he heard stories from children), at best the most likely explanation is that the kids lied either on their own or with the assistance of their parents.

Assuming you have read the 20 Cases book (have you?), how could 'lying' explain a toddler's apparent knowledge of names, faces, relationships, places, objects and events to which the toddler and his parents have had no exposure?

 

[CFLarsen]

Have children stopped claiming to be reincarnated?

If they haven't, it has been remarkably quiet.

Don't you think that, by now, we would have had an increasing number of well-documented cases of reincarnation?

Assuming you have read the 20 Cases book (have you?), how could 'lying' explain a toddler's apparent knowledge of names, faces, relationships, places, objects and events to which the toddler and his parents have had no exposure?

If you are so familiar with the book, you should have no trouble picking the best case.

 

[bfinn]

If they haven't, it has been remarkably quiet.

Don't you think that, by now, we would have had an increasing number of well-documented cases of reincarnation?

Who would be documenting them? Ian Stevenson is now dead, and I don't know how many others were working in this field, but presumably very few. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, particularly if no-one is looking.

(Hey, no-one's produced any new moon rocks in the last 30 years, so does that mean the moon doesn't have rocks on it any more? And those moon rocks from the 1960s - that's old, tired data. So there never were any rocks. Those astronauts, they were probably lying about rocks. )

 

[CFLarsen]

Who would be documenting them? Ian Stevenson is now dead, and I don't know how many others were working in this field, but presumably very few. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, particularly if no-one is looking.

(Hey, no-one's produced any new moon rocks in the last 30 years, so does that mean the moon doesn't have rocks on it any more? And those moon rocks from the 1960s - that's old, tired data. So there never were any rocks. Those astronauts, they were probably lying about rocks. )

Oh, come on! About 1 in 4 believe in reincarnation, it is a common theme in popular culture. Reincarnation is hot.

Yet, nobody seems to be able to dig up really convincing accounts. Heck, not even less convincing ones.

Look, just dig up any account that you find convincing, and let's discuss that.

OK?

 

[Rasmus55]

"It depends how independent you want it. E.g. many (perhaps most) of his investigations were witnessed by translators, who could be interviewed as to what they saw & heard. Yes, I suppose they could be in on a conspiracy too. But conspiracy theories get less and less plausible as the greater the number of people that have to be involved."

Except that if the underlying story was BS, then it doesn't matter how many other people heard it. The translators would be infected by the same fraud and fantasy as the researcher. (Please forgive me if I'm doing this whole quote thing wrong, I'm new to the boards and blogs in general and something of a hamfist when it comes to computers.)

"More than that and it wouldn't be 'very easy'. E.g. if you want an independent scientist trailing around after Stevenson verifying everything - that wouldn't be so easy. (And then the issue would arise about how independent that other scientist was - he could be in on it all too.) Stevenson's work was at least replicable - his interviews could have been replicated (even years later) by any other scientist who wanted to verify them."

So he made available to anyone who asked the names/address/contact info for each and every subject? And these subjects had agreed to further contact?

"Like I said, it would be more practical nowadays to provide some verification by videoing it all (though the video could itself be an elaborate fake)."

Agreed.

"What makes you say that? Have children stopped claiming to be reincarnated?"

My meaning was simple enough I think. If children have (according to the implication raised by his work) the ability or a heightened ability to remember past lives in comparison with adults, then why are researchers not out now, in the present day, attempting to confirm this most valuable discovery? Surely children today would have just as much memory of their past lives as children from the 1960's.

"So...? So if new age mystics cite quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics is false? Non sequitur."

Umm, not really. It's not quantum mechanics that is "false", although much of it is theoretical and yet to be proved. It is the new agers' use of quantum mechanics that is flawed; the flagrant hijacking of these theories as proof of some other, logically disconnected concept. In any case, my point was that this guy strikes me as having written this specifically with the parawoo audience in mind. He is providing this to others who are already prone to believe it without questioning either his methods or the veracity of those interviewed.

"What is 'tired' data? Does data degrade over time?
The age of data is irrelevant if it was gathered properly. (I have London stock market data going back to 1694. Is this 'old, tired data' which cannot be used? Stevenson's data is from the 1960s. Comparatively recent I'd say.)"

Well, no, age of data can certainly be relevant in many contexts. Detailed astronomical measurements taken in 1960's, for instance, can become "tired" or obsolete given the power and exactitude of modern equipment and computer systems. In this case, it is tired because (amongst other things) he is no longer around to discuss results that don't seem to accord with reality, who knows where the subjects are, and there is no way to evaluate the credibility of his methods. Fresh data is needed to confirm or support his hypothesis. Given the fact that children are born every day and they seem to be in such plentiful supply, there should be no problem conducting a new test with open and understood, controlled credible scientific methodologies and modern technologies.

"What would count as 'substantiated'? Multiple witnesses? He has those. And anyone else could have replicated Stevenson's interviews had they wanted to verify them."

Nope, multiple witnesses are subject to the same fraud as the researcher if approaching the issue from the same perspective. Substantiated would depend upon his method really. Did he separate the kids from the parents and then ask for descriptions of place/people/etc? Did he ask them to speak the language of whichever place their previous soul lived? Aside from what the kids wanted to say about people/place/things, did he ask questions each kid should know if he/she truly lived in that place/time? The list goes on and on and is dependent upon really his methodology.

"'Anecdotal' - so is all testimony to be discarded? What about any scientist's testimony - e.g. research data - that can be made up just as easily."

Anecdotal evidence is perhaps the worst kind. Witnesses in court lie under oath, don't remember things as they happened correctly (when faced with a video evidence for instance), might remember things that did not happen because of mental or physical illness, and a host of other factors. The same is true of UFO sightings, ghost sightings, etc. For instance, my grandmother has Macular Degeneration (spelling?). It affected her eyesight much later in life and she is by now basically blind. Yet, she told us that she began seeing my dead grandfather sitting by the bed at night while she was trying to fall asleep. She also sometimes sees Christmas trees, snow, and a host of other things from her life experiences while traveling in the car long distances (of course, she doesn't drive, she's a passenger). When she told her doctor these things (we thought she might be crazy), he said don't worry. This is very common. It is because when someone who had eyesight all their life loses it because of this illness, the brain begins to replay images from his/her life that appear real. The notion is that because this area of the brain was so occupied with sight for those many years, when the stimulus is gone it searches for activities on its own. Those include replaying the images. As an aside, this is one reason why some people see ghosts and aliens. In any case, my point is that anecdotal evidence is very unreliable and to be taken with the utmost skepticism.

"Assuming you have read the 20 Cases book (have you?), how could 'lying' explain a toddler's apparent knowledge of names, faces, relationships, places, objects and events to which the toddler and his parents have had no exposure?"

Haven't read them, probably won't, but don't need to. Simple way to explain this; the kid saw those people/place/things in person or was shown them by some other person. He/she was shown them in this lifetime; even if it was King Tut, someone said, "Ok, remember King Tut and here's a likeness; tell it to the nice man when he comes to talk to you." If the child actually knew these things, then I would first look to the parents or a close family member as the culprit. This sort of thing happens all the time with children. Sometimes children just make it up on their own, sometimes with the help of others.

 

[davidsmith73]

Who would be documenting them? Ian Stevenson is now dead, and I don't know how many others were working in this field, but presumably very few. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, particularly if no-one is looking.

Dr. Jim Tucker published a book in 2005 "Life before life". I haven't read it. I think he worked with Stevenson before he died and its a continuation of his work with more cases from around the world.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Please, please, PLEASE! Could we have a concrete case to discuss? I have read such accounts in the past (I fail to remember where), and I didn't find them very convincing, the weak point usually being the verification of the alleged memories.

But all this won't lead us anywhere. If we have a concrete case, we can discuss the concrete issues of that case.

Hans

 

[davidsmith73]

Please, please, PLEASE! Could we have a concrete case to discuss? I have read such accounts in the past (I fail to remember where), and I didn't find them very convincing, the weak point usually being the verification of the alleged memories.

But all this won't lead us anywhere. If we have a concrete case, we can discuss the concrete issues of that case.

Hans

With all respect to Stevenson's apparently honest scientific approach (I haven't read his work), I don't think you are going to get a "concrete" case. The unpredictable nature of all this really guards against it. People have enough of a hard time trying to induce an OBE under controlled conditions (trying to induce "reincarnation" would seem to necessitate killing someone, mmmm).

So I think the point of investigating "reincarnation" cases and writing a book about them is to engage those who are willing to hypothesise what it may mean for the nature of consciousness. If they're wrong, they're wrong. They retreat in embarassment. If they're right however...

 

[MRC_Hans]

By concrete case, I mean one of the existing accounts, like for instance one from the mentioned book.

Hans

 

[CFLarsen]

With all respect to Stevenson's apparently honest scientific approach (I haven't read his work), I don't think you are going to get a "concrete" case. The unpredictable nature of all this really guards against it. People have enough of a hard time trying to induce an OBE under controlled conditions (trying to induce "reincarnation" would seem to necessitate killing someone, mmmm).

So I think the point of investigating "reincarnation" cases and writing a book about them is to engage those who are willing to hypothesise what it may mean for the nature of consciousness. If they're wrong, they're wrong. They retreat in embarassment. If they're right however...

Sure, we can get concrete cases.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I think it is interesting that it is claimed that in some cases the child "knows things that absolutely no-one else knows". I bet you that I, too, could come up with some information from "a past life" that no one else knows. How would you be able to check me?

And as Claus says, if there was such convincing evidence of reincarnation, why is no one working on it today? I mean, such a discovery would be life-changing! It is part of the same argument as against psychics, ghost hunters, etc.

 

[Mojo]

Who would be documenting them? Ian Stevenson is now dead...

Surely a temporary inconvenience such as death won't stop him.