RayG
Master Poster
Interesting Ian said:
Does this hold true for ALL birthmarks, or only the ones that support your hypothesis?
RayG
Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot
- Thread starter shemp
- Start date
Does this hold true for ALL birthmarks, or only the ones that support your hypothesis?
RayG
RichardR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,274
In Skeptic magazine V.9 #3 Leonard Angel reviewed Ian Stevenson's “Reincarnation and Biology†where Stevenson explains his “theory†that birthmarks represent the death wounds of reincarnated people. Angel completely debunks Stevenson’s data, exposing how he uses “backwards reasoning†to supply missing evidence that would favor his theory, and then uses that evidence to support the theory.RayG said:
Angel also exposes the error in Stevenson’s statistics. Stevenson claims the probability of such birthmarks resembling a death wound would be tiny, but Angel calculates it at 70%. Stevenson’s error is in simplistically dividing the body into a fixed “gridâ€. He then calculates the probability of the birthmark and death wound being in the same square on the grid, and decides it is low. But he ignores the probability of the two being on separate squares on the grid but still close together.
Angel also finds “blatant misrepresentations of primary evidence and faulty summarizationâ€. What he means is that Stevenson assumes results based on his theory, and then somehow “forgets†which bits of data were assumed and which real. He speculates that Stevenson “is so accustomed to reasoning backwards that he keeps confusing data he has hypothesized to be true with data he has established to be true by primary evidenceâ€.
As I said, Stevenson is a well meaning fool; his work cannot be relied on as any kind of evidence for reincarnation.
RichardR said:
That's what I figured. Any mark that supports his hypothesis is used as evidence.
I wonder what this guy would say about my family in regards to our birth marks. My brother, daughter, son and I all have "stork bites" at the base of skulls. My son and I also both have birth marks on our bung holes (not sure if my brother does). I think I really need to find out what the hell happened to us in our previous lives.
RichardR said:
That's what I figured. Any mark that supports his hypothesis is used as evidence.
I wonder what this guy would say about my family in regards to our birth marks. My brother, daughter, son and I all have "stork bites" at the base of skulls. My son and I also both have birth marks on our bung holes (not sure if my brother does). I think I really need to find out what the hell happened to us in our previous lives.
Nucular said:
Well, I'm not familiar with this case, but if your statement accurately sums up this whole case evidence I think '#1' is of course a more likely explanation ....... but is that the whole case or skeptic oversimplification of it?
I’ve come to realize over the years just how selective skeptics and believers are in presenting just the data to support their preferred paradigm. Less well informed sceptics assume only believers are prone to this human weakness ...... but if one reads both sides of the debate, one becomes aware just how alarmingly biased skeptic resources can be in skeptic dictionaries etc.
RichardR said:
With regard to philosopher Leonard Angel critique and the reply from Ian Stevenson ……….Vitor Moura wrote an article on the debate concluding mistakes were made by both Angel and Stevenson ..... to sum up he says ……..
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 4,993
Unless they can come up with a way to rule out #1, that's the one I'd stick with. Stick with what works, and I haven't seen anything that can't be covered by explanation #1.Open Mind said:
I believe skepticism is about defaulting to known explanations until they fail. I've never seen them fail me.
True. Genuine skeptics should know they can be fooled, which is why scientists design their protocols to prevent that.
I don't see much bias in skeptic resources. They have means of correction and filtering. Skeptical opinions can even be reversed by properly replicated, controlled, double-blind studies.
I, however, see extreme bias in parapsychology resources without any effort whatsoever to reduce it.
RayG
Master Poster
RichardR said:
Yup, just got my hands on that issue via eBay. Sending off payment tomorrow for Reincarnation: A Critical Examination, by Paul Edwards (1996), and Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert Park (2000). Both for $1.98 plus shipping.
I also took a closer look at reincarnation a couple years ago. It seems proponents have lots of excuses, but no actual evidence.
See my submission to the SkepticReport:
http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/reincarnation29.htm
I also searched through some books in an attempt to find scientific evidence of reincarnation. My results are posted at Skeptics Quinte:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032807091&lp=1033972322
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032806849&lp=1032806849
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032806967&lp=1032806967
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032807327&lp=1032807327
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032807397&lp=1032807397
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032807561&lp=1032807561
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1033660184&lp=1033660184
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1033660316&lp=1034022209
RayG
If you want a classic example of how Ian is data mining information to support his own narcissism, whilst wildly indulging in being abusive again, this thread proves an excellent illustration. I hope you will all include it in replies to him for years to come as evidence of how his behaviour really hasn't improven at all, despite his insisting that he has.
This is the quote in particular that you should be aware of:
He said the above in response to a post which contains links to numerous examples of where Ian gives an awful lot of evidence of his own real life dyfunction; not just of his own percieved failings, but a painful awareness of failing in a social context away from the JREF. His own words are there for you to click on... and they all show that he's proven himself to be judged negatively in real life.
For instance, follow the third link given, to one of his suspensions, then step over to the thread where he earned it... and you find Ian telling us on Page 1 of a seance years ago where the Medium identifies him, from a face to face meeting, as having a drinking problem. Whether through her own observation, or that of spirits, or simply that God allows her to know this, it doesn't matter. Something saw him years ago, and knew he was involved in drinking heavily.
On Page 3 of that thread Ian admits he used to get drunk because he needed it as a pyscological crutch when meeting people in real life.
On Page 4 of that thread you get a list of all the times Ian has admitted he has a drinking problem more recently.
On Page 5 Tricky refers to the fact that Ian has admitted he is unable to maintain female interest in real life.
On Page 6 you get the following quote directly from Ian;
Which could be just about anyone's experience of school, really. It certainly was mine; I was never invited to parties either... but anyway, Ian is telling you about his real life. There's no need to speculate. He got the shinola kicked out of him at school. He says so. Now me, I found being known as "The Professor" at school gave me a certain amount of credit with the Johnny Hard's who needed their homework doing... the beatings stopped right about the time competitive examinations started... what a coincidence, eh? Never made many genuine friends from that, but no one does in this life... anyway, getting off the point somewhat.
Now, I can't re-find the comment, but as I idly skim read the various threads that Ian was linked to, I could have sworn I also saw someone else refer to the fact that Ian had said that a woman once told him he was "Intellectual but not intelligent", or similar... Which Ian did not question, so I presume it's an honest reflection of something he's genuinely been told, and then genuinely told the JREF... yet another example of real life information Ian has volunteered to us.
Even if that particular recollection is not accurate, I've personally seen him start another thread himself to complain about homosexuals expressing interest in him, and then declared the following examples of his social inadequacy;
So Ian kindly let us know that he's completely uncharismatic socially, except when he's being deliberately yobbish to attract girls he wouldn't otherwise get.
No, Ian has tried to phrase the debate in a way which states that his behaviour at the JREF is somehow either a response to sK[/i]epticism, or something unrelated to his true nature... and he's done it in reply to a number of threads where he personally has volunteered information about how he is disliked in real life too. And of course, there's an enormous amount of supplimentary information any one of us can recall too.
What does this have to do with "Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot"? Nothing much, except that Ian is willing to try and shoe horn "Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot" into supporting his primary belief system that "Interesting Ian Is Good, Interesting Ian Is Special"... which he feels he can do, because it supports his metaphysical assumptions, which in turn are the way in which he tells himself he is special.
Except, Interesting Ian has at the same time been shown numerous examples of when Interesting Ian has told us himself that even away from the JREF, he's not special at all: In fact, he seems by his own admission to be disliked by a very wide number of people. So if "Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot" is actually true, what we've in fact been lead to is quite the opposite conclusion from the one Ian is trying to draw... Who wouldn't want to have been a dashing pilot in a past life? I know I would, ever since vague memories of having an uncle who flew Spits in the Battle Of Britain, but who died before I was old enough to ever really know him as anything more than a canvas to paint my own dreams onto. But... someone has obviously got the ◊◊◊◊◊ end of the karmic stick and had the misfortune of being reincarnated as Interesting Ian, who by his own acknowledgement leads quite the miserable life indeed... and who he himself admits alienates, offends, or is just plain misunderstood by everyone else in turn who interacts with him away from the JREF. Who'd want to be Ian in this life, let alone future life or a past life?
A life he then finds he needs to lie to you about, and perhaps even himself at times, and claim no one here knows anything at all about what he is like away from the boards, even as you point him towards the thread where he tells you that information? And is that collection of dishonesty and misery a convincing argument for reincarnation, or Interesting Ian's own sense of specialness for you, do you think?
As I said, I hope you'll keep referring to this thread for years to come. It's vintage Interesting Ian.
This is the quote in particular that you should be aware of:
He said the above in response to a post which contains links to numerous examples of where Ian gives an awful lot of evidence of his own real life dyfunction; not just of his own percieved failings, but a painful awareness of failing in a social context away from the JREF. His own words are there for you to click on... and they all show that he's proven himself to be judged negatively in real life.
For instance, follow the third link given, to one of his suspensions, then step over to the thread where he earned it... and you find Ian telling us on Page 1 of a seance years ago where the Medium identifies him, from a face to face meeting, as having a drinking problem. Whether through her own observation, or that of spirits, or simply that God allows her to know this, it doesn't matter. Something saw him years ago, and knew he was involved in drinking heavily.
On Page 3 of that thread Ian admits he used to get drunk because he needed it as a pyscological crutch when meeting people in real life.
On Page 4 of that thread you get a list of all the times Ian has admitted he has a drinking problem more recently.
On Page 5 Tricky refers to the fact that Ian has admitted he is unable to maintain female interest in real life.
On Page 6 you get the following quote directly from Ian;
Which could be just about anyone's experience of school, really. It certainly was mine; I was never invited to parties either... but anyway, Ian is telling you about his real life. There's no need to speculate. He got the shinola kicked out of him at school. He says so. Now me, I found being known as "The Professor" at school gave me a certain amount of credit with the Johnny Hard's who needed their homework doing... the beatings stopped right about the time competitive examinations started... what a coincidence, eh? Never made many genuine friends from that, but no one does in this life... anyway, getting off the point somewhat.
Now, I can't re-find the comment, but as I idly skim read the various threads that Ian was linked to, I could have sworn I also saw someone else refer to the fact that Ian had said that a woman once told him he was "Intellectual but not intelligent", or similar... Which Ian did not question, so I presume it's an honest reflection of something he's genuinely been told, and then genuinely told the JREF... yet another example of real life information Ian has volunteered to us.
Even if that particular recollection is not accurate, I've personally seen him start another thread himself to complain about homosexuals expressing interest in him, and then declared the following examples of his social inadequacy;
So Ian kindly let us know that he's completely uncharismatic socially, except when he's being deliberately yobbish to attract girls he wouldn't otherwise get.
No, Ian has tried to phrase the debate in a way which states that his behaviour at the JREF is somehow either a response to sK[/i]epticism, or something unrelated to his true nature... and he's done it in reply to a number of threads where he personally has volunteered information about how he is disliked in real life too. And of course, there's an enormous amount of supplimentary information any one of us can recall too.
What does this have to do with "Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot"? Nothing much, except that Ian is willing to try and shoe horn "Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot" into supporting his primary belief system that "Interesting Ian Is Good, Interesting Ian Is Special"... which he feels he can do, because it supports his metaphysical assumptions, which in turn are the way in which he tells himself he is special.
Except, Interesting Ian has at the same time been shown numerous examples of when Interesting Ian has told us himself that even away from the JREF, he's not special at all: In fact, he seems by his own admission to be disliked by a very wide number of people. So if "Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot" is actually true, what we've in fact been lead to is quite the opposite conclusion from the one Ian is trying to draw... Who wouldn't want to have been a dashing pilot in a past life? I know I would, ever since vague memories of having an uncle who flew Spits in the Battle Of Britain, but who died before I was old enough to ever really know him as anything more than a canvas to paint my own dreams onto. But... someone has obviously got the ◊◊◊◊◊ end of the karmic stick and had the misfortune of being reincarnated as Interesting Ian, who by his own acknowledgement leads quite the miserable life indeed... and who he himself admits alienates, offends, or is just plain misunderstood by everyone else in turn who interacts with him away from the JREF. Who'd want to be Ian in this life, let alone future life or a past life?
A life he then finds he needs to lie to you about, and perhaps even himself at times, and claim no one here knows anything at all about what he is like away from the boards, even as you point him towards the thread where he tells you that information? And is that collection of dishonesty and misery a convincing argument for reincarnation, or Interesting Ian's own sense of specialness for you, do you think?
As I said, I hope you'll keep referring to this thread for years to come. It's vintage Interesting Ian.
How, exactly, do you know that?
SusanB-M1
Incurable Optimist
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 3,766
Life is full of interesting coincidences, isn't it? I was referring to this subject on another forum just a few days ago.
I would be interested to know why you chose this as your first post on JREF? And of course welcome.
iMaGiNaTioN
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 67
I think the parents on this Childrens Past Lives forum are just trying to make their children seem 'more special' than others. Same goes for Indigo believers. It's just the need to know your children are 'special'. One mother insists her toddler is a 9/11 victim reincarnated because he pretends to be a firefighter(??!!).
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
Parents take family on trip. Explain to children about the museums they're going to visit.
Over imaginative boy takes it all to heart.
Resurrection? Bah Humbug
Over imaginative boy takes it all to heart.
Resurrection? Bah Humbug
FramerDave
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 820
I'm not inclined to wade through a pile of four year old bickering, so maybe this has been covered...
They made a big deal about the kid looking at planes as though he was doing a pre-flight check. Did anyone ever think to ask him what he was doing, what he was checking for? If he told me he was checking to make sure the pitot-static tube was unobstructed, inspection plates are secure and that the start area is safe and clear, I'd take a second look at it. Otherwise, it's just a kid who's fascinated by planes.
Did they ever think of asking the kid who his CO was? The name of the CAG? His serial number? Somehow I think I know the answers.
They made a big deal about the kid looking at planes as though he was doing a pre-flight check. Did anyone ever think to ask him what he was doing, what he was checking for? If he told me he was checking to make sure the pitot-static tube was unobstructed, inspection plates are secure and that the start area is safe and clear, I'd take a second look at it. Otherwise, it's just a kid who's fascinated by planes.
Did they ever think of asking the kid who his CO was? The name of the CAG? His serial number? Somehow I think I know the answers.
RichardR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,274
Don't blame you. It has been covered - mostly. To repeat what I wrote all those years ago, I think, with quite a good degree of certainty, we can say what happened with this child.
The child visited the WWII air museum before any of the other WWII related issues started. I have confirmed this information came from the kid's mother. Everything else follows from that - the museum had a Corsair exhibit, had a drop fuel tank exhibit etc. The therapist Carol Bowman is of the Ian Stevenson "ask leading questions" school. The whole thing is nonsense dressed up for TV ratings.
I wrote about it here.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,501
Well I actually spent the time while waiting for Open Office to download (30 minutes) and install on my other computer (it now seems to hung trying to connect to the registration site
).Why is it the argument always with us poor skeptics at JREFF? No scientist in the World thinks reincarnation is real. Convince a few of them first and I'll believe too.
In the meantime I'm worried about my daughter as she really took to dinosaurs as toddler. Knew their scientific names and everything. Either she was Betty Flinstone in a previous life or an archaeologist.
Note that this all happened after I bought her a book on dinosaurs that I used to read to her at bedtime.