Merged Defend/Debate Reincarnation / Child Reincarnation Stories

[Wonder234]

In this thread, I was hoping that I could get a chain of objections going, the purpose of which is to not settle on some single objection we have to a claim and leave it at that, but to dig deeper and see where it leads us. So I will make an objection to an objection in this post and in the next post someone will object to my objection and in the post after that someone will object to their objection until we've reached a point where you can't make any more objection. I thought we would do this with child reincarnation stories. If you don't know what that is, it's when a child claims to remember a past life and the parents or a researcher or researchers are able to verify the details about the past life (google if you wish). I don't want to focus on Ian Stevenson but just what the case is by itself.

I'll begin:

Claim: Reincarnation is real.

Evidence: Children's past life memories are verified.

Objection: Cryptomnesia: Children get "past life memories" from various sources in their life such as a television, or a book and forget where they got it from and mistake it for a past life memory.

Objection to objection: There are cases where a child remembers being someone so obscure that there is practically no way to come across information about them other than deliberately searching for it.

After this someone would object to that last objection and then the chain starts.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Shrug, Sure.

I object and want to know the specific cases.

 

[Kid Eager]

Yes, the evidence is not evidence, but rather anecdotes that fold when actually examined critically rather than credulously.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

There are cases where a child remembers being someone so obscure that there is practically no way to come across information about them other than deliberately searching for it.

Which cases are these?

 

[Bikewer]

I agree we'd need specifics. In her book "Spook, Science Looks At The Aferlife", author Mary Roach interviewed a Hindu scientist working in India to find actual evidence of reincarnation.
Despite interviewing dozens of families and the children with their past-life memories, he's forced to conclude that these are all explainable by ordinary things. And this guy wants to believe....But his scientific training won't let him accept the anecdotes.

 

[shemp]

This applies:

 

[Wonder234]

I'm sorry, the point of this thread was not to argue about specific cases, but just to argue about the theory or idea of someone remembering a past life and those details being verified later. I know, this may not tie into reality, but I just wanted to know does the idea hold up. If you think this can not be done, just give it a try.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm sorry, the point of this thread was not to argue about specific cases, but just to argue about the theory or idea of someone remembering a past life and those details being verified later. I know, this may not tie into reality, but I just wanted to know does the idea hold up. If you think this can not be done, just give it a try.

The problem is, all we have are specific cases. Skepticism is about examining the evidence, and the evidence is a collection of specific cases. If we are to examine whether it is possible to recollect a past life, the only way to determine the answer is to ask whether there are verifiable cases of someone remembering accurately details that they could not have known by any means other than memory of a past life; and if no verifiable cases are found, we assume the null hypothesis that it is not possible. Theoretically there is no mechanism by which anyone can hold memories from the life of someone else, so there is no theory to argue about.

Dave

 

[Darat]

Well put. Wonder234 what is it you want to discuss?

 

[Wonder234]

The problem is, all we have are specific cases. Skepticism is about examining the evidence, and the evidence is a collection of specific cases. If we are to examine whether it is possible to recollect a past life, the only way to determine the answer is to ask whether there are verifiable cases of someone remembering accurately details that they could not have known by any means other than memory of a past life; and if no verifiable cases are found, we assume the null hypothesis that it is not possible. Theoretically there is no mechanism by which anyone can hold memories from the life of someone else, so there is no theory to argue about.

Dave

What about instead of specific evidence we talk about reasonable possibilities? Take the first post, my objection to an objection as an example.

I object to the idea of cryptomnesia, the idea that children's past life memories come from mundane, everyday sources like television that they then forget where it came from and mistake it for a past life memory. Instead of saying "there are cases where children remember being someone obscure", let's say instead, isn't it possible that children could remember being someone obscure? This is when you check inside yourself to see if that is reasonable. Just like we don't know if someone has ever shaved a rabbit of all it's fur, we could still judge that such a thing is possible. I know that just saying it's possible doesn't mean that there is a case where someone remembers being someone obscure and therefore it doesn't really make it any more likely that past life memories are just cryptomnesia, it just shows that it might be possible for such a case to exist (that could actually one day happen). Therefore, in a way, we are arguing for actual cases.

 

[fuelair]

What about instead of specific evidence we talk about reasonable possibilities? Take the first post, my objection to an objection as an example.

I object to the idea of cryptomnesia, the idea that children's past life memories come from mundane, everyday sources like television that they then forget where it came from and mistake it for a past life memory. Instead of saying "there are cases where children remember being someone obscure", let's say instead, isn't it possible that children could remember being someone obscure? This is when you check inside yourself to see if that is reasonable. Just like we don't know if someone has ever shaved a rabbit of all it's fur, we could still judge that such a thing is possible. I know that just saying it's possible doesn't mean that there is a case where someone remembers being someone obscure and therefore it doesn't really make it any more likely that past life memories are just cryptomnesia, it just shows that it might be possible for such a case to exist (that could actually one day happen). Therefore, in a way, we are arguing for actual cases.

You are perfectly free to reject anything you wish to. Unfortunately so far you have lost at least two and probably any others , assuming you have posted more. You are wasting your time here. Most of us (other than the trolls) already have the skills needed to tell feces from shoe polish!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

What about instead of specific evidence we talk about reasonable possibilities? Take the first post, my objection to an objection as an example.

I object to the idea of cryptomnesia, the idea that children's past life memories come from mundane, everyday sources like television that they then forget where it came from and mistake it for a past life memory. Instead of saying "there are cases where children remember being someone obscure", let's say instead, isn't it possible that children could remember being someone obscure? This is when you check inside yourself to see if that is reasonable. Just like we don't know if someone has ever shaved a rabbit of all it's fur, we could still judge that such a thing is possible. I know that just saying it's possible doesn't mean that there is a case where someone remembers being someone obscure and therefore it doesn't really make it any more likely that past life memories are just cryptomnesia, it just shows that it might be possible for such a case to exist (that could actually one day happen). Therefore, in a way, we are arguing for actual cases.

Oh, check Bridey (ie?) Murphy scam for example.

 

[Wonder234]

Well put. Wonder234 what is it you want to discuss?

I wanted to start a chain of objection where someone objects to my last objection on the first post, and then someone objects to that persons objection and so on, so as to see what holds up, and to get closer to the truth on this matter. And also for fun.

 

[fuelair]

I wanted to start a chain of objection where someone objects my last objection on the first post, and then someone objects that persons objection and so on, so as to see what holds up, and to get closer to the truth on this matter. And also for fun.

Not fun, waste of effort: You want infinite objections. Once you have a good one, stick with it. Not our job!!! And not what we are here for.

 

[Wonder234]

You are perfectly free to reject anything you wish to. Unfortunately so far you have lost at least two and probably any others , assuming you have posted more. You are wasting your time here. Most of us (other than the trolls) already have the skills needed to tell feces from shoe polish!!!!!

But what about the smart people who believe? If you are an atheist, wouldn't that argument asking how can religious people believe in their religion while at the same time dismissing other religions, also apply to you (assuming you don't believe)? What I'm saying is, keep an open mind. It hasn't been disproven after all.

 

[John Jones]

I wanted to start a chain of objection where someone objects my last objection on the first post, and then someone objects that persons objection and so on, so as to see what holds up, and to get closer to the truth on this matter. And also for fun.

It's been done to death. Make some extraordinary claim and see if you can defend it. That would be a rarity. Ask Jabba.

 

[Wonder234]

Not fun, waste of effort: You want infinite objections. Once you have a good one, stick with it. Not our job!!! And not what we are here for.

Once you have a good one, stick with it.

How do you know it's good if you don't test it?

Not our job!!! And not what we are here for.

Being as this is a skeptic forum, I figured questioning the claim of past life memories would be an apt topic. Also you don't have to participate if you don't want to, if there are any takers, that's nice, if not that's OK as well.

 

[Garrette]

My objections to your Objection to the Objection is that the Objection being objected to is so incomplete as to be a straw man and the Evidence presupposes the conclusion by claiming the memories are verified. I understand what you are attempting here, but you stumble at the very first hurdle.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm sorry, the point of this thread was not to argue about specific cases, but just to argue about the theory or idea of someone remembering a past life and those details being verified later. I know, this may not tie into reality, but I just wanted to know does the idea hold up. If you think this can not be done, just give it a try.

You can't get around specific cases. It's like saying what if pigs could fly? As long as nobody cannot show an example of pigs flying, nobody is going to buy ****-proof umbrellas.

If there isn't even a single verifiable past-life memory that cannot be explained otherwise, what is there to discuss?

Hans

 

[Dave Rogers]

What about instead of specific evidence we talk about reasonable possibilities?

There are no 'reasonable possibilities' by which one person could remember things that happened to another. There's not really anywhere to go from there.

It seems that what you want to do is to divorce our understanding of reality from actual events, and to proceed from theory to understanding without testing theory against reality. It's a fruitless and sterile approach, because there's no method by which it can be corrected should it fail to agree with reality. The scientific method is a superior approach; formulate a theory, determine what would be required to falsify that theory, test it against specific cases (this is the bit where reality impinges), and accept or reject it based on whether it has yet been falsified. If you remove the bit where theories are tested against specific cases, then you're discussing fantasies rather than reality.

So unless you can come up with a case that specifically refutes cryptomnesia, then you don't really have an argument, because cryptomnesia doesn't violate the theoretical structure that has been extensively tested against actual cases, whereas actual remembrance of past lives does; cryptomnesia is therefore a more parsimonious choice.

Dave