Edinburgh's ghost mystery solved :-)

[Chimpy]

Journal of Scientific Exploration???? I will repeat: cite a real, scientific, peer-reviewed journal not something that rambles on about UFOs and ET. Unfortunately for you, I am well acquainted with woo-woo literature. Nonsense dressed up with fancy words is still nonsense.

When you can come up with a proper study let me know, until then I'm done with this thread.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Journal of Scientific Exploration???? I will repeat: cite a real, scientific, peer-reviewed journal not something that rambles on about UFOs and ET. Unfortunately for you, I am well acquainted with woo-woo literature. Nonsense dressed up with fancy words is still nonsense.

When you can come up with a proper study let me know, until then I'm done with this thread. [/B]

I am not aware of there being anything wrong with the "Journal of Scientific Exploration". It is a scientific peer reviewed journal. If it is peer reviewed, then what's your problem??

But still, in order to stop your whining here is some peer reviewed work not in that journal:

On Reincarnation

"American children who claim to remember previous lives," by Ian Stevenson (J. Nervous and Mental Disease 171 (1983) pp. 742-748).

The Explanatory Value of the Idea of Reincarnation by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 164:305-326, 1977.)

The Southeast Asian Interpretation of Gender Dysphoria: An Illustrative Case Report by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 165:201-208, 1977.)

Characteristics of Cases of the Reincarnation Type Among the Igbo of Nigeria by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Asian and African Studies XXI:204-216, 1986.)

Three New Cases of the Reincarnation Type in Sri Lanka with Written Records Made before Verification by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 176:741, 1988.)

Does the Socio-Psychological Hypothesis Explain Cases of the Reincarnation Type? by Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Sybo Schouten. (J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 186:504-506, 1998.)

The Phenomenon of Claimed Memories of Previous Lives: Possible Interpretations and Importance by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (Medical Hypotheses 54(4):652-659, 2000.)

An Unusual Birthmark Case Thought to be Linked to a Person Who Had Previously Died by Dr. Jürgen Keil and Dr. Jim B. Tucker. (Psychological Reports 87:1067-1074, 2000.)

Ropelike Birthmarks on Children Who Claim to Remember Past Lives. by Dr. Ian Stevenson (Psychological Reports 89:142-144, 2001.)

Can Cultural Beliefs Cause a Gender Identity Disorder? by Dr. Jim B. Tucker and Dr. Jürgen Keil. (Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 13(2):21-30, 2001.) (Report of a child in Thailand who was born with a birthmark that matched a mark made on the body of his deceased grandmother. As he got older, he claimed to be his grandmother reborn, and he demonstrated cross-gender behavior).

Cases of the Reincarnation Type with Memories from the Intermission Between Lives by Poonam Sharma and Dr. Jim B. Tucker. (Journal of Near-Death Studies 23(2):101-118, 2005.)


On Near-Death Experiences

Near-Death Experiences: Relevance to the Question of Survival after Death by Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Bruce Greyson. (J. Am. Med. Assn. 242:265-267, 1979.)

Increase in Psychic Phenomena Following Near-Death Experiences by Dr. Bruce Greyson. (Theta 11:26-29, 1983.)

Near-Death Experiences Precipitated by Suicide Attempt: Lack of Influence of Psychopathology, Religion, and Expectations by Dr. Bruce Greyson. (J. Near-Death Stud. 9:183-188, 1991.)

Can Experiences Near Death Furnish Evidence of Life after Death? by Dr. Emily Williams Kelly, Dr. Bruce Greyson, and Dr. Ian Stevenson. (Omega 40:513-519, 1999-2000.)

Near-Death Experiences with Reports of Meeting Deceased People by Dr. Emily Williams Kelly. (Death Studies 25:229-249, 2001.)

And more general articles:

Research into the Evidence of Man's Survival after Death by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 165:152-170, 1977.)

The Contribution of Apparitions to the Evidence for Survival by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Am. Soc. Psychical Research 76:341-358, 1982.)

Do We Need a New Word to Supplement "Hallucination"? by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (Am. J. Psychiatry 140:1609-1611, 1983.)

The Survival Question: Impasse or Crux? by Dr. Emily Williams Cook. (J. Am. Soc. Psychical Research 81:125-139, 1986.)

Two Tests of Survival after Death: Report on Negative Results by Dr. Ian Stevenson, A. Oram, and B. Markwick) (J. Soc. Psychical Research 55: 329-336, 1989.)

The Case of Giuseppe Riccardi: An Unusual Drop-In Communicator in Italy by Dr. Ian Stevenson, S. Ravaldini, and M. Biondi. (J. Soc. Psychical Research 56:257-265, 1990.)

The Subliminal Consciousness: F.H.W. Myers's Approach to the Problem of Survival by Dr. Emily Williams Cook. (J. Parapsychology 58:40-58, 1994.)

 

[dann]

Hang on a sec, hang on a sec, hang on a sec. Groups of volunteers were sent to 4 locations with 2 allegedly being haunted. But I bet you they knew beforehand (i.e they were told by Wiseman) that some of these locations were allegedly haunted. So your conclusion that people find almost 50% of all buildings haunted is utterly absurd.

Hang on a sec, Ian, and read what I write! "Pretty impressive, actually, that almost fifty per cent of all buildings seem to be 'haunted' when you make this kind of test," I don't conclude what you think I conclude! (What else is new?!) And instead of betting, take a look at what the original post said:

Professor Wiseman sent groups of volunteers to four locations without telling them that only two had a strong reputation for being haunted. The aim was to compare reports from the different sites.

About 70 per cent of those visiting the haunted locations reported unusual phenomena. In contrast, only 48 per cent of people exploring the locations not reputed to be haunted had spooky experiences.

At the most haunted site, where a sinister figure in black has been seen repeatedly, something strange happened to more than 80 per cent of the volunteers.

Do your own experiment. Try sending people to a building, but don't mention that it might be haunted. Ask them if they felt it was haunted afterwards (or better still just ask them if they felt anything at all and allow them to elaborate). Now try sending people to a building but with the prior suggestion that it is (or might be) allegedly haunted, then ask the same questions afterwards. You would be remarkably naive to imagine that the results will be the same!

Yes, you would be, and, no, I'm not!

And on this note the experiment could have been conducted better. The same people should have visited all 4 locations and told beforehand that 2 of them were haunted. I bet if they were asked to pick out the haunted locations the figures would be much more impressive.

Slightly different experiment. But still ... Why don't you do it yourself, then you don't have to bet!

dann: "and I bet that the superstitious won't stress this piece of empirical 'fact'."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian: Because it's not relevant for the reasons I've expressed above.

So now the superstitious only ignore irrelevant facts?They are pretty shrewd, the superstitious!

dann: "So far he's only managed to isolate a phenomenon that needs an explanation: a correlation between alleged haunted houses and the feeling of being haunted. That in itself doesn't strengthen anything."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian: No, not just a feeling. There have been reports of apparitions, phantom footsteps, unexplained cold spots and unseen hands. Don't ignore facts which are inconvenient to your skeptical hypothesis.

Which facts do I ignore? The phenomenon in this case is that the people in this experiment return from a trip to four locations, two of them allegedly haunted, and report certain feelings. Don't ignore facts, Ian, just because they may not be convenient to your woowoo beliefs!

By the way, are you identical with Dr. Ian Stevenson, the reincarnationist?

 

[Chimpy]

By the way, are you identical with Dr. Ian Stevenson, the reincarnationist?

Ah. That would explain a lot.

Besides, what he's not getting is that if someone did anthropological studies of reincarnation it wouldn't "prove" reincarnation, it would merely show the people who believe it, what they believe etc. I was thoroughly amused by the J our Scientific Exploration... plenty of UFOs, google it for pure amusement.

 

[davidsmith73]

Ah. That would explain a lot.

Besides, what he's not getting is that if someone did anthropological studies of reincarnation it wouldn't "prove" reincarnation, it would merely show the people who believe it, what they believe etc. I was thoroughly amused by the J our Scientific Exploration... plenty of UFOs, google it for pure amusement.

Chimpy,

Do you think you would consider finding copies of the papers that Ian linked and reading them?

 

[Chimpy]

I will have a look at the J. of Nervous Medicine later (exam time, sorry but I don't want to fail ), J of Scientific Exploration is as woo woo as it gets and yes I have looked at it before. With reference to ETHNOGRAPHIC studies of reincarnation I have read plenty, given that I am an archaeologist. They are ethnographic not scientific accounts. This does not mean that they do not have any value btw. They are valuable to the discipline of anthropology etc.

 

[dann]

Do you think you would consider finding copies of the papers that Ian linked and reading them?

I didn't see him link any papers ...?????

 

[Chimpy]

I didn't see him link any papers ...?????

He gave a list of refs. J of Sci Exploration is online, abstracts only (but I've seen full paper copies elsewhere). Most journals don't give free access to the full text anyways, they make you subscribe. Lucky me, I'm on a uni network

 

[dann]

Above I had a question for the guy who calls himself Interesting Ian:

Originally posted by dann 05-23-2005 06:13 AM
By the way, are you identical with Dr. Ian Stevenson, the reincarnationist?

 

[Hastur]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And certainly no-one has demonstrated that there isn't.

Appeal to ignorance. Bad philosopher. No rear parking.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No-one has demonstarated life after death, but there are philosophical reasons and evidence to back it up.

And the value of this "evidence" -- nothing. Until there is tangible evidence of an afterlife, it remains something that cannot rationally be maintained.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Above I had a question for the guy who calls himself Interesting Ian:

No I am not Ian Stevenson.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Chimpy
No one has yet demonstrated that there is life after death.

Interesting Ian
And certainly no-one has demonstrated that there isn't.

Hastur
Appeal to ignorance. Bad philosopher. No rear parking.

I presume these words should be directed at Chimpy too?

 

[Hastur]

No, only you, Ian. While Chimpy is on the brink of the appeal to ignorance as well, his statement is at least justified under parsimony. With no credible evidence of an afterlife, the only logically viable position is that there is no afterlife. This position is subject to change, though, if such credible evidence emerges.

 

[Interesting Ian]

No, only you, Ian. While Chimpy is on the brink of the appeal to ignorance as well, his statement is at least justified under parsimony.

Parsimony is not an immutable law of the Universe. Should we disbelieve physicists with their claim that there exists a plethora of subatomic particles? Afterall, the law of parsimony states they cannot exist Neither does so-called "parsimony" always support the materialist metaphysic. Parsimony does not trump logical incoherency I assure you.

With no credible evidence of an afterlife,

I've referenced a long list of papers. Have you read them all? Have you read any??.

 

[Chimpy]

No, only you, Ian. While Chimpy is on the brink of the appeal to ignorance as well, his statement is at least justified under parsimony. With no credible evidence of an afterlife, the only logically viable position is that there is no afterlife. This position is subject to change, though, if such credible evidence emerges.

It's a female chimp actually
But I am not appealing to ignorance, plenty of people have tried to demonstrate life after death and it failed. Leaving that aside, every time a ghost or some such has been postulated, it's been shown to be a hoax or a case of people misinterpreting perfectly rational happenings.

 

[Chimpy]

And I have to add, (yet again and again) ETHNOGRAPHIC studies of reincarnation in no way demonstrate that reincarnation really happens. They are simply telling us about people who believe in this (one of the many beliefs/ritual practices out there). They have value for anthropology/ethnography but you cannot use these arguments to negate or "prove" reincarnation.

 

[Interesting Ian]

And I have to add, (yet again and again) ETHNOGRAPHIC studies of reincarnation in no way demonstrate that reincarnation really happens.

I don't know what you're talking about. What ethographic studies?? Who is claiming they demonstrate reincarnation??

If you're referring to people in particular cultures believing in reincarnation, this obviously does not prove reincarnation. Nor does it provide any evidence for reincarnation. Nor does the fact that westerners tend to disbelieve in reincarnation constitute any evidence whatsoever.

Now why don't you read all these papers and get back to me.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Is Ian Stevenson the chap who was on TV a while ago in a programme about reincarnation beliefs among the Druze?

If this is him - who was the skeptic who did the programme with Stevenson?

 

[Interesting Ian]

But I am not appealing to ignorance, plenty of people have tried to demonstrate life after death and it failed.

Yeah no-one has supplied definitive proof, it's a question of weighing up probabilities. The probabilities appear to favour survival.

Leaving that aside, every time a ghost or some such has been postulated, it's been shown to be a hoax or a case of people misinterpreting perfectly rational happenings.

People have seen apparitions throughout human history and across all cultures and something like 10-20% of all people have claimed to have seen an apparition. They have all been shown to be something else?? Come now.

The fact that some have been shown to be hoaxes and illusions constitute no evidence whatsoever against the notion that some ghosts have an external origin and do not have mundane explanations.

Clearly precisely those that can be shown to be hoaxes and illusions will be shown to be so, and those that can't will be ignored. The point being here is you cannot use induction for this type of situation!

 

[Hastur]

Parsimony is not an immutable law of the Universe. Should we disbelieve physicists with their claim that there exists a plethora of subatomic particles? Afterall, the law of parsimony states they cannot exist

Why would that be? Parsimony only requires that redundant terms be as few as possible. Subatomic particles are not redundant terms in their relevant subjects. An afterlife that cannot be described nor conclusively proven IS redundant as a non-entity.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've referenced a long list of papers. Have you read them all? Have you read any??.

Appeal to authority. Tsk tsk.