Empirical Proofs of reincarnation.

[theprestige]

Excuse me for butting in ...

But I really do not think that very many Forum members will say that a person can be possessed by demons in lieu of a person being reincarnated.

I think very many Forum members will say that it's Buddha's job as the claimant to account for the possibility of demon possession, and rule it out in his experiments.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Your conclusion is not at all empirical. It's purely suppositional.

That is the kind of basic thinking that "Buddha" fails to grasp once and again. He's the umpteenth case here of "propaedeutics of this field is boring an too complicated, I will better jump to the fun bits" and ends up making a fool of himself.

 

[JayUtah]

An alternative explanation would be a trick that Natasha's parents played on me by teaching her Russian before our meeting.

Or that the child was, to some degree, exposed to an environment where Russian was spoken during the three years you didn't know her. I've personally seen children as young as four years old pick up bits and pieces of languages that are occasionally spoken around them, with suitable comprehension. Then if you study the language development of children from the literature in the field, you realize that children eight years old and younger have a remarkable facility for languages that disappears in adulthood. This, being part of the relevant body of knowledge, should have been something you thought about and investigated if your goal was to empirically prove reincarnation.

All you have in terms of actual observation is a three-year-old who responded to you while you were speaking Russian. All the rest is embellishment. And your "empiricism" amounts to assuming it must be due to reincarnation, and throwing out a straw man of deliberate deception as the only alternative.

 

[JayUtah]

I think very many Forum members will say that it's Buddha's job as the claimant to account for the possibility of demon possession, and rule it out in his experiments.

Yes. Except that we skeptics would be okay with the notion that demon possession is prima facie implausible, and we would stipulate rejecting it. However, we skeptics also agree that reincarnation is prima facie implausible. So a two-edged sword, one that S0dhner deftly wielded. Why stop at reincarnation? If we're going to consider implausible scenarios, what's the limit on them? Buddha didn't pick up on the notion that S0dhner proved bias on Buddha's part.

 

[JayUtah]

That is the kind of basic thinking that "Buddha" fails to grasp once and again.

I honestly just don't think he knows what "empirical" means. He does have a history of mislabeling the types of his arguments.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I swear there's an entire growing subculture of people who don't know how books work and are getting their philosophy education by only reading the blurbs on the book jackets.

In my decades at this point as a skeptic online I'm used to people who obviously don't know what they are talking about assuming a role of authority and superiority on a topic but it's become bad and... weirdly different of late.

 

[JayUtah]

After his recollections improve...

Improve by what criteria? Your method seems to conflate vividness with accuracy, and I would like to know what sorts of controls you applied to this method to ascertain that it produced actual memories and not just stories with more manufactured detail.

Again, consulting the real literature on the subject is informative. In the 1980s, "memory regression" was all the vogue, and it didn't always involve techniques that would be immediately recognized as hypnosis. Cold reading, for example, is a technique that uses moderator guidance that isn't generally recognized as such by the subject. It is somewhat similar to some types of hypnosis. (Yes, I studied hypnosis in college as part of coursework on cognition and memory.) Then in the next decade, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and others led research showing "recovered" memories to be almost entirely bogus. As part of this they showed how very easy it was to implant false memories in non-confederate subjects.

Serious empirical investigation begins with a literature search to determine what work has been done in the relevant fields. You apparently neglected to do this. Had you done it, you would have undoubtedly encountered this phenomenon and you would have devised a test to falsify it by observation. Why? Because it's a prominent candidate explanation for why the subjects in your homegrown method "remembered" things. You applied zero control in the method you used to interview these subjects. None whatsoever. To call it an "empirical" method is a travesty. You evidently don't know what the word means.

 

[SOdhner]

Improve by what criteria?

Unacceptable answers include anything that implies they're not remembering anything, that they're remembering something that Buddha knows is incompatible with reincarnation, or that they're tired of this and want to go home.

Acceptable answers are ones he feels he can build on to make his point.

You can see why this takes like ten hours to really break someone down.

 

[Crossbow]

I have a better suggestion for you -- if you're very rich, hide a pot of gold in a deep forest where no one can find it. Even if you're poor in your next life, you could recall where you had hidden your treasure.

Are you aware that you are now speaking against your own argument?

After all, if reincarnation is real (as you often claim), then such a thing would have been done hundreds, or even thousands of times by now.

However, since no one has ever recovered a treasure that they hid in a past life, then by your new logic you are now saying that there is no such thing as reincarnation.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Anecdote: a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

You should have checked the word "anecdote" before using it. It refers to real incidents, not to a paly of imagination.

Oh, there's a charming little syllogism cunningly buried in there, isn't there?

P1: I have provided data in the form of anecdotes.
P2: Anecdotes are defined as being factually correct.
C: Therefore, I have provided factually correct data.

I think Buddha wants carte blanche to make up or modify whatever stories he likes and have them accepted as factually accurate, simply by describing them as "anecdotes."

Dave

 

[Dancing David]

These seems like the Bonfire of the Unsupported Assertions on the Island of Wishful Thinking

 

[JayUtah]

If you want to observe reincarnation, you would have to either describe the process of reincarnation or prove that no such process exists.

Dave Rogers suggests this statement should be taken out and shot. I say it should be shot, hung, drawn and quartered, and its head left to rot on a pike. The sentiment you express here is about as anti-empirical as a statement can get. And before you get all pontifical, keep in mind that empiricism is how quite a lot of us make our living. We know what it is. And we certainly know what it isn't.

Your proposition is that reincarnation exists as an actual phenomenon. But you don't define what that means in terms that can be empirically tested. Predictably your proof is as far as one can get from empiricism. The bizarre excuse you gave was simply a vague handwaving reference to names you've dropped before.

Buddha: Here is an empirical proof for reincarnation.
Jay: There's nothing empirical at all about that.
Buddha: I don't believe in Popper.​

And if your hypothesis is that the process of reincarnation exists operatively, then the null hypothesis is that there is no such process as reincarnation (however you define it a priori). Empiricism seeks to falsify the null hypothesis. Most often it does so by deducing what would necessarily follow only if the null hypothesis were false and the proffered hypothesis true, and observing those consequents as the occur in nature or as they are made to appear by design. This is the hypothetico-deductive method, also called the scientific method, also called the empirical method.

You don't do any of that. You simply observe a consequent and, without any further observation whatsoever, declare that your desired antecedent "must" be its cause.

You must define reincarnation such that it is empirically testable. Then you must devise experiments or engagements that produce observation relevant to those tests. That's what empirical proof consists of.

Yes, there is a possibility that I invented the stories. But what was my purpose?

Only you know your purpose. But if you're inviting us to speculate, here it is :—

I think you're trying to convince yourself (and possibly others) that you're an accomplished scholar who deserves recognition for tackling the "hard questions," most of them having to do in some way with your religion. I'm not going to address any of the straw men you threw out there, except on the one point below. You clearly want to be seen as knowledgeable and well-read, but you employ chiefly social-engineering methods to create that impression dishonestly out of what amounts to a very little actual knowledge. I surmise that your contribution here is an ego-reinforcement exercise. You want a theatrical exercise that you can mold according to your "plan" into a shape that resembles having made a good showing regardless of the actual outcome.

The common thread in all your stories is your personal accomplishment in one way or another. You wove a similar thread through your "proof" for God. It's all about what a skilled and venerable person Buddha is, and how respect must be given for it by accepting the proofs based on it. You embellish your stories with hearsay and detail that serve more to discredit them than support them. Why the irrelevant detail? Because it's the detail that polishes your self-image. So what's a reasoned conclusion to draw from stories that provide irrelevant ego-stroking detail at the expense of credibility? What could be the teller's purpose?

But there might be agnostics in this group, perhaps my stories would convince them that this matter is worth further investigation.

No.

I'm an agnostic here and your stories convince me you are frantic to prove your belief in the Buddhist flavor of reincarnation. This "proof" is an act of desperation, not of scholarship or science. Certainly not one of logic. An agnostic looking for a non-religious reason to examine a religious claim would laugh at what you've posted. You're not as objectively credible as you believe.

You made the veiled accusation in your opening post that people would accept your proof if they were sufficiently open-minded. As an agnostic (and as a skeptic in general) I showed you what would be required to convince me. If I did not have an open mind, I would reject claims of reincarnation as preposterous on their face. However I gave your argument a careful reading and -- with reasonable objectivity -- pointed out exactly the ways in which it did not meet the standard of proof that other empirical arguments meet or seek to meet.

You did not give that review a reasoned response. You simply handwaved it away. In that response I asked you whether you were open-minded enough to consider the possibility that your religious beliefs are wrong. Or whether you're open-minded enough to consider that your proof is unconvincing for reasons that have nothing to do with the shortcomings of your critics. Well, I have my answer.

 

[Loss Leader]

Anyway, what kind of "empirical" evidence would you like to have, if any. I suspect that you would reject any kind of evidence.

Empirical: Capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

Your stories are not capable of being verified, nor do they provide any basis on which they could be tested by others to achieve similar results.

But we can at least work on the "verified" part. Please provide me with the contact information of those about whom you've spoken. I'll be more than happy to follow up with them.

What is alternative explanation? A Christian man gave me an alternative explanation -- these people were possessed by the demons, so they were talking tongues". Is this kind of explanation that you would accept?

Literally any alternative explanation is just as likely as reincarnation until and unless it can be ruled out. I see no reason why souls could exist while demons couldn't.

Yes, there is a possibility that I invented the stories. But what was my purpose?

Your purpose, as far as I can ascertain, is to get attention.

You don't know my plan. Why would you say that this thread is not going against my plan. Actually, it is going according to my plan, just like its predecessor was.

Your plan is, as far as I can ascertain, to get attention. So, it would seem it is going to plan. You're getting lots of attention.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I honestly just don't think he knows what "empirical" means. He does have a history of mislabeling the types of his arguments.

His excessive use of articles ("I learned Spanish in the school") and singulars -analogue to mine- and his vocabulary "by approximation" makes me think he is as Russian as his parents and that he even went to a polytechnic in Russia before immigrating to the States as an adult, thus his declared professional speciality matching two conflicting syllabuses as usual in the USA.

First time he quoted Popper he seemed to be very badly translating from a version in a foreign language, hence the gruesome mistakes and mismatches when compared with the English version written by Popper himself. The fact that he didn't acknowledge nor apologize for his many mistakes is a sign the **** he wrote put him to shame.

 

[JayUtah]

P2: Anecdotes are defined as being factually correct.

Except that they aren't.

anecdote
noun, plural an·ec·dotes or for 2, an·ec·do·ta [an-ik-doh-tuh] /ˌæn ɪkˈdoʊ tə/.

1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

anecdote
plural anecdotes also anecdota \ˌa-nik-ˈdō-tə\
: a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident

By these definition an anecdote can be interesting and amusing. No need for it to be scrupulously true. A three-year-old who can understand Russian makes an interesting and amusing story. But it's not fact. In contrast I'm pretty sure the stories my grandfather told were anecdotes. And while there may once have been a nugget of truth in them, I doubt they would be considered factually accurate. It's a grandfather's prerogative.

 

[SOdhner]

By these definition an anecdote can be interesting and amusing. No need for it to be scrupulously true.

Listen, as long as I can shop around and cherry-pick one dictionary that uses a wording that seems to support me it's fair game and I can ignore all the others. Otherwise what's the point of "the dictionary defines it as..." as a debate tactic?

 

[sylvan8798]

Pardon my sciency mind, but in the God thread you didn't define what constitutes "the universe", and in this thread you have not even attempted to define what constitutes "reincarnation". Maybe you assume that everyone has some sort of standard definition that they can go by, but in the interests of "empirical" you should begin by defining your terms and when and how they can be applied. Otherwise you're babbling, and it's not even Russian.

 

[Mojo]

...I didn't try to falsify anything because I think that Popper's doctrine is garbage.

[facepalm]

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I do not want to be offensive, but I just cannot resist saying this -- even former believers in graphology do not look terribly smart to me.

...

[...] I enjoyed insulting my opponents but now I see this tactics as a sign of weakness.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Anecdote: a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

You should have checked the word "anecdote" before using it. It refers to real incidents, not to a paly of imagination.

Anyway, what kind of "empirical" evidence would you like to have, if any. I suspect that you would reject any kind of evidence.

Is that really the best you can do, one third of a definition? Shall we look at the full definition that comes up when do something as trivially simple as typing the word 'anecdote' into Google?

anecdote
ˈanɪkdəʊt
noun
a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
"he told anecdotes about his job"
synonyms: story, tale, narrative, sketch; More
an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay."his wife's death has long been the subject of rumour and anecdote"
the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting.
"the use of inversions of hierarchy, anecdote, and paradox by Magritte, Dali, and others"have

If you're going to be condescending you might like to read past the bit you like or you'll end up looking like a fool.

And if you want to overturn physics and biology the 'evidence I would like to have' is verifiable, falsifiable and not subject to other explainations. Your Jackanory stories don't make the grade.