Your first sentence contains your first presumption: that linguistic carryover should be a consequence of reincarnation. Please outline in suitable detail what "reincarnation" consists of in your model, and the preliminary studies you did to determine that the properties suggested by your model are based on observation. One of the things that defeats a good scientific proof is ill-defined and mobile goalposts.
It doesn't matter whether it's a Russian name. It's
her name. An infant learning to say
her name is unremarkable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha contains a list of notable people named Natasha. Note how many of them seem to have no Slavic origins or connections whatsoever. Further, since the child's parents gave her the name at birth, it can hardly be because they understood that she had a Slavic past life and named her accordingly.
...and therefore cannot be considered much of an authority on what a language is, especially when spoken by a toddler. Since you didn't know her when she was 6 months old, I take it this was told to you by a third party. What did you do to verify the testimony of the third party?
It seems that so far all we have is presumption and hearsay. Let's move on to evidence you observed directly, as that's the only evidence that really matters, empirically speaking:
The sum total of your "empirical" evidence in this case is a three-year-old who speaks Russian for reasons you simply seem to have chosen not to investigate. You verified that she had some proficiency in Russian and then assumed that this must be because she had some prior life experience that carried over into the present, that "must" have included a Slavic influence. You describe no methodology by which you tested, and attempted to falsify, your hypothesis with additional evidence. Your "proof" is purely attributional in this case -- you observe a phenomenon and immediately attribute it to a speculative cause with no further testing. That's the opposite of empiricism.
What is your formal training and experience with hypnosis? I will stipulate for the time being that you are reasonably familiar with the "recall techniques that Buddhist monks use." But you have not established yourself by any stated credential or qualification as an expert in hypnosis such that you can state such a comparison as a matter of evidence. Please provide a reference to published, peer-reviewed research that establishes the difference between your proffered technique and "hypnosis."
Please provide the published, peer-reviewed research that demonstrates via a transparent, complete, and correct methodology that the technique produces any of the results you claim. A method purported as empirical must be able to demonstrate empirical validity. Since your claim arises in and from a religion for which belief in reincarnation is a central tenet, and among which past-life claims inform social status, your audience cannot take your word that it is effective and free from bias.
What controlled experiments did you perform to establish the empirical validity of your modifications to the technique, independent of any previous empirical validation on the parent technique? You seem to imply that the parent method was formulated for willing subjects who believe in incarnation. To what extent was the parent technique and your modified technique validated on a properly controlled mix of subjects? Please describe your method in enough detail so that someone reasonably versed in the scientific method can evaluate its strength.
I will address the case studies allegedly based on this method once you have demonstrate the validity of the method. The actual cases are moot until then.
This indicates that you were favoring a certain outcome and are not necessarily therefore a dispassionate researcher. Since the technique you mention is allegedly well known in Buddhism, did you allow your subjects to be interviewed or mediated by other experts in the technique to validate the results? Or did you rely solely on your own examination and interpretations?
This is especially important since your previous thread seems to indicate you are just as motivated in establishing your own personal prowess as you are in supplying objective, empirical proofs for your religious beliefs. Your "success" in recovering past memories might be explained also by your desire to believe that you have skills that would be praised and valued by your religious peers. Since a proper empiricism would eliminate evident biases in the researcher deriving from such things as narcissism, you need to tell us what empirical controls you applied, if any, to address this.
There may be, but you haven't provided any. Your first case is simply an assumption drawn from incomplete data. The remainder of your cases are personal claims made on the basis of an alleged religious technique for which you provide no suitable validation. All of it is anecdotal.
What precisely do you mean by "open mind" in this thread? If I read between the lines, you seem to suggest that open-mindedness would involve relaxing or ignoring appropriate empirical controls as they affect your claims.
That is simply not going to happen, so don't bother asking. Far too many fringe claimants have tried to gaslight their critics into believing that they must lower their standards in order to participate in the debate. I assure you the audience here is well attuned to such shoddy and transparent tactics.
A very large part of my job involves testing putatively scientific claims for validity. I will be merciless, but fair according to science. If you can meet the reasonable standards of scientific inquiry, you will having nothing to fear. If you're simply going to play the same social-engineering games as your predecessors, and as you've done in the past, I will afford you
no quarter whatsoever. Whereupon I predict you will fabricate some excuse to ignore me.
Let me ask you this question: Are you open-minded enough to consider as a real possibility that your religious beliefs are false?
