Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot

[RichardR]

But it seems to me you don’t understand it …… the true value of Occam’s Razor is in choosing which hypothesis to test first when several hypothesis can explain an observation…….

No, it means that if you have a hypothesis that explains the observations, you don’t need to add additional unfalsifiable entities to the explanation. Perhaps you should read up on it a bit

One is suppose to test and challenge the least contrived hypothesis to see if it can be falsified, if it doesn't fit perfectly the next simplest is tested and so on….. but you are not doing this, you are using Occam’s Razor as a faith that your opinion on what is the least contrived solution is the correct one, ~The End ~ ...... but there is doubt (or should be) and you don't seem to be trying to test it or falsify your hypothesis

As I explained in my write up, the parsimonious hypotheses were not falsified, and so less parsimonious ones are not required.

Oh, and nice try with the faith thing. It’s an old argument that is as flawed as Stevenson’s book.

……. Have you investigated actual cases? The problem with indirectly reading about these is that to prevent your hypothesis being falsified requires Professor Ian Stevenson (and Professor Erlander Haraldsson) to be an ‘credulous fool’ such an idiot he unaware that children are very impressionable and such an idiot he did not even consider such an obvious hypothesis? Have you considered the possibility he investigated it and he is of the opinion a more complex explanation is required?

He is extremely credulous, and even his researchers thought so in some cases (as you would know if you had read his book). Can you find flaws in the case I presented or not? Because if not, my case stands.

Professor Ian Stevenson does not argue his research proves reincarnation, so I’m not sure why you are calling him an ‘credulous fool’ ….. he points out the problems, the flaws and the weak cases too.

He does argue for reincarnation. Don’t be disingenuous.

Stevenson has investigated over a 1000 cases, your article did not seem very detailed to me. ……. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Not an opinion, although nice try again. As I wrote, this book was supposed to be his best cases. They were flawed – deeply so – ans so I don’t feel a need to read the rest. Now, I have written a detailed rebuttal of Stevenson. Do you have any counterpoints, yes or no?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Irrelevant. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.

OK, are you making the claim that reincarnation does not exist?

Stevenson is a well meaning but credulous fool. I wrote about him here and here.

WOW! Your second link's a complete joke isn't it?

I've read a couple of Ian's books, but not that one so I can't really comment upon your impressions. I will say though that your "analysis" is hopelessly shallow. And what's this about the birth marks having moved?? Of course they move! Ones body stretches out as one grows! Ian takes this into account even if you don't.

If we assume that somehow, this child really was reincarnated. Why are these much rarer after 6 years old and why do vivid memories tend to have stopped altogether by teenage years? (Parapsychology trials on children under 5 have never been properly done)

The same reason as we forget the vast majority of what's happened prior to 6 years old. The very fact that they all share this feature adds more to the plausibility of these accounts.

Occam’s Razor indicates we should look for prosaic explanations first.

No it doesn't. Occam's razor tells us that we should look for the more parsimonious explanations. Reincarnation fits that bill.

 

[Interesting Ian]

No, it means that if you have a hypothesis that explains the observations, you don’t need to add additional unfalsifiable entities to the explanation. Perhaps you should read up on it a bit

People would be ill advised to read up on it on that squalid web site. After making about 13,000 posts on this board I feel I can confidently say that neither you, or any other skeptic who appeals to Occam's razor, has a clue what it means.

It's whole point is that one should not propose convoluted implausible explanations to explain a phenomenon. But this is precisely what skeptics damn well do!!

Jeez.

 

[Nucular]

No it doesn't. Occam's razor tells us that we should look for the more parsimonious explanations. Reincarnation fits that bill.

Occam's Razor does tell us that, yes, but how can reincarnation be a more parsimonious explanation than 'people are mistaken'?

Reincarnation brings with it a whole mess of necessary metaphysical processes and supernatural existence; we'd need some pretty sturdy evidence to hold that whole castle in the sky up. Do anecdotes of people confabulating or children playing along count as pretty sturdy evidence to you?

Or do you have anything more sturdy?

 

[Giz]

These truly strange cases of young children who on average are under 3 years old! telling parents about vivid memories of being an adult in previous life, with 70-80% of these infants including a recall of a violent death ……. are curious to say the least

Perhaps he saw Pearl Harbour on DVD. A mental age of three was probably the target audience.

They should have held an image of Ben Affleck up to the kid - "Is this the pilot you were?"

 

[Darat]

Occam's Razor does tell us that, yes, but how can reincarnation be a more parsimonious explanation than 'people are mistaken'?

Reincarnation brings with it a whole mess of necessary metaphysical processes and supernatural existence; we'd need some pretty sturdy evidence to hold that whole castle in the sky up. Do anecdotes of people confabulating or children playing along count as pretty sturdy evidence to you?

Or do you have anything more sturdy?

For Ian he does have something sturdier – faith - and like all faiths it does not come from knowledge or reasoning:

Originally By Interesting Ian

...snip...

"I've always known there is an ultimate purpose to life and the Universe, and a life after death. I'm also pretty convinced that reincarnation occurs. Yeah. Seems like I'm different from everyone else. Other believers always seem to claim they started to believe due to something or other. Not me. I've always known

...snip...

Obviously just because he holds a belief in reincarnation through nothing more then a faith doesn't means he is wrong however it does mean that his view of the matter is always subjective.


(Edited to add a rather important "doesn't".)

 

[Open Mind]

No, it means that if you have a hypothesis that explains the observations, you don’t need to add additional unfalsifiable entities to the explanation. Perhaps you should read up on it a bit

An inferior interpretation, the preferred hypothesis should always be tested since there is reasonable doubt over the correct explanation in many paranormal claims. Yet you offer an example in which there is little reasonable doubt…….

‘Suppose I have a cat. One night, I leave out a saucer of milk, and in the morning the milk has gone. No one saw who or what drank the milk. Lets say there are two possibilities:
1. The cat drank it
or
2. The milk fairy drank it
Occam tells us to reject option 2. This is because option 2 requires us to invent an unnecessary entity - the milk fairy. ‘


I’m not convinced even the most gullible of paranormal believers would go for the milk fairy theory, so what does this really mean? ……yet you accused my words earlier of being a strawman! Gosh

If you think all paranormal claims fall into this type of scenario you are badly mistaken .. yes there are silly people out there who are obscuring the more interesting cases …… But many paranormal claims are NOT easy to explain away, unless you assume fraud, lying, conspiracy, group delusion, etc.

Instead of your fictitious example, here is an experience I had several years ago. A small, plastic brush was kept on a window ledge in a kitchen ……. One morning the small plastic brush is found still on the ledge but smashed into small pieces as if hit by a hammer many times … the family members all swear they never did it and were puzzled at how it could have occurred. (As the brush was worthless in value, there was little reason to deny it, in fact they could have placed it in a bin and no one would have given it much thought) . Here are several hypothesis ……

(a) One family member secretly smashed it into small pieces in the middle of the night, placed it back in it’s position and for a decade since has denied doing so.

(b) The morning sunshine exploded a tough plastic brush into small pieces

(c) A hoaxer broke into the house, stole nothing, left no trace but smashed the brush,

(d) Paranormal explanation.


Now using Occam’s Razor which one do you choose?

The point is most pararnormal skeptics will consider (d) last of all ……. The other 3 and any other they can possibly think off is likely to be considered less contrived than the (d) option ……. But there is another problem, the skeptic will assume the person telling the account is lying and it never occurred and it is purely anecdotal. So (d) is never reached …… this is why it is vital skeptics actually research the paranormal for themselves, if they merely read CSICOP revisionism, they are displaying faith much like a believer

Now, you may wish to label me also a 'credulous fool' ... but I did not regard the above event as paranormal (although I cannot explain it) .... and if it was paranormal it wasn't pleasant one ..... so I came up with the theory (b) at the time and forgot about it .... however I don't know of the mechanism of how sunlight can shatter plastic, I'm not sure the sun was shining that morning and why didn't it just break when regularly under use? ......... the point is the only way to find out is to try and test the hypothesis, I cannot unfortuntely and it was thrown in the bin.

Which is what pseudo skeptics are doing, prematurely confining paranormal claims to the bin with an unproven hypothesis defended with the faulty use of Occam's Razor ....

 

[Ashles]

Instead of your fictitious example, here is an experience I had several years ago. A small, plastic brush was kept on a window ledge in a kitchen …….

So what you have done with your explanation is reject explanations that you know to be possible in favour of one that you do not know if it is possible.

Why? Because you find the alternative unpleasant.

But is it really more likely that the sun caused the damage, or that it was deliberate damage by family or persons unknown?
Or even something that may have fallen on it but now been removed for some reason?

Why is 'people lying' always rejected as a possible explanation?

We know lying happens all the time every day and we do it ourselves. Yet there seems to be some kind of weird stigma attached to saying that other ever people do it.

The fact that you asked all your family about it (and still remember it after all these years) implies that, although the brush may have been worthless in value, it meant something to you.
If a member of your family knew this and had accidentally damaged it then maybe they would lie.
Or maybe you had annoyed one of them and they took it out on the plant.
Who knows.

But isn't it sensible to assume the most likely explanation first, or at least the one you know is possible?

Is it sensible to reject possible and likely explanations simply because they might be unpleasant?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Occam's Razor does tell us that, yes, but how can reincarnation be a more parsimonious explanation than 'people are mistaken'?

It can quite easily. How many mistakes must people have to make before that hypothesis becomes implausible?

Reincarnation brings with it a whole mess of necessary metaphysical processes and supernatural existence;

I don't know what supernatural existence means, but consciousness is quite definitely not physical. Look, if I can be conscious in this body, why can't I be conscious in another body?? Even materialists have to admit this is possible.

we'd need some pretty sturdy evidence to hold that whole castle in the sky up.

You might do, but I don't. And besides, all the evidence that Ian Stevenson has collected is all consistent with the reincarnation hypothesis but inconsistent with other hypotheses.

 

[richardm]

(a) One family member secretly smashed it into small pieces in the middle of the night, placed it back in it’s position and for a decade since has denied doing so.

We know that people do strange things and lie about them afterwards. If there were young kids (and sometimes not so young) in the house, we know that they do things that they think might get them in trouble then swear blind that it wasn't them. Simple but mundane explanation.

(b) The morning sunshine exploded a tough plastic brush into small pieces

We know that heating some things up can make them shatter. Simple and potentially interesting explanation.

(c) A hoaxer broke into the house, stole nothing, left no trace but smashed the brush,

We know that hoaxers exist. Simple and potentially worrying explanation

(d) Paranormal explanation.
...
The point is most pararnormal skeptics will consider (d) last of all ……

Yes, of course, because (d) is another way of saying "I can't think of how this could have happened, so I'm just going to say it must be something we don't understand." Even though you have yourself outlined two or three physical ways that could possibly explain what happened, you choose something that requires the intervention of a huge framework that stands outside of everything we understand about science - i.e. the paranormal. This is the bit that Occam's razor is supposed to cut away. There is no need to propose such a mechanism because we can explain it quite simply with much more mundane suggestions.

the point is the only way to find out is to try and test the hypothesis, I cannot unfortuntely and it was thrown in the bin.

You might be able to, because it's quite possible that the same type of brush is still made today. Of course, they might have changed the makeup of the plastic to overcome this problem. But you could have a go.

 

[Ashles]

It can quite easily. How many mistakes must people have to make before that hypothesis becomes implausible?

There's no upper limit.

How many people must be fooled by David Copperfield's illusions before we accept them as real magic? 100? 200? Thousands?

If people are fooled because they share the same brain chemistry and lack of knowledge about their own perceptions then it stands to reason that people will be consistently fooled in the same ways by the same things.

You still harbour under this delusion that evry additional anecdotal story adds some theoretical tiny, but, significant weight to a theory or claim.

This is not the case.

A billion people may believe an incorrect thing. But that thing will still be incorrect.

 

[Interesting Ian]

So what you have done with your explanation is reject explanations that you know to be possible in favour of one that you do not know if it is possible.

Why? Because you find the alternative unpleasant.

But is it really more likely that the sun caused the damage, or that it was deliberate damage by family or persons unknown?
Or even something that may have fallen on it but now been removed for some reason?

Why is 'people lying' always rejected as a possible explanation?

By whom? Non-skeptics? False because I would have chosen "a". The point here is that skeptics dismiss the possibility of "d" out of hand. That is not rational.

 

[Nucular]

It can quite easily. How many mistakes must people have to make before that hypothesis becomes implausible?

I don't know, what would your guess be? In this particular scenario, four people (boy, boy's parents, boy's therapist) encourage each other into making the same mistake as one another: mistaking a small child's interests for evidence of reincarnation.

I don't know what supernatural existence means, but consciousness is quite definitely not physical. Look, if I can be conscious in this body, why can't I be conscious in another body?? Even materialists have to admit this is possible.

This doesn't make sense: most materialists would say that you are your body. What makes you think that consciousness isn't physical?

You might do, but I don't.

Clearly. Because you haven't got any, but still want to believe, so you've decided that you're allowed to believe without any evidence, and that others should too.

And besides, all the evidence that Ian Stevenson has collected is all consistent with the reincarnation hypothesis but inconsistent with other hypotheses.

I'll be reading Stevenson's stuff when I get a minute, but I hope it's not just the same old "here are lots of anecdotes, the plural of which I hereby assert is evidence" nonsense.

Ian, it's not being claimed that Occam's Razor always seeks out the truth, but that the explanation which takes into account all the evidence whilst inventing the fewest entities, is more likely.

Do you at least agree that
1) Hearsay and anecdote are not very good evidence
2) IF the possibility of human error as an explanation for apparent reincarnation DID take into account all of the available good evidence, Occam's Razor would suggest it to be a more likely explanation than reincarnation itself?

Edited for formatting

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yes, of course, because (d) is another way of saying "I can't think of how this could have happened, so I'm just going to say it must be something we don't understand." Even though you have yourself outlined two or three physical ways that could possibly explain what happened, you choose something that requires the intervention of a huge framework that stands outside of everything we understand about science - i.e. the paranormal. This is the bit that Occam's razor is supposed to cut away. There is no need to propose such a mechanism because we can explain it quite simply with much more mundane suggestions.

There's absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with supposing a phenomenon has an explanation which resides outside current scientific laws. In the year 1600 would you think the appearance of the moon must be an illusion since it was disobeying the law that all objects fall?

 

[Interesting Ian]

There's no upper limit.

How many people must be fooled by David Copperfield's illusions before we accept them as real magic? 100? 200? Thousands?

OK, so your hypothesis that it is people making mistakes is unfalsifiable. No amount of evidence would therefore remotely suggest reincarnation since mistakes can always be made. I knew this is the way that skeptics think. And, as I've said before, this is highly irrational.

 

[Ashles]

OK, so your hypothesis that it is people making mistakes is unfalsifiable. No amount of evidence would therefore remotely suggest reincarnation since mistakes can always be made. I knew this is the way that skeptics think. And, as I've said before, this is highly irrational.

Really?

It is 'irrational' to reject as unlikely the existence of something which:
A) Has no physical evidence
B) Has alternative mundane explanations
C) Has never stood up to any kind of serious study

Again Ian creates a new definition for a word.

Maybe we should invent a new term instead. How about:

Irratianal

Ian do you believe in fairies?

Wouldn't it be Irratianal to reject their existence? After all we've all heard lots of stories about them.
There are even some photos.

 

[Interesting Ian]

This doesn't make sense: most materialists would say that you are your body.

No they don't say that. According to materialism, if one duplicated your body then it would be conscious. And, according to the most popular form of materialism -- functionalism, creating an android whose electronic brains carry out the same functions as your brain would mean that the android would literally be you.

What makes you think that consciousness isn't physical?

I don't want to get into that right now. You can read my web site once it's finished.

Ian, it's not being claimed that Occam's Razor always seeks out the truth, but that the explanation which takes into account all the evidence whilst inventing the fewest entities, is more likely.

I don't believe Occam's razor states that. But if it does it is wrong. Fewer entities might explain some phenomenon but only at the expense of being incredibly contrived and implausible. If Occam's razor states that sometimes incredibly contrived hypotheses are the most likely explanation, then we should dispense with this principle forthwith.

Do you at least agree that
1) Hearsay and anecdote are not very good evidence

Hearsay certainly isn't. Carefully collecting anecdotal reports and sifting through such reports and checking on the statements of other individuals etc etc, could amount to fairly suggestive evidence.

2) IF the possibility of human error as an explanation for apparent reincarnation DID take into account all of the available good evidence, Occam's Razor would suggest it to be a more likely explanation than reincarnation itself?

I have no idea if it would or not. If Occam's razor suggests that the possibility of human error, no matter how small, can trump very good evidence, then we should not pay any heed to such a principle.

 

[Ashles]

No they don't say that. According to materialism, if one duplicated your body then it would be conscious. And, according to the most popular form of materialism -- functionalism, creating an android whose electronic brains carry out the same functions as your brain would mean that the android would literally be you.

Why? Of course it wouldn't be you any more than an exact photocpy of a letter is the original letter.

It may be indistinguishable, but it is different.

And the two personalities and consciousnesses would soon diverge.

Aside from the fact that they would have to be physically different due to being made of different physical material.

And further aside from the points you made yourself about chaos theory - the initial state of the systems could never be matched so how could they ever be identical.

 

[Nucular]

No they don't say that. According to materialism, if one duplicated your body then it would be conscious. And, according to the most popular form of materialism -- functionalism, creating an android whose electronic brains carry out the same functions as your brain would mean that the android would literally be you.

Accurate, but irrelevant, unless you're claiming that reincarnated persons are bodily duplications of dead people.

I don't want to get into that right now. You can read my web site once it's finished.

Look forward to it. Hope you put a link in your sig.


Ian, I'm just not following your objection to the application of Occam's Razor in this case. Are you really stating that self-delusion of a type we know can occur, and human error as again has happened countless times, are more contrived notions than a mystical recycling of the soul, with all of the attendant problems the notion brings, with no real evidence and no point that we can understand?

Occam's Razor would state that, if the evidence is equally explicable in terms of human mistakes or reincarnation, the simpler option is more likely to be correct. Not is correct, but is more likely to be. Pending further evidence of a type intended to test the hypotheses.

Human error is not as contrived a notion as reincarnation.

 

[LFTKBS]

It's whole point is that one should not propose convoluted implausible explanations to explain a phenomenon.

Hey Ian, is there anything that you don't believe? This is a serious & legit question. Like, is there any "paranormal" phenomenon that you think is just hogwash? Start with this list and let me know which of these you think are false:

1) Dead humans are sometimes reincarnated in new bodies
2) Extraterrestrial visitors in spacecraft have visted earth and been captured on film and video
3) Small humanoids commonly called 'fairies' exist
4) There are people who can affect physical reality simply by thinking of it and performing no other action; this ability is commmonly called telekinesis
5) There are people who can predict the future in a way that surpasses what you would expect by chance; commonly called precognition
6) Consciousness does not reside solely in the brain

Just let me know which of those statements if any you think are false.

thanks

in

advance