I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Ever heard of martyrs?
I'm reasonably well versed when it comes to martyrdom and frankly, you don't really have much to stand on if you want to disagree me using that. You could try to conflate different variables, certainly, like it looks like you're doing, but that honestly doesn't help your case.
Look, there are (regression) cases where people have discovered buried stuff, where whole villages have remembered the same thing independently, where a group of people have tested each other to see if they can trick each other into remembering the wrong thing, where people have drawn maps of places they've never even heard of, but...
Would you be kind enough to point out your source for those claims?
The thing is, I don't think it's right for a non-scientist like myself to criticize scientists for not agreeing with me about the worth of a precognition study or Ian Stevenson asking little boys to take off their shirts, to look at their birth marks, because if it doesn't feel right to them, even though it's their own people who did the work, meaning other scientists, then they shouldn't accept it.
For the record, Peer Review, both before and after a paper gets published, is an important part of science. Saying things like "even though it's their own people who did the work" suggests quite a misunderstanding about how harsh scientists are on
everyone, when it comes to science, including those who put forward poor criticisms. I would strongly suspect from this that you are not really aware of or don't understand the criticisms, but you went on to confirm it later with -
Well, if you follow the history of parapsychology from its early days to here and now, you can see how all of these things have already been tested and proven again and again. The skeptics then tear every study apart for reasons that aren't made clear to the unbiased bystander. You'll disagree, of course, but that's my answer.
Perhaps you could present a few examples of cases that meet your description here? Some of the posters on these forum may be able to help you understand why or, potentially, agree with you on your assessment, if you're right.
You may be right that it is intellectually dishonesty to pretend that discredited studies were discredited because of prejudice, or maybe it's intellectually dishonesty to pretend that prejudice has nothing to do with it,
If you've got a case to make here, make it. You're basically accusing a lot of scientists of vague and nasty wrongdoing.
and that only scientist who are pro-paranormalia can be dishonest, not the ones who are con.
And... this is unavoidably a
straw man argument.
How does the fact that your "past lives" or "previous recycles" are not accessible to you support your hopes in any way?
In the interest of fairness, like usual, Ed Glosser seems like that he thinks that "not accessible" is not quite accurate. Not easily accessible, probably, but any citation of past life regressions positively suggests a belief that there's some way to access there.
I couldn't sleep, so I'm back. I don't know why you assume that something that has an effect on the brain wouldn't have an effect on the soul, if such a thing existed. If there was a soul, then naturally what we experience here on earth with our brains will be the soul's experience. LSD messes up the brain, which messes up our take on reality, and so the soul has the experience of a messed up reality.
Likely by harking back to historical, falsifiable concepts of what "soul" means. The version that you're putting forward very much seems unfalsifiable, though, which is a large red flag when it comes to how reasonable it is to accept as the case, honestly.
Good, you do have a bit of a list accessible. The last similar list I saw was one that purported to be a list of peer reviewed papers for ID, though, which was demonstrably false with even a superficial perusal of the list, and didn't actually get any better at all when each entry on the list was individually assessed.
I somewhat randomly looked at a couple. For example,
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Targ1974Nature.pdf.
Indeed, that looks like Uri Geller might have demonstrated psychic abilities. That becomes a bit more questionable when looked into a little more, though. For example, from
wikipedia -
Marks and Kammann found evidence that while at SRI, Geller was allowed to peek through a hole in the laboratory wall separating Geller from the drawings he was being invited to reproduce. The drawings he was asked to reproduce were placed on a wall opposite the peep hole which the investigators Targ and Puthoff had stuffed with cotton gauze. In addition to this error, the investigators had also allowed Geller access to a two-way intercom enabling Geller to listen to the investigators' conversation during the time when they were choosing and/or displaying the target drawings. These basic errors indicate the high importance of ensuring that psychologists, magicians or other people with an in-depth knowledge of perception, who are trained in methods for blocking sensory cues, be present during the testing of psychics.
It becomes rather less convincing when more information comes to light.
Next was
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Milton1999Ganzfeld.pdf.
Despite being in the ESP and Telepathy section, it came to the conclusion that a particular somewhat popular set of testing for ESP and Telepathy had not shown that something that could be called psychic was actually going on.
Do you have any more specific suggestions for which ones you thought were more convincing?
It means you are going to see your loved ones again, and that you don't stop existing when you die. Many people fear being annihalated.
Actually, even if reincarnation is the case, just it being the case does not mean that one will see their loved ones again. I will agree that many people do fear annihilation, though, much as I disagree that reincarnation, as generally proposed, does more than offer very superficial comfort.
How does not remembering support it? That's a weird question. I don't get it.
It was a flawed and leading question from the start. It happens, sometimes, and there's nothing wrong with calling one out for engaging in such, if the larger interest is in honest discussion.
