Reincarnation Is A FACT!!!!!!!!

[zosima]

Lol. Well I'm not sure I do understand completely what you are getting at with the clustering illusion but I think I do. Undoubtedly the more cases they have, the more reliable the evidence will be. However, these cases are not as simple as flipping a coin and getting heads or tails. Each case is different and has different features which make the cases stronger or weaker. I don't really think the clustering illusion argument has much validity here as these investigations are complex. The thing is, if hypothetically just one person knew a large list of facts that have not been learned through normal means and says statements etc that really do seriously imply reincarnation as the most plausible explanation (because it is known that they have not learned these facts through normal means) then that has to be an option that has to be taken seriously. No matter how much it conflicts with current scientific understanding. Galileo, a flat Earth, Archimedes etc.

I'm not sure you do. The clustering illusion shows that even in the simplest most clearly random situations people will still see patterns and correlations that are not there. The situation you are talking about isn't stronger by its complexity, it is worse because there is more opportunity for error, more opportunity for humans to make stuff up*. It shows that we will get reports of this stuff due to chance, it shows that there will be a base rate of occurrence. So its not just more reports = better theory. I wrote out the equation above, but put simply the rate of the claims due to chance must be less than the rate of incidence of the claims.

Sure one claim could make us reevaluate our science, if the base rate for that claim were low enough. For example, if we found a child in India that could recite the transcript of the congressional proceedings on January 3rd 1982, by word. That would be persuasive because it probably wouldn't happen once by chance in the history of the universe. My point is that these investigators as well as yourself, are just waving your hands, saying "This is really really improbable" asserting the base rate is 0, without examining the many variables that effect the base rate**. Unless you provide a realistic estimate of the base rate and why that number is used, then compare that to the actual rate of incidence of these claims, the argument cannot be evaluated scientifically. The number of claims, however large, is not a rate of incidence. When the number of claims is the only evidence they talk about, they are talking woo, by definition.

*make stuff up is a concise way of referencing the many psychological facts that bear on this problem.

** All the psychological facts that bear on this problem, are variables that will modify the base rate.

 

[Space_Ed]

I'm not sure you do. The clustering illusion shows that even in the simplest most clearly random situations people will still see patterns and correlations that are not there. The situation you are talking about isn't stronger by its complexity, it is worse because there is more opportunity for error, more opportunity for humans to make stuff up*. It shows that we will get reports of this stuff due to chance, it shows that there will be a base rate of occurrence. So its not just more reports = better theory. I wrote out the equation above, but put simply the rate of the claims due to chance must be less than the rate of incidence of the claims.

Sure one claim could make us reevaluate our science, if the base rate for that claim were low enough. For example, if we found a child in India that could recite the transcript of the congressional proceedings on January 3rd 1982, by word. That would be persuasive because it probably wouldn't happen once by chance in the history of the universe. My point is that these investigators as well as yourself, are just waving your hands, saying "This is really really improbable" asserting the base rate is 0, without examining the many variables that effect the base rate**. Unless you provide a realistic estimate of the base rate and why that number is used, then compare that to the actual rate of incidence of these claims, the argument cannot be evaluated scientifically. The number of claims, however large, is not a rate of incidence. When the number of claims is the only evidence they talk about, they are talking woo, by definition.

*make stuff up is a concise way of referencing the many psychological facts that bear on this problem.

** All the psychological facts that bear on this problem, are variables that will modify the base rate.

Yeah I don't think calling these investigations science is right. There are non of the experimental factors like controls etc that constitute a scientific investigation. I understood your maths by the way (I do university level pharmaceutical chemistry so we have to do some horrific maths sometimes). I agree they would have to do something like that to call it proper science. So I do actually agree with what you are saying here. But I don't think that this is necessarily the explanation. Although I think that is the best way to go from here to determine statistically if these events can be explained by chance. Good point.

Sorry about that outburst by the way I get frustrated with some of the people here. You've not been rude or unreasonable at all.

 

[Space_Ed]

So what's your real answer to PixyMisa's question?

I don't think you can compare Dr Tucker to a creationist because he is looking at what he feels to be evidence and then trying to determine what the evidence implies. He could be completely wrong but regardless this is not how creationists think.

 

[zosima]

Sorry about that outburst by the way I get frustrated with some of the people here. You've not been rude or unreasonable at all.

No stress, sometimes I do get a little short in my posts, and I'm sure that shows up in the tone of my post more than I'd like it too. I think I'm actually frustrated about the other reincarnation thread(the psychon one)

I understood your maths by the way (I do university level pharmaceutical chemistry so we have to do some horrific maths sometimes). I agree they would have to do something like that to call it proper science.

Ya it's not like it was anything tricky, but I find that even in simple cases an equation can make an idea in language more precise. Otherwise these threads can go on and on with both sides perpetually confused about what the other is saying.

Although I think that is the best way to go from here to determine statistically if these events can be explained by chance. Good point.

One of the problems with reincarnation, in general, is that it is incredibly difficult to study scientifically. Proponents claim that it occurs everywhere, so you have to generate an estimate of how often these claims would occur in a world without reincarnation vs one with, but both those estimates are based on evidence from either one world or the other. So you're left with a lot of wiggle room on the base rate and I imagine one interpretation could support and another refute.

Yeah I don't think calling these investigations science is right. There are non of the experimental factors like controls etc that constitute a scientific investigation.

At the point which we agree that this particular study is not scientific, it can't really prove anything. Case Closed.