Past Lives and Regression

So now the medium in which the scientific method is published is more important than the method itself?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is part of the method of science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, the need for breathing space in such moments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No doubt, Dr. Ian Stevenson is an accomplished psychiatrist, who "published only for the academic and scientific community, and his over 200 articles and several books -- densely packed with research details and academic argument —- can be dauntingly technical for general audiences. His research, over 3,000 study cases, provides evidence that Stevenson argued supported the possibility of reincarnation, though he himself was always careful to refer to them as "cases suggestive of reincarnation" or "cases of the reincarnation type."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

I like that last part, why do you think he was always so careful with his wording? You dont think scientists would reject this idea do you?

 

"I hope the end is joyful, and I hope never to return." - Frida Kahlo

 

I believe reincarnation happens literally, but I don't believe in the soul, or that specific lives are reincarnated. I would have a simple question for the man (if he were still alive)- how does he verify the children's stories? Any child can invent a story, especially if they sense that's what the adult wants. Until one can show that the child was relating events or facts that they could not have otherwise known (or invented), the results are not valid.

If the study could survive peer review, he would have published in a reputable scientific journal.

 

You think all ideas would be well received, despite the problems now esteemed scientists had convincing peer about ideas involving far less challenging implications than this one?

 

Im not sure... To have peer review, you must have peers who are willing to give it an honest chance and not enter with predispositions. Not many scientists would risk their careers over an idea as controversial as this.

Some scientists would definitely say the opposite was true just for popularity points in the scientific community.

 

Why would it matter to scientifically prove or disprove reincarnation?

 

As a science lover and student, I try to be as tolerant and impartial as I can, but I know that...
Scientist are not the tolerant bunch they wish they were.
With something like this or ESP or whatever, it's hard to use the scientific method because researchers always come in biased. If they believe in it they find evidence or say the experiment was flawed. If they don't believe they don't find evidence and if they do it was a coincidence.

 

If the theory is sound, the evidence speaks for itself.

If the theory is sound, the evidence speaks for itself.

If it were true, it should be possible to prove it (or show compelling evidence).

They are far more tolerant of new ideas than most people think. Sure, there are some scientists who have an investment in their own theories. However, such a theory, if backed with evidence, would be one of the most astounding things science has ever discovered. The publicity would be fantastic for the field. It's all about the grants. Of course, scientists are biased against the supernatural, since NOTHING SUPERNATURAL HAS YET BEEN SHOWN TO EXIST. Scientists LOVE when their theories are proven wrong, because that is when the real discoveries can happen.

 

You haven't answered the question ...
Why would it matter to scientifically prove or disprove reincarnation?
What good can be gained from either proving it or disproving it?
Why should it be worth it to invest considerable amounts of money into proving or disproving reincarnation?

 

I didn't just mean supernatural stuff. Anything that might be objective based on the researcher doing the research. But even if I did write a report on the existence of ghost, would you even come in reading it seriously to learn something or would you automatically think she's a wacko, this ought to be good for a laugh? I know that's what I would think. I know scientist do this because I listen to them. "Paralithodes camtschaticus has an alternate migration pattern? (I forgot what the actual title was) Ha, this going to be good" How seriously did that guy take the paper? ...not very. Unfortunately he isn't the only one who thinks like that, almost the whole department behaves the same way and they are all acclaimed marine biologists. But I don't blame them we all do it. If you think something is stupid it's hard to take any info on it seriously.

 

Signal,
Why does it matter to investigate anything? I can't believe you would even ask this stupid question. What would be gained by disproving it? Then people wouldn't have to waste their time with false expectations. What would be gained by proving it? We would learn something extraordinary about our situation.

 

Scientists are RIGHTLY skeptical about such phenomenon, but many scientists have take part in rigorous controlled studies of them. As I said, the data would speak for itself. It doesn't matter if scientists read it with a predisposition to disbelieve it!

 

Yes it does. Because an experiment like the one I mentioned above relies on others to continue to fund it. Even if that woman was on to something, her work was brushed aside as silly nonsense from the gate. She'll have to either come up with a new idea or find a new job because she won't be receiving funding to continue her research. So we won't know what the King Crab might be up to. Until some fresh blood gives this woman or someone with a similar idea a chance.

 

Boo hoo, most scientists have to compete for funding. Frankly, other fields look more promising. How long have such phenomenon been studied? 50 years or more? And no evidence so far...

 

I didn't think King Crabs were that phenomenal. But to each their own I guess.:shrug:

I'm not really a believer in the supernatural, I do believe however that things happen that have yet to be explained.
As a fellow believer in science I'm appalled by that statement, if little headway is made into a topic it is no longer worth exploring? What about discovery? Don't be so closed minded. Shame shame. :spank:

 

Not what I read about in the history of science.

Ibid

REallly. So all truths can now be proven. Again, my readings of the history science finds this is often not the case.

Sure, once a certain threshold is passed. But decent evidence can be ignored for a long time if the idea is too challenging.

This sounds rather idealized, though I am sure there are scientists who fit this description.

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson. There is not no evidence.