viaro:

Toneyb, please show me where I have ever claimed that those in particular who challenge Randi are themelves claiming to possess supernatural abilities.

Ohh, Randi's challenge was to to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties, not some obscured new agers that are busy crying from a distance and also desperately looking for a plat form to gain popularity and cheap fame. Randi does not need to respond to new agers and their bogus claims, he has already put forth his challenge, Sending emissaries like you to come and cry on their behalf and try to sell their already failed product will not fly. No wonder you were qucik to direct us to go read some bogus rants challenge on some obscured web site about some unknown people. That is a failed marketing startegy. If they have what it takes why not just and prove themselves once and for all. This devious marketing strategy will not work. Instead of looking for ways to gain recognition on their own they are sending you to come and cry on their behalf over some bogus challenge which will only serve as a plat form for them to gain cheap popularity.

Randi knows better than entertaining the responses of some obscured and nameless noise makers and their cronies who are only seeking cheap popularity and a medium to market their already failed products. You and your new agers so go look for a better way of selling your ware instead of shouting, chasing your long tails, biting them and crying at the same time. .

viaro:

@toneyb and mazaje,

I'm not going to tell stories, but please hear me out.

In particular reference to the thread topic (ie., on Psychokinesis), I woulod say that a subject of this sort is basically pointing to just one thing: are such things as psychokinesis 'real'? And is there any evidence from any study at all published in a recognized journal as evidence at all for psychokinesis?

It does not help us to keep arguing on and on about Randi - you have your praise for him, I have reasons why I'm not impressed by his theatricals. But as regards the question of psychokinesis, one would be asking in particularly (if you're like me) - "is there any evidence of sorts for psychokinesis?"

Perhaps it seems pertinent to state the obvious, that discussions on psychokinesis might as well have a bearing on such things regarded as 'paranormal', and this takes many forms. It is not just a stereotypical idea which some of us might hold, especially if we're inclined to pride ourselves as 'skeptics' on such things. Basically, some sources present the paranormal as involving events which are 'impossible to explain by known natural forces or by science' (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary). I am not asking that anyone "must" adhere to only that definition - and readers are quite free to think differently.

Therefore, examining the phenomenon about paranormal and psychokinesis is not just a matter of whether "someone is claiming" to have a paranormal ability which they personally possess and are able to demonstrate at will. Beyond that, the question of whether the 'paranormal' exists at all should move us to want to examine cases where such things might have occured independently of anyone making any claims of possessing a paranormal ability. Are you agreed on this?

So what happens where certain events are reported (from rigorous studies, of course) that cannot be explained by known natural forces or by science? Perhaps we might agree that the weight of such studies is in the question of whether they are published in credible journals.

Let me leave you one example:
^^^
The investigators were:

   ~   Ian Stevenson, Department of Behavioral  Medicine  and Psychiatry,
        University  of Virginia, Charlottesville:  VA 22908.

   ~   Satwant Pasricha, Department of Clinical Psychology,
        National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences
        (NIMHANS),  Bangalore,  India.

  ~   Nicholas McClean-Rice, Department of Behavioral Medicine
       and Psychiatry, Universily of Virginia, Charlottesville,  VA 22908.


Please just objectively go through that published study - and then think of your own reasons for any conclusions you may draw as to whether such a phenomenon is possible or not possible. Also note here that the subjects involved in that study do not claim to have 'abilities' which they could demonstrate at will.

In proffering the case study above, I have this from mazaje in mind:
Further, I am not asking anyone to 'replicate' anything, since here we are only seeking to establish any inferences about 'veracity'. Cheers.

Good to see that the topic is no longer about Randi and your obscured new agers . I will read parts of the paper(its too long) and will give my thoughts and reflections when am done. It might be today or tommorow but will definately get back and drop my thoughts when I feel I am informed enough on the matter to make comments.

toneyb:

Ohh, Randi's challenge was to to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties, not some obscured new agers that are busy crying from a distance and also desperately looking for a plat form to gain popularity and cheap fame.

I did not present any new ager seeking Randi's cheap fame and popularity charade for a 1 million dollars he does not have. This was why I left you guys some links - and you have patently played hide and seek and never once be man enough to check them out before making unfounded conclusions.

Randi does not need to respond to new agers and their bogus claims, he has already put forth his challenge, Sending emissaries like you to come and cry on their behalf and try to sell their already failed product will not fly.

Those who have thrown out the challenge to Randi are NOT new agers. A specific example was given - and your noise here about new agers is both illiterate, deceitful and easy carping. You ought to have realised that fact before hooting like a cheap toy train.

No wonder you were qucik to direct us to go read some bogus rants challenge on some obscured web site about some unknown people.

The websites I posted are not considered "bogus", nor 'obscured', nor are they rants. When people like you are damn to ashamed of your cowardise, you quickly sweep what you can't face up to as bogus. So much for your rational defence of the amazing cheat Randi - he so loves this unpaid advert you're running on his behalf. Be man enough to do the sane thing by checking them out - that is what rational people do, instead of sitting nibbling your fingers and tooting.

Randi knows better than entertaining the responses of some obscured and nameless noise makers and their cronies who are only seeking cheap popularity and a medium to market their already failed products. You and your new agers so go look for a better way of selling your ware instead of shouting, chasing your long tails, biting them and crying at the same time. .

This seems to have degenerated to a lying spree you take up for Randi. NOT ONE link I gave you are advertising anything for popularity, nor marketing, nor are they new agers. If you don't mind packing your duplicity one corner, thanks. To keep harping about what those people are NOT is to keep lying for Randi - please continue doing so and confirm for us the kind of sinister lengths you would go to keep lying.

_______________

toneyb:

Good to see that the topic is no longer about Randi and your obscured new agers .

The topic was never about those - you are the first to parade Randi's shenanigan in this thread, and mazaje was the first to yap about 'new-agers' in the thread. 

I will read parts of the paper(its too long) and will give my thoughts and reflections when am done. It might be today or tommorow but will definately get back and drop my thoughts when I feel I am informed enough on the matter to make comments.

That would be nice to see. Cheers.

viaro:

@toneyb and mazaje,

I'm not going to tell stories, but please hear me out.

In particular reference to the thread topic (ie., on Psychokinesis), I woulod say that a subject of this sort is basically pointing to just one thing: are such things as psychokinesis 'real'? And is there any evidence from any study at all published in a recognized journal as evidence at all for psychokinesis?

What does the paper say about the scientific evidence, The journal you posted gave some vague explanations and nothing conclusive to show that psychokinesis can be scientifically supported. According to wikipedia there is no convincing scientific evidence that psychokinesis exists and it cites this as its reference. Vyse, Stuart A. (1997). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. Oxford University Press US. p. 129. ISBN 0195136349. "Most scientists, both psychologists and physicists, agree that it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated.".

It does not help us to keep arguing on and on about Randi - you have your praise for him, I have reasons why I'm not impressed by his theatricals. But as regards the question of psychokinesis, one would be asking in particularly (if you're like me) - "is there any evidence of sorts for psychokinesis?"

Enough of the endless banters about Randi. . . .Do you have any conclusive evidence to show that it exists from a peer reviewed scientific journal?

Perhaps it seems pertinent to state the obvious, that discussions on psychokinesis might as well have a bearing on such things regarded as 'paranormal', and this takes many forms. It is not just a stereotypical idea which some of us might hold, especially if we're inclined to pride ourselves as 'skeptics' on such things. Basically, some sources present the paranormal as involving events which are 'impossible to explain by known natural forces or by science' (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary). I am not asking that anyone "must" adhere to only that definition - and readers are quite free to think differently.

Therefore, examining the phenomenon about paranormal and psychokinesis is not just a matter of whether "someone is claiming" to have a paranormal ability which they personally possess and are able to demonstrate at will. Beyond that, the question of whether the 'paranormal' exists at all should move us to want to examine cases where such things might have occured independently of anyone making any claims of possessing a paranormal ability. Are you agreed on this?

Sure I agree. . . . I will like something more concrete and substantive not some anecdotal references.

So what happens where certain events are reported (from rigorous studies, of course) that cannot be explained by known natural forces or by science? Perhaps we might agree that the weight of such studies is in the question of whether they are published in credible journals.

Let me leave you one example:
^^^
The investigators were:

   ~   Ian Stevenson, Department of Behavioral  Medicine  and Psychiatry,
        University  of Virginia, Charlottesville:  VA 22908.

   ~   Satwant Pasricha, Department of Clinical Psychology,
        National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences
        (NIMHANS),  Bangalore,  India.

  ~   Nicholas McClean-Rice, Department of Behavioral Medicine
       and Psychiatry, Universily of Virginia, Charlottesville,  VA 22908.


Please just objectively go through that published study - and then think of your own reasons for any conclusions you may draw as to whether such a phenomenon is possible or not possible. Also note here that the subjects involved in that study do not claim to have 'abilities' which they could demonstrate at will.

In proffering the case study above, I have this from mazaje in mind:
Further, I am not asking anyone to 'replicate' anything, since here we are only seeking to establish any inferences about 'veracity'. Cheers.

Interesting. . . .Let me begin by saying that I am not dismissing their claims without completely reading it. But I will like to note that the authors published for JSE,(The journal is not indexed in Web of Science, an indexing service for leading scientific journals, and is not considered actual peer review) there are no real details in the "study" other than first names and vague village names from what i have read so far, and the bulk of "evidence" provided is by hearsay of "witnesses".

I remember the monkey man that caused widespread panic in India a few years ago. We had plenty of witnesses for it as well. Did a monkey man exist and make hell for a few days only to evaporate? I like tony will read it, when I feel I am informed enough to drop my comments I will definitely drop them and then we will continue from there.

mazaje:

What does the paper say about the scientific evidence, The journal you posted gave some vague explanations and nothing conclusive to show that psychokinesis can be scientifically supported.

Please discuss them and let's see how you arrived at your conclusions. The paper does not draw the conclusion you want to believe it did, so kindly point me to where you saw that in the paper, thanks.

According to wikipedia there is no convincing scientific evidence that psychokinesis exists and it cites this as its reference. Vyse, Stuart A. (1997). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. Oxford University Press US. p. 129. ISBN 0195136349. "Most scientists, both psychologists and physicists, agree that it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated.".

Wikipedia does not argue that there psychokinesis does not exist - rather, it says that the evidence is not 'convincing', which is not the same thing as saying that there is no evidence at all for psychokinesis. In fact, the same page acknowledges that some evidence exists although small {'A meta-analysis of 380 studies in 2006 found a "very small" effect which could be explained by publication bias.^[11]"}.

The denial of the evidence of psychokinesis is to be understood within the context of mainstream science. The argument that it has not reached a concensus in mainstream science does not therefore mean that it is psuedo-science. I have also given reasons for this dichotomy in post #32 in response to toneyb. This is why the research is ONGOING and is being funded privately in many universities around the world.

As regards the case of Vyse, Stuart A. (1997) in Wikipedia, it does not conclude all cases of scientific experimentations or observation of psychokinesis. This is especially the case in that same page where the following is reported:

[list]Nina Kulagina (1926 – 1990), alleged Soviet psychic of the late 1960s and early 1970s,[^30][54][55] mentioned in the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency report from 1978: „G.A. Sergevev is known to have studied Nina Kulagina, a well-known psychic from Leningrad. Although no detailed results are available, Sergevev's inferences are that she was successful in repeating psychokinetic phenomena under controlled conditions. G.A. Sergevev is a well-respected researcher and has been active in paraphysics research since the early 1960's.[/list].

In the same Wikipedia page, the following is carried -

[list]Alleged psychokinetic events have been witnessed by psychologists in the United States,^[62][63][64] and elsewhere in the world by professionals with medical degrees,^[64][65] physicists,^[66] electrical engineers,^[63] military personnel,^[67][68] police officers,^[69] and other professionals and ordinary citizens. Robert M. Schoch Ph.D., professor at Boston University, has written "I do believe that some psychokinesis is real" referring to the evidence for micro-psychokinesis obtained by the Princeton PEAR laboratory experiments and similar studies and some reports of macro-RSPK observed in poltergeist cases.[/list]

From the foregoing, of course, Stuart A. Vyse's book and personal arguments do not form the concensus of ALL investigated cases of psychokinesis - he is much a disbeliever in that phenomenon but does not make an objective statement on the matter at all. The names which appear there ought to be carefully scrutinised (without favouring any one side - disbeliever or believer in psychokinesis). One example for this is the mention of Richard Wiseman, whose complete disregard for ethical values in fair examination of research into psychokinesis ought to wake the sane skeptic. If you would like objective material showing Wiseman's unethical control freak in these matters, I would be quite glad to oblige you in detail.

Enough of the endless banters about Randi. . . .Do you have any conclusive evidence to show that it exists from a peer reviewed scientific journal?

I already had thrown Randi's shenanigan to the ground. For conclusive evidence, please read the few resources I provided and let me see you discuss it rather than turning to conclusive bias.

mazaje:
Sure I agree. . . . I will like something more concrete and substantive not some anecdotal references.

I have provided just a few. Please refer. If you would in all cases reject anecdotal evidence, in just the same way you could not argue anything on Stuart Vyne who uses that same premise to draw unfounded conclusions.

Interesting. . . .Let me begin by saying that I am not dismissing their claims without completely reading it. But I will like to note that the authors published for JSE,(The journal is not indexed in Web of Science, an indexing service for leading scientific journals, and is not considered actual peer review)

I have read the above about the JSE not listed in the web of science - but that does not therefore set it aside for less than its value. Mainstream science is not interested in pursuing or funding research in the area of psychokinesis, so we can understand why some just hastily conclude that studies published in the JSE are not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, a futher careful background check reveals surprising weight of those behind the parent body of JSE - the parent body being the SSE: Society of Scientific Explorations.

[list]The Society for Scientific Exploration, or SSE, is a professional organization of scientists and other scholars committed to studying unusual and unexplained phenomena that cross traditional scientific boundaries and may be ignored or inadequately studied within mainstream science.[/list]

[list]The society's peer reviewed scientific journal, the [b]J[/b]ournal of [b]S[/b]cientific [b]E[/b]xploration, was established to provide a scientific forum for ufology, parapsychology and cryptozoology, having published research articles, essays, book reviews and letters on those and many other topics that are largely ignored in mainstream journals.[/list]

Perhaps you should do your own background check rather than relying on hasty conclusions that miss essential points on these issues. Just a thought - it would help.

there are no real details in the "study" other than first names and vague village names from what i have read so far, and the bulk of "evidence" provided is by hearsay of "witnesses".

There is a real study, and the names of the villages and subjects are verifiable and not hearsays. The problem with this type of attitude that appears in your rejoinder is why many people miss the opportunity of considering issues before they make unnecessary conclusions.

I remember the monkey man that caused widespread panic in India a few years ago. We had plenty of witnesses for it as well. Did a monkey man exist and make hell for a few days only to evaporate? I like tony will read it, when I feel I am informed enough to drop my comments I will definitely drop them and then we will continue from there.

I don't think the case of the monkeyman was reported as psychokinetic. I'm interested in remaining on this particular subject instead of drawing unrelated issues into our discussions. I look forward to your comments after perusing the article, thanks.

Hmmm,  why didnt I stumble unto this section earlier.
Okay First of all, Inesqor. . . its either I know you or my judgement is for the most part F!@kd up!!
I no know sha

Anyway Let's address the post
If you really want you question answered, the first thing you must realize is the power of definition.
How can we define supernatural? How can we adumbrate the paranormal?
Its simple. . . the prefixes super- and para-  point to instances when the words they qualify become inconceivable.
Thus from these definitions we must see how subjective the concept of the supernatural/ paranormal is as it.
It forms a pedestal on concepts like location, religion, time. . . .
Now my point:
In 09 AD, It would surely have been supernatural to travel at 220kmph in a metal box.
All that differenciates fringe science from protoscience is a few discoveries. . . and yes I said science, because I believe most of these things could be acheived with science.
Teleportation/ something close anyway could acheived with quantum entanglement
Telekinesis could easily be acheived with electrical enhancement to cognitive  centers and all that. . .
Deduction is also a science as much as it is an art

Thus for those that even question the paranormal @toneyb . . . you should understand that the natural laws were discovered and that for the most part these abstractions that you have considered to be the natural laws have been disproved or modified(classical mech and relativity and all that garbage).   

Let me also point out that I believe in the spiritual. . . but I also believe that man's variation of the spiritual is termed similar to the godly one
Eg. If some god just rose in the air and started movin around, he'll be flying. IIf an aeroplane also rose in the air. . it would also be flying, If a guy had a jetpack, he'll be flying too. . . .

@streetwize: No, you've gotta be kidding me, saying you know me! What's the fourth letter of my (real) first name? Or the sixth of my surname?

If u dont no me already then ur som1 else sorry bruv. . . anyway I lik ur posts. . . keep em comin
U jus hav the same exact character of a friend of mine tho. . . ur practically his clone!!

It possible.
Person will such ability will never come out to proclaim.
If not possible where did name comes from that mean someone saw it and name it such not imagination.Don't forget we're adam and whatever we call a thing so it will be.
Nobody with natural ability will come out to tell you .

mazaje:

Interesting. . . .Let me begin by saying that I am not dismissing their claims without completely reading it. But I will like to note that the authors published for JSE,(The journal is not indexed in Web of Science, an indexing service for leading scientific journals, and is not considered actual peer review) there are no real details in the "study" other than first names and vague village names from what i have read so far, and the bulk of "evidence" provided is by hearsay of "witnesses".

I like this it is important to note that according to the wikipedia page, The opinions of the organization(SSE) are usually at odds with those of mainstream science.. It seems to be some fringe group of scientists whose opinions differ from the pack. But nevertheless, Their explorations should not be discarded off hand.

toneyb:

mazaje link=topic=422521.msg5824037#msg5824037 date=1270314582:

Interesting. . . .Let me begin by saying that I am not dismissing their claims without completely reading it. But I will like to note that the authors published for JSE,(The journal is not indexed in Web of Science, an indexing service for leading scientific journals, and is not considered actual peer review) there are no real details in the "study" other than first names and vague village names from what i have read so far, and the bulk of "evidence" provided is by hearsay of "witnesses".

I like this it is important to note that according to the wikipedia page, The opinions of the organization(SSE) are usually at odds with those of mainstream science.. It seems to be some fringe group of scientists whose opinions differ from the pack. But nevertheless, Their explorations should not be discarded off hand.

Good point, toneyb (and mazaje). For the benefit of the general reader, let's be clear on one thing: the JSE is actually peer-reviewed. The difference is that it is not peer-reviewed by the mainstream, since the mainstream is not interested in pursuing or funding studies of anomalies as an established discipline within its matrix.

Perhaps I should provide some gist to the fact that the JSE is peer-reviewed in its own right. People should be very careful about 'conclusive bias', which in many instances are very, very misleading indeed. For example, this Wiki page tries to list a few journals by stating that "The following are scientific sounding journals of questionable reliability". If that is the case in general consensus, one might suppose that those listed journal on that page would not be listed in the W[/b]eb [b]o[/b]f [b]S[/b]cience (WoS).

That Wiki page (by Yilloslime) lists Neuroquantology as one of those journals of "questionable reliability" - yet if you do your own background check carefully instead of basing your conclusions on Yilloslime, you will surprise yourself in discovering that 'Neuroquantology' is actually indexed in the WoS (Web of Science - you can do a search to verify). My question is: why would a journal consider to be of "questionable reliability" be indexed in the WoS?

Another example is the Medical Hypotheses journal, which is indexed by PubMed, but is [b]not peer-reviewed. Although listing an article or journal in PubMed is not endorsement, nonetheless it is noteworthy that PubMed is highly regarded with respect at par with WoS.

The above are examples among many others that should help us be very, very careful about whatever people just say anywhere with regards to peer-reviewed journals and publications.

So it is as well with the case of the JSE not being indexed in the WoS, which is like that of the Noetic Journal (also not indexed in the WoS). However, the Noetic Journal is actually a peer-reviewed professional journal:

[list]The Noetic Journal is an inter-disciplinary peer-reviewed science journal providing an international forum specializing in the physical basis of consciousness, including aspects of Extended Electromagnetic Theory, de Broglie-Bohm and Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Computing, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Superstring (M, F-Theory), Philosophy of Mind and Cartesian Dualism. (the [url=http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/index.html]Noetic page[/url])[/list]

[list] . . . The Institute maintains a commitment to scientific rigor while exploring phenomena that have been largely overlooked by mainstream science.[/list]

And what about the JSE? Here:

[list]The S[/b]ociety for [b]S[/b]cientific [b]E[/b]xploration, or SSE, is a professional organization of scientists and other scholars committed to studying unusual and unexplained phenomena that cross traditional scientific boundaries and may be ignored or inadequately studied within mainstream science.^[1] The opipnions of the organization are usually at odds with those of mainstream science.^[2]  It holds annual meetings and publishes a quarterly [b]peer reviewed journal called [b]J[/b]ournal of [b]S[/b]cientific [b]E[/b]xploration (JSE).
(Wikipedia again).[/list]

The SSE has a short vid summarising and contextualizing their scientific research type, posted below. Enjoy.

          [flash=360,210]http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=4495682&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&[/flash]

          Society for Scientific Exploration (Adam Curry)

@streetwize: Brother, I sincerely looked through ALL your posts for a hint before my previous reply, I even visited your youtube page! But I didnt recognize you thru the rap battles. Maybe I'm the one who's not sensitive enough? Pls if you can, mail me on inesQor(at)yahoo(dot)com. Thanks!

I have read through the "scientific journal" and found it lacking in on so many fronts,I also did a background check on the primary author of that article(Ian Stevenson) and discovered that he was a strong believer in reincarnation himself. He tried to collect "evidences" for alleged past-life experiences.

Other researchers and skeptics have identified numerous problems with his methods and data, such as biases in his questioning techniques, reliance on translators, use of anecdotal evidence, failure to verify claims, confirmation bias, etc. Much of his research involved small children, often questioned through intermediaries, and he did much of his research in countries (like India) where reincarnation is an accepted belief.

Here's an entry from the Skeptical Dictionary which includes an overview of the criticism :

http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html

As for the JSE here are some entries on it.

The Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), founded in 1987, was initially established to provide a forum for three main fields that had largely been neglected by mainstream science: ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology.

According to its mission statement, the journal provides a forum for research on topics "outside the established disciplines of mainstream science."  However, due to its scope of examining anomalies, fringe science, protoscience, and other controversial topics, the editors of the JSE acknowledge that the periodical "publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals."

Skeptics take a somewhat dubious view of the whole enterprise:

Kendrick Frazier, Editor of Skeptical Inquirer and CSICOP fellow has criticized JSE and argues that:

  "The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena."

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

The points raised from the paper is very interesting but however falls far short of what would commonly be considered science. Most scientist care less about their personal beliefs but that can not be said of Ian Stevenson who believes first and then tries to find "scientific evidence" for his beliefs. Ones personal stand on philosophy/metaphysics is irrelevant to the process of science honest scientist follow where the evidence leads them not where the philosopher leads.

Firstly this is a single data point, while oblique reference is made in the report to other cases of 'possession' it is only ever as a generality. Consequently there is no data analysis.

Second, the actual 'remembering' took place outside controlled conditions. The 'scientists' did not arrive on the scene till after the event. On the subject of leading questions and cueing they say:

We learned of 12 members of Shiva's family and circle of friends whom Sumitra recognized under conditions that we believe excluded cueing. We shall describe the circumstances of seven of Sumitra's recognitions, including one in which cueing might have played a part and six in which we think it did not.

This is followed by descriptions of second hand reports. The report is littered with similar bare assumptions, such as

third group of statements, those concerned with nicknames and private affairs not published in the newspapers, includes statements that we think [/b]contain information Sumitra could not have obtained normally.

which tend to be followed up by anecdotal evidence, in this case:

[b]We learned of 19 items that we felt justified in placing in this, the most important group.These showed that Sumitra had knowledge of: a particular yellow sari that Shiva had owned, a watch that had belonged to Shiva and the box (in the Tripathi home), [, ]

Moreover the section on the various possible answers to the mystery is bordering on ludicrous. Under the analysis of the possibility of Fraud in a passage that starts:

We think we can exclude a hoax perpetrated by Sumitra alone. A barely literate village woman in India could not have obtained detailed accurate information about another woman who lived 100 km away without assistance. If there was a hoaxing team, who composed it? Sumitra's husband, as a man, could move around more easily than Sumitra, but he was not in a position to go to places like Dibiyapur and Etawah in order to search out unpublished details about the life of Shiva.

I count 7 important assertions, one question and absolutely no evidence. Moreover the point that Sumitra was now involved in a complex murder investigation and the motive this may provide for fraud is not addressed (last I heard perjury in India carries a seven year tariff).

In their conclusion the section discussing the possibility of possession has this to say on it's inherent probability compared to other explanations:

If the other interpretations we have mentioned should be set aside as inadequately accounting for all the facts of the case, we are led to consider that a drastic change of personality occurred. When personality becomes altered unrecognizably, taking on the attributes and the knowledge a deceased personality was known to have, it may be best to speak of the change as a type of possession or reincarnation. Although we do not dogmatically assert that this is the correct interpretation of this case, we believe much of the evidence makes it the most plausible one.

This article is proposing an extremely radical belief in a personal soul that survives death. Yet it rests its case on the above analysis of possible explanations. Frankly I would seriously distrust not only this piece of "science" but any journal that willingly publishes it. No wonder at all why JSE is considered to be a fringe science journal. Like every organization fringe groups exist which to me is what the JSE is.

@toneyb,

Many thanks for your comments. I was quite anticipating that you would veer from the request to take an objective look at the research paper - which would mean that you do just that: take an objective look and avoid 'conclusive bias'. One very clear example of the mistake of conclusive bias that appears in your comments is the usual atheistic cliche that those who research the paranormal and anomalies must by default be "strong believer(s)" in such phenomena before they even embarked on such studies. It does not say anything about such 'skeptics' actually doing anything to embark on the study themselves - and this attitude tending to ad hominem fallacy is what weakens the position of the atheistic 'skeptic' (more properly, psuedo-skeptic).

Let me draw a few from your comments to highlight what I mean.

toneyb:

I have read through the "scientific journal" and found it lacking in on so many fronts,I also did a background check on the primary author of that article(Ian Stevenson) and discovered that he was a strong believer in reincarnation himself. He tried to collect "evidences" for alleged past-life experiences.

I'm sorry, toneyb, but that is all on a wrong footing. Yes, the source of your 'discovery' may be the guys at 'skeptic.com', so I wasn't surprised to see that you had drawn from their own faulty conclusions to make Ian Stevenson simply a believer instead of a researcher.

Even from their own webpage which you provided on Stevenson, you might have missed the very fact that the skeptic.com tacitly acknowledged Stevenson's scientific protocol in his research. They simply dismissed it on their own pseudo-skeptic excuses. Let's have a look at what skeptic.com says about Stevenson's research procedures:

[list]In the study of spontaneous paranormal phenomena we must usually interview and cross-question informants about events that have happened before we arrive on the scene. In principle, the methods are those that lawyers use in reconstructing a crime and historians use in understanding the past. Once we have the best account possible of the events in question, we consider one by one the alternative explanations and to try to eliminate them until only the single most probable one remains. Then we try with further observations to confirm or reject the initially preferred explanation. In addition, we search through series of apparently similar phenomena for recurrent features that may provide clues to causative conditions and processes of occurrence. (Stevenson 1989).[/list]

But leaving the pseudo-skeptic dismissal at skeptic.com, what have other objective scienstists said Stevenson's research procedures? On this Wikipedia entry, I excerpt a few:

Stevenson’s conclusions gained little support from within the scientific community, although Eugene Brody has suggested many of them simply dismiss ideas like reincarnation.^[5]

While Stevenson published his research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and three scientific commentators have stated that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research,^[5][8][9] for the most part the scientific community ignored Stevenson's reincarnation work.^[3]

There are few things that immediately stand out here:

1. Stevenson's work actually was published in peer-reviewed scientific journals - I think you should understand the weight of that statement, so that we don't get carried away by the ad hominem fallacies of skeptic.com.

2. Regardless what skeptic.com might have argued in manner of dismissing Steven's research, the quote above acknowledges that "three scientific commentators have stated that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research" - should that also not be weighty enough to see that skeptic.com is operating under the illusion of their own pseudo-skepticism?!?

More than this, perhaps my singular most serious problem with these pseudo-skeptic folks is the fact that NONE OF THEM ever makes any attempt to examine the research facts for themselves in an objective manner! It is one thing for someone to critique a research, quite another thing for someone to 'criticise' another research without doing the research yourself!! This is fact that has been observed by others -

[list]In 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Dr. Stevenson's work. In a commentary for the issue, psychiatrist Harold Lief described Dr. Stevenson as "a methodical, careful, even cautious, investigator, whose personality is on the obsessive side." He also wrote: "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known . . . as 'the Galileo of the 20th century.' "[/list]

[list]But with rare exception, mainstream scientists -- the only group Dr. Stevenson really cared to persuade -- tended to ignore or dismiss his decades in the field and his many publications. Of those who noticed him at all, some questioned Dr. Stevenson's objectivity; others claimed he was credulous. Still others suggested that he was insufficiently versed in the cultures and languages of his subjects to do credible investigations. Dr Stevenson responded that his critics should come investigate the cases for themselves. That did not happen.[/list]

Despite the fact that Stevenson's critics were NOT WILLING to objectively consider the scientific research of what they criticised, it is noteworthy to read, however, that ~

[list]But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."[/list]

[list]source of excerpts above: "Ian Stevenson; Sought To Document Memories Of Past Lives in Children" by Tom Shroder, Senior staff writer, The Washington Post[/list]

But it is not only Carl Sagan that agrees on the accuracy of Stevenson's research. The Wikipedia article comments that Arthur C. Clark "agreed that Stevenson had produced a number of studies that were hard to explain, but also noted that a major problem for reincarnation was the lack of any known physical mechanisms that could account for personality transfer". In addition,  Robert Almeder (himself a philosopher of science) endorsed Stevenson's research and concluded that "the evidence he assembled argues strongly in favor of reincarnation, to the point of it being irrational to disbelieve that some people reincarnate" (Wikipedia).

In all of this, the bottomline is that any number of "skeptics" who assume that Ian Stevenson's work were not scientific ought to think carefully about their pseudo-skepticism. I wonder how a work that failed to pass as a scientific research would then get published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Not to mention that those who are deeply skeptical of the paranormal would agree profoundly that Stevenson's work was both "accurate" and that he had "rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research".

To this end, I'm really not impressed one tiny bit about the empty dismissal of Stevenson's work by the guys at skeptic.com - they are often polarised to the point of their own extremism that they never take to time to see the fallacy of their own pseduo-skepticism.

toneyb:
Skeptics take a somewhat dubious view of the whole enterprise:

We know why: they are never interested in objectively examining research that they criticise on empty grounds.

viaro:

@toneyb,

Many thanks for your comments. I was quite anticipating that you would veer from the request to take an objective look at the research paper - which would mean that you do just that: take an objective look and avoid 'conclusive bias'. One very clear example of the mistake of conclusive bias that appears in your comments is the usual atheistic cliche that those who research the paranormal and anomalies must by default be "strong believer(s)" in such phenomena before they even embarked on such studies. It does not say anything about such 'skeptics' actually doing anything to embark on the study themselves - and this attitude tending to ad hominem fallacy is what weakens the position of the atheistic 'skeptic' (more properly, psuedo-skeptic).

Ian Steveson has been accused of conclusive bias by so many scientist in most of his "scientific" studies. A lot of skeptics and believers have carried out a lot of research on the paranormal and most of the time the results were inconclusive, Nothing concrete or objective has ever been found to support the existence of the paranormal. Here is a quote from Ian Stevenson himself.

"We all die of some affliction. What determines the nature of that affliction? I believe the search for the answer may lead us to think that the nature of our illnesses may derive at least in part from previous lives." --Ian Stevenson.

Even from their own webpage which you provided on Stevenson, you might have missed the very fact that the skeptic.com tacitly acknowledged Stevenson's scientific protocol in his research. They simply dismissed it on their own pseudo-skeptic excuses. Let's have a look at what skeptic.com says about Stevenson's research procedures:

[list]In the study of spontaneous paranormal phenomena we must usually interview and cross-question informants about events that have happened before we arrive on the scene. In principle, the methods are those that lawyers use in reconstructing a crime and historians use in understanding the past. Once we have the best account possible of the events in question, we consider one by one the alternative explanations and to try to eliminate them until only the single most probable one remains. Then we try with further observations to confirm or reject the initially preferred explanation. In addition, we search through series of apparently similar phenomena for recurrent features that may provide clues to causative conditions and processes of occurrence. (Stevenson 1989).[/list]

These are Stevenson's claims that was how he described his methodology, he claims to abide by these principle and methodology when conducting his work, How true it is remains questionable to many. No where did any member of the sketic.com tacitly admit to any of his claims rather they were only pointing out to the claims he made about his methodology.

But leaving the pseudo-skeptic dismissal at skeptic.com, what have other objective scienstists said Stevenson's research procedures? On this Wikipedia entry, I excerpt a few:

How clever . Take some few name that sings praises to Stevenson but cleaver discard so many other scientist that have discredited him. From the skeptic.com entry.

In 1964, Chester F. Carlson (1906-1968), attorney, inventor of xerography, and a man with a strong interest in the paranormal gave UVa a million dollars to support paranormal research.* Carlson even accompanied Stevenson on one of his field trips to Alaska, where he collected stories from the Tlingit peoples. Some of his UVa colleagues found Stevenson to be an embarrassment, but this was the university that Jefferson had founded with the promise that it would be "based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind.

More from skeptic.com

In 1961, Stevenson took his first trip to India and Sri Lanka, where he collected his first batch of original past-life stories from children.

I found that the children often talked with strong emotions about the previous lives, and they sometimes behaved as if still living in the past life. For them it seemed still present, not past. For example, a child of low-caste parents who said that he remembered the life of a Brahmin would show snobbish behavior toward his own family and might even refuse to eat their food: from his perspective it was polluted. A child remembering a previous life as a person of the opposite sex might dress for that sex and play its games. One who remembered being shot would show a fear of guns and loud noises. (Stevenson 1989).

These first impressions would have a lasting impact on Stevenson's methodology and beliefs about reincarnation. The data collected on this trip became the basis for T[i]wenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation,[/i] whose publication was delayed because his publisher backed out of the project when it was discovered that Stevenson's interpreter was accused of dishonesty. Stevenson admits the man was dishonest in some matters, but he did not think the man had deceived him. So, Stevenson did not reject the data collected with this interpreter's help. The American Society for Psychical Research published the monograph in 1966. A revised edition was published by University Press of Virginia in 1974.

What an interesting methodology.

There are few things that immediately stand out here:

1. Stevenson's work actually was published in peer-reviewed scientific journals - I think you should understand the weight of that statement, so that we don't get carried away by the ad hominem fallacies of skeptic.com.

His work are published in fringe "peer reviewed journals".

toneyb:

The points raised from the paper is very interesting but however falls far short of what would commonly be considered science.

The research followed a rigorous scientific protocol - please see my critique of your comments on Ian Stevenson. The best you could argue here is that most scientists in 'mainstream science' IGNORED Stevenson's research - but some scientists (and even those scientists most critical of his work) have acknowledged that Stevenson's research was accurate and indeed he had rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research.

Most scientist care less about their personal beliefs but that can not be said of Ian Stevenson who believes first and then tries to find "scientific evidence" for his beliefs.

That's not true. Ian Stevenson did not "believe first" - those scientists and skeptics who have tried to take an objective look at his research are profoundly of the view that he had presented a research that rigorously followed the scientific method. I don't know when science journals started publishing the "personal beliefs" of researchers; but does it not strike you that your comments are unfounded in face of the fact that Stevenson published his research in peer-reviewed science journal?

Ones personal stand on philosophy/metaphysics is irrelevant to the process of science honest scientist follow where the evidence leads them not where the philosopher leads.

I agree that honest scientists follow where the evidence leads them rather than where the philosopher's personal views on metaphysics tend to lead. On that basis, we might be quite at home with views from scientists like Carl Sagan who had dispassionately acknowledged that Stevenson's work were "accurate"; as well as the dispassionate acknowledge of other scientists that Stevenson had "rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research".

Firstly this is a single data point, while oblique reference is made in the report to other cases of 'possession' it is only ever as a generality. Consequently there is no data analysis.

It depends on what you mean by "single data point" and "data analysis". What kind of 'data' did you assume are suited to psychokinetic studies? How do you proceed to analyse the data if you saw one?

And talking about "generality", please be informed that Stevenson did not draw upon just one or a few studies. I'd like to remind you of this summary excerpt from Wikipedia:
[list]

Stevenson argued that the 3,000 or so cases he studied supported the possibility of reincarnation, though he was always careful to refer to them as "cases suggestive of reincarnation," or "cases of the reincarnation type."^[3] He also recognized a limitation, or what Paul Edwards calls the "modus operandi problem", namely the absence of evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body.^[3] Against this, Robert Almeder argues that "you many not know how something occurs but have plenty of evidence that it occurs."^[18][19][20] Recent work by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff on quantum consciousness has been suggested as hinting at a possible mechanism for the persistence of consciousness after death.^[21]

[/list]

I acknowledge that one cannot draw conclusions on a single paper - it would be irrational to do so. However, each case would be examined on its own merit; and even though one may not be able to understand how things work (such as providing 'evidence of a physical process'), it would be quite unethical to dismiss the whole research merely on grounds that you cannot understand its mechanism. Even the hard-nosed skeptics like Carl Sagan would not have been inclined to such low ideals, considering his having stated (supposedly) that - "young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation".

Indeed, the question might be asked: what would Carl Sagan have meant by "reincarnation"? Oh, please don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that Sagan believed in reincarnation, nor am I questioning his or anyone's rights to feel howsoever they might about that subject. But my question is only pointing out that while "mainstream science" might IGNORE the researchers on such phenomena, at least other scientists seem to acknowledge the simple premise of "following where the evidence leads".

toneyb:

Second, the actual 'remembering' took place outside controlled conditions. The 'scientists' did not arrive on the scene till after the event. On the subject of leading questions and cueing they say:

This is NO PROBLEM at all. Most of the 'scientific' studies you might be happy to argue as verifiable are predicated on fact that events took place where nobody could have been on location of occurence. Unless you have another objection that carries weight, I don't see how that counts as anything, if at all. Are you suggesting that Samira should have waiting for scientists to have been at the scene before she supposedly "died"?

The fact was that the research followed a protocol that eliminated the possibility of cueing, NOT one that encourage[/i]d cueing. I think that is the bigger index you have to take into account.

toneyb:

This is followed by descriptions of second hand reports. The report is littered with similar bare assumptions, such as

which tend to be followed up by anecdotal evidence, in this case:

Moreover the section on the various possible answers to the mystery is bordering on ludicrous. Under the analysis of the possibility of Fraud in a passage that starts:

You have not told me anything about WHY you might object to the findings of the research. All the above is merely complaining that falls on "conclusive bias", which often is the case where the critic does nothing other than just object without himself following any scientific protocol of analysis as to why he objects or how he could [i]eliminate cueing. What you're doing here only reminds me of my initial reply to your background ad hominems on ian Stevenson - and I wonder how your comments would stand alongside those of the scientists who have acknowledged his researches are based on scientific methods.

Let me say this simply: beyond your objections, could you provide me with HOW you would have obtained your 'data' for such a study; and then WHY you would have adopted your method of study to proceed in such a manner to gather your 'data'? What I mean is this: how would you have conducted that study scientifically?

toneyb:

I count 7 important assertions, one question and absolutely no evidence.

What do you mean by "evidence"? That should be explained before I point out what you had missed in your reading that report objectively.

toneyb:

Moreover the point that Sumitra was now involved in a complex murder investigation and the motive this may provide for fraud is not addressed (last I heard perjury in India carries a seven year tariff).

Dude, you must have been reading your own fallacy into the report - which is what pseudo-skeptics often do. What I mean is this: Sumitra was NOT the subject of a "murder investigation", nor would she be the principal or ancillary subject or object of a "motive". Are you sure you read the report at all?  

Okay, just in case I might've missed it, please show me how or where the research was pointing to Sumitra being involved in a murder investigation and motive that should warrant a fraud on those accounts to be addressed as such.

toneyb:

In their conclusion the section discussing the possibility of possession has this to say on it's inherent probability compared to other explanations:

And your objections (if any) would be?

toneyb:

This article is proposing an extremely radical belief in a personal soul that survives death. Yet it rests its case on the above analysis of possible explanations.

That's not true. It researches a case, presents its findings, and also went the extra mile of addressing skeptical objections about the posible occurence of cueing or fraud. I don't see how you have addressed these areas objectively on the same scientific basis as you might have hoped the research was conducted.

Besides, you possibly might have misread the paper or otherwise read your own misconstrued ideas into the paper - since I don't understand how you arrived at the idea that Sumitra was herself involved in a murder case as the to in any way to be in a position of accessing possible 'motive' of such a murder.

toneyb:
Frankly I would seriously distrust not only this piece of "science" but any journal that willingly publishes it.

Would you distrust the fact that Wikipedia acknowledge that ian Stevenson's research in peer-reviewed science journal? Are you just saying that simply because you don't have anything objective to say about the paper itself that shows you could have handled it in a better scientific protocol which you did not provide?

toneyb:
No wonder at all why JSE is considered to be a fringe science journal. Like every organization fringe groups exist which to me is what the JSE is.

Sorry, 'fringe science' is NOT pseudo-science, if you're confusing ideas here. The fact is that what you are happy to consider 'mainstream science' has IGNORED scientific studies of what they cannot deny nor have any explanations of their mechanism! If your 'mainstream science' could find an explanation of mechanisms accounting for these phenomena, you suppose they would not have been more than happy to fund it?

To say the least, I had expected a far more insightful accessment of the paper, not the usual dismissal such as one would find among pseudo-skeptics which seems to have appeared in your comments. Yet, I should say that your attempt is appreciated.

2. Regardless what skeptic.com might have argued in manner of dismissing Steven's research, the quote above acknowledges that "three scientific commentators have stated that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research" - should that also not be weighty enough to see that skeptic.com is operating under the illusion of their own pseudo-skepticism?!?

OK lets see how true the comment in bold is. From the same source(skeptic.com)

He was fond of cases that seemed to beg for a paranormal explanation. For example, one case involved an Idaho girl who at age 2 would point to photographs of her sister, dead from a car accident three years before she was born, and say "that was me." The believer thinks the two-year-old meant: "I was my sister in a previous life." The skeptic thinks she meant: "That's a picture of me." The skeptic see the two-year-old as making a mistake. The believer sees her as trying to communicate a message about reincarnation.

Stevenson wrote of another little girl from Indiana who, when she talked about her previous life, made frequent references to the time "when I was a boy" and "when I was called John." He thinks she's talking about a past life. The skeptic thinks she's talking about this life and has some mistaken ideas about gender.

There are several problems with Stevenson's method. He often worked with translators in countries about which he knew very little. Questioning anybody is tricky, but questioning children is especially tricky. "Interviewer bias is the central driving force in the creation of suggestive interviews" (Bruck, Ceci, and Helmsbrooke 1998; quoted in Mills and Lyon: 303). Questioning children and adults via a translator introduces another element of uncertainty regarding the bias of the questioning technique. Most of the interviews took place in countries where reincarnation is an accepted belief. So, the translator would be "typically imbued with the cultural expectations that past-life recall is a valid phenomenon" (Mills and Lynn: 303). Stevenson, being non-fluent in the language and the culture, was in no position to assess the reliability of the questioning by the translator.

His belief in reincarnation overshadows his research since he begins with the assumption that the reincarnation hypothesis is the best possible explanation for the subject or phenomena he is studying.

More than this, perhaps my singular most serious problem with these pseudo-skeptic folks is the fact that NONE OF THEM ever makes any attempt to examine the research facts for themselves in an objective manner! It is one thing for someone to critique a research, quite another thing for someone to 'criticise' another research without doing the research yourself!! This is fact that has been observed by others -

They have examined his research in an objective manner and found it to be questionable and lacking on so many fronts. Here in the one I posted earlier.

He was fond of cases that seemed to beg for a paranormal explanation. For example, one case involved an Idaho girl who at age 2 would point to photographs of her sister, dead from a car accident three years before she was born, and say "that was me." The believer thinks the two-year-old meant: "I was my sister in a previous life." The skeptic thinks she meant: "That's a picture of me." The skeptic see the two-year-old as making a mistake. The believer sees her as trying to communicate a message about reincarnation.

Mary Roach went on location with one of Stevenson's fellow PLE story collectors and came back asking: "is he investigating reincarnation, or merely hunting for evidence in its favor? How can he remain unbiased?" (2005: p. 48).)

His confirmation bias can clearly be seen in this case.

Despite the fact that Stevenson's critics were NOT WILLING to objectively consider the scientific research of what they criticised, it is noteworthy to read, however, that ~

[list]But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."[/list]

Carl Sagan did NOT say that he agree with reincarnation or any of the claims about it, He only stated that he believes that the CLAIMS such as young children reporting of previous life which upon checking turn out to be accurate deserve serious study. NOTHING there suggest that he agrees with reincarnation at all. He just believes that such claims deserve to be well studied.

But it is not only Carl Sagan that agrees on the accuracy of Stevenson's research. The Wikipedia article comments that Arthur C. Clark "agreed that Stevenson had produced a number of studies that were hard to explain, but also noted that a major problem for reincarnation was the lack of any known physical mechanisms that could account for personality transfer". In addition,  Robert Almeder (himself a philosopher of science) endorsed Stevenson's research and concluded that "the evidence he assembled argues strongly in favor of reincarnation, to the point of it being irrational to disbelieve that some people reincarnate" (Wikipedia).

. Where did Carl Sagan say that he agrees with the accuracy of Stevenson's research? As to the other guy, my comment on it is that every fringe group have some form of support from people in the main stream so what else is new there?

In all of this, the bottomline is that any number of "skeptics" who assume that Ian Stevenson's work were not scientific ought to think carefully about their pseudo-skepticism. I wonder how a work that failed to pass as a scientific research would then get published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Not to mention that those who are deeply skeptical of the paranormal would agree profoundly that Stevenson's work was both "accurate" and that he had "rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research".

A fringe scientific journal peer reviewed by other fringe scientist. Like I said every organization has fringe groups and Stevenson's gropu happens to be one. From the skeptic.com website.

It would be pointless to go through each of the 2,500 anecdotes collected and try to debunk, say, the top 100. Little would be gained by such an exercise. (For an example of a debunking of the case Stevenson thought was the best in his Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, see Leonard Angel's deconstruction of the case of Imad Elawar.) We can admit before the investigation begins that reincarnation is possible, even if we have no idea how it might occur. But even the best story could be contaminated and Stevenson's methods of collecting and validating data leave much to be desired. For example, Imad Elawar claimed that he was Mahmoud Bouhamzy, a truck driver who died of tuberculosis 25 years earlier and who had a wife called Jamilah.

   The best past-life candidate Stevenson found [for Imad Elawar] was not named Mahmoud Bouhamzy, did not have a wife named Jamilah, and did not die as a result of an accident at all, let alone one that followed a quarrel with the driver. Yet Stevenson does not give sufficient information for the reader to know what exactly the parents or the boy himself said that entitled Stevenson to discount the original claims as interpreted by the parents and instead present the very different claims given in the tabulation [he produced]. (Angel 1994)

Stevenson came up with a list of 57 items that he said were produced by the parents or the child prior to his attempted verification.

   But the form in which they were originally recorded is not given. Inspection of the items of the tabulation makes clear the need for a record of just what the parents said, how Stevenson recorded their data prior to verification, and how it was or was not subsequently reorganized for presentation in tabular form. (Angel 1994)

Stevenson's method is reminiscent of the kind of subjective validation process that goes on during cold readings. For example,

   Under Stevenson's "Comments" we find "Mahmoud Bouhamzy was an uncle of Ibrahim Bouhamzy." (Ibrahim Bouhamzy is the apparent past-life of the boy, according to Stevenson.) Thus it is taken as verified that a name the boy mentioned corresponded to a real person in the past-life's family, as though it is clear that the boy had been mentioning a name by way of referring to that uncle.

   , the boy referred to a full well and an empty well at the home of the past-life. This is taken as confirmed by the fact that there were two vats used for storing grape juice. "During the rainy season one of these vats became filled with water, but the other, shallower vat did not, because the water evaporated from it. Thus one would be empty while the other was full". Does a five-year-old Druse village boy not know the difference between a vat and a well? (Angel 1994)

Stevenson himself admitted that he hadn't provided compelling evidence for reincarnation. What might be of some value, however, is to examine his data for recurrent features.

To this end, I'm really not impressed one tiny bit about the empty dismissal of Stevenson's work by the guys at skeptic.com - they are often polarised to the point of their own extremism that they never take to time to see the fallacy of their own pseduo-skepticism.

We know why: they are never interested in objectively examining research that they criticise on empty grounds.

The endless sophism again.

toneyb:

Ian Steveson has been accused of conclusive bias by so many scientist in most of his "scientific" studies. A lot of skeptics and believers have carried out a lot of research on the paranormal and most of the time the results were inconclusive, Nothing concrete or objective has ever been found to support the existence of the paranormal. Here is a quote from Ian Stevenson himself.

If you're not going to start singing your own pseudo-skepticism, you ought to have seen that those "accusing" Ian Stevenson are the usual players who are more interested in singing to their choir - the pseudo-skeptics. It was for this reason that I pointed out that such "accusations" are empty and based on lazy-armchair criticism rather than objective appraisal of his researches.

Would you be saying that your so-called "accusations" have anything to do with objectivitity if scientists like Carl Sagan acknowledge that Stevenson's research was "accurate"? Was Carl Sagan a "believer" in reincarnation or psychokinesis? And what do you have to say about scientists who acknowledge that "Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research"?!?

You see, when objectivity gives way to empty ad hominem fallacies, the pseduo-skepticism you're playing out here is just that: "pseudo-skepticism" . Nothing more. If you have any substance, I would like to see you denounce other scientists (like Carl Sagan) who are NOT "believers" in the psychokinesis. Other do the same about scientists who have acknowledge that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research. It is more helpful to see you do this than pandering to the pseudo-skepticism of skeptic.com.

toneyb:

These are Stevenson's claims that was how he described his methodology, he claims to abide by these principle and methodology when conducting his work, How true it is remains questionable to many.

Stevenson himself did not go about claiming this and that about his methodoly were - I left you links to show that the claim that Stevenson published in "peer-reviewed scientific journals" and that he "rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research" came from OTHER SCIENTISTS! You're acting like you're in such a hurry to dismiss Stevenson only on the pseudo-skeptical dodgy dismissal of folks at skeptic.com! Please check out what other scientists and skeptics have said about Stevenson's methodoly - I left you quite a few; and if you want more, I could post them in abundance!

toneyb:

No where did any member of the sketic.com tacitly admit to any of his claims rather they were only pointing out to the claims he made about his methodology.

By publishing his methodoly, they "tacitly acknowledged Stevenson's scientific protocol in his research" (I did not say that skeptic.com tacitly acknowledged his "claims" - two different things, dude. I also pointed out that while skeptic.com dismissed his research, the dismissal was pseudo-skeptical and baseless. I don't see how they showed anywhere that his research was NOT published in any peer-reviewed science journal; but for the most part, other scientists acknowledge Stevenson's work as based on rigorous scientific method, no?

toneyb:

How clever . Take some few name that sings praises to Stevenson but cleaver discard so many other scientist that have discredited him. From the skeptic.com entry.

Of course we know the pseudo-skepticism of skeptic.com.
That was why I pointed out the other scientists who acknowedged the fact that Stevenson's research followed rigorous scientific methods - and they are not a few; nor are they "believers" (I don't know if you find Carl Sagan a "believer" in such things), and they are not empty dismissers like the guys at skeptic.com. Perhaps next time you want to pay attention to a simple request of checking things objectively rather than running to those lazy guys who never go out to conduct their own research in such things.

toneyb:

More from skeptic.com

Exactly - the pseduo-science of skeptic.com helps you miss the weightier matters. The fact was not that anything was wrong with the data - for the data itself was not affected by the personality of the person who was involved in the research. Please show me more substance instead of thise ad hominem fallacy that skeptic.com is known for, then we can talk. We know many of these pseudo-skeptic guys at skeptic.com who are very dishonest indeed; but as far as the subject is concerned, I'm asking for objectivity. Look at the data itself and critic them. Thanks.

toneyb:

His work are published in fringe "peer reviewed journals".

Oh dude, please stop making empty pseudo-science carping. The sources said "peer-reviewed scientific journals", not 'fringe peer-reviewed journals' - at least, be honest to yourself for once.

<edited>

viaro:

If you're not going to start singing your own pseudo-skepticism, you ought to have seen that those "accusing" Ian Stevenson are the usual players who are more interested in singing to their choir - the pseudo-skeptics. It was for this reason that I pointed out that such "accusations" are empty and based on lazy-armchair criticism rather than objective appraisal of his researches.

The accusations are not empty, The were explained in details on the skeptic website abu as usual you did not even bother to address any of the issues raised.

Would you be saying that your so-called "accusations" have anything to do with objectivitity if scientists like Carl Sagan acknowledge that Stevenson's research was "accurate"? Was Carl Sagan a "believer" in reincarnation or psychokinesis? And what do you have to say about scientists who acknowledge that "Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research"?!?

Where did Carl Sagan acknowledge that Stevenson's research was "accurate" Please show me in case i missed it. Where did Carl Sagan give credence to any Paranormal claims, All he said was that the Claims should be very well studied. What about other scientist that said that Stevenson did not follow rigorous scientific methods?

You see, when objectivity gives way to empty ad hominem fallacies, the pseduo-skepticism you're playing out here is just that: "pseudo-skepticism" . Nothing more. If you have any substance, I would like to see you denounce other scientists (like Carl Sagan) who are NOT "believers" in the psychokinesis. Other do the same about scientists who have acknowledge that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research. It is more helpful to see you do this than pandering to the pseudo-skepticism of skeptic.com.

Where did Carl Sagan say that Stevenson's methods are scientific accurate or give credence to psychokinesis?

Stevenson himself did not go about claiming this and that about his methodoly were - I left you links to show that the claim that Stevenson published in "peer-reviewed scientific journals" and that he "rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research" came from OTHER SCIENTISTS! You're acting like you're in such a hurry to dismiss Stevenson only on the pseudo-skeptical dodgy dismissal of folks at skeptic.com! Please check out what other scientists and skeptics have said about Stevenson's methodoly - I left you quite a few; and if you want more, I could post them in abundance!

The skeptic.com say that those words came from Stevenson himself and they gave instances where he violated the said methodology he claimed to follow.

By publishing his methodoly, they "tacitly acknowledged Stevenson's scientific protocol in his research" (I did not say that skeptic.com tacitly acknowledged his "claims" - two different things, dude. I also pointed out that while skeptic.com dismissed his research, the dismissal was pseudo-skeptical and baseless. I don't see how they showed anywhere that his research was NOT published in any peer-reviewed science journal; but for the most part, other scientists acknowledge Stevenson's work as based on rigorous scientific method, no?
Of course we know the pseudo-skepticism of skeptic.com.

They did not acknowledge his scientific protocols at all, they gave that reference to show that he himself does not even abide by what he claims to be his protocols and methodology.

That was why I pointed out the other scientists who acknowedged the fact that Stevenson's research followed rigorous scientific methods - and they are not a few; nor are they "believers" (I don't know if you find Carl Sagan a "believer" in such things), and they are not empty dismissers like the guys at skeptic.com. Perhaps next time you want to pay attention to a simple request of checking things objectively rather than running to those lazy guys who never go out to conduct their own research in such things.

Where exactly did Carl Sagan say that Stevenson followed rigorous scientific methods?

Exactly - the pseduo-science of skeptic.com helps you miss the weightier matters. The fact was not that anything was wrong with the data - for the data itself was not affected by the personality of the person who was involved in the research. Please show me more substance instead of thise ad hominem fallacy that skeptic.com is known for, then we can talk. We know many of these pseudo-skeptic guys at skeptic.com who are very dishonest indeed; but as far as the subject is concerned, I'm asking for objectivity. Look at the data itself and critic them. Thanks.
Oh dude, please stop making empty pseudo-science carping. The sources said "peer-reviewed scientific journals", not 'fringe peer-reviewed journals' - at least, be honest to yourself for once.

Stevenson went to use data after he himself agreed that the translator was dishonest. So much for the fact that nothing was wrong with the data

toneyb:

OK lets see how true the comment in bold is. From the same source(skeptic.com)

I read the source - the same pseudo-skeptic grumblings and ad hominems. I don't see where you're showing any read data analysis, though. Which was why I asked how you would have proceeded to conduct a scientific research of such things; and then let's have your own data analysis. Criticising the personality of a researcher is one thing; but actually conducting an objective analysis of his work is quite another thing. I would also like for you to offer me a critique of Stevenson's research paper having been published in a peer-reviewed science journal.

toneyb:
His belief in reincarnation overshadows his research since he begins with the assumption that the reincarnation hypothesis is the best possible explanation for the subject or phenomena he is studying.

He did not start out is research as a "believer" in such phenomena - don't let the skeptic.com guys fool you on this one. First, he had done some work on the philosophies/psychologies of mind and consciousness philiosophers of the past (Sigmund Freud, for example) and found them to be adequate in explaining certain aspects of behavoir and character development in people - which was why he opposed the determinism of Sigmund Freud. It was not that Stevenson started out as a "believer" in such things and then only served to be looking for data that supported any such belief(s).

toneyb:

They have examined his research in an objective manner and found it to be questionable and lacking on so many fronts. Here in the one I posted earlier.

Nope, they did not objectively look at his research but only tried to based their opinions on his personality. I also tried to read through Mary Roach criticism, but I didn't find any line where she analysed his data; nor did she seem to have offered any precedure hereself for the study she tried to critise. Wonder why it is easy for pseudo-skeptics to do this, but never undertake any study of their own?

toneyb:
His confirmation bias can clearly be seen in this case.

Seen on what analytical bases?

toneyb:

Carl Sagan did NOT say that he agree with reincarnation or any of the claims about it, He only stated that he believes that the CLAIMS such as young children reporting of previous life which upon checking turn out to be accurate deserve serious study. NOTHING there suggest that he agrees with reincarnation at all. He just believes that such claims deserve to be well studied.

I did NOT state that Car Sagan "agreed" with any claims about reincarnation - infact, I well anticipated this unnecessary jargon from you and questioned what Sagan might have meant by such observations ascribed to him. It is noteworthy that Sagan himself remarked that where such things are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE. Please tell me why such a scientist would first acknowledge that checking such are "accurate" and then recommend that such studies need to be carried out instead of being abandoned or ignored?

toneyb:
. Where did Carl Sagan say that he agrees with the accuracy of Stevenson's research? As to the other guy, my comment on it is that every fringe group have some form of support from people in the main stream so what else is new there?

Please refer and read what Carl Sagan said, unless you want to confirm that you no longer can understand simple statements. And as to the other scientists, they did not stand out as "fringe groups", and if you don't mind moving past your unfounded statements that is beginning to tend to the ridiculous. I think some objectivity would be nice in your comments, toneyb.

toneyb:

A fringe scientific journal peer reviewed by other fringe scientist. Like I said every organization has fringe groups and Stevenson's gropu happens to be one. From the skeptic.com website.
The endless sophism again.

Please do you mind ending your deceit? The sources did NOT state it was a "fringe scientific journal". Refer to the exact quote from unbiased sources and see how you're bent to short-change yourself on this pseudo claim you've repeated without foundation.

DeepSight went at 2225. Toneyb is now at 1166  

I wonder how many posts he'll get to before he learns that "multi-tasking Viaro" is actually a particularly hungry cannibal who lives on the flesh of "unbelievers" who dare oppose him.

Chei, I wonder what raw toneyb will taste like

toneyb:

The accusations are not empty, The were explained in details on the skeptic website abu as usual you did not even bother to address any of the issues raised.

I've addressed your objections and pointed you to resources. You, on the other hand, are NOT facing the points I made but just trying ever so hard to ignore them by posting excuses from skeptic.com.

toneyb:

Where did Carl Sagan acknowledge that Stevenson's research was "accurate" Please show me in case i missed it. Where did Carl Sagan give credence to any Paranormal claims, All he said was that the Claims should be very well studied. What about other scientist that said that Stevenson did not follow rigorous scientific methods?

I've outlined what I posted on Carl Sagan's supposed statement - and I don't see how your assertion is saying what I posted. I would appreciate a lil honesty from you, please.

Now, as regards the other scientists who dismiss Stevenson's research as untenably scientific, I have also shown why they dismiss it - showing this from several sources. Apart from the fact that they were not willing to consider the research on Stevenson's invitation to his critics to do so, it should strike the objective reader that the other scientists are simply IGNORING his researches or otherwise just criticising them without their own study on such phenomena.

I have requested that you show me how you would have proceeded to study such phenomena and the methodology you would have chosen for your study - beyond the usual dismissal that is characteristic of pseudo-skepticism that appears in your comments. I also responded to your comments on the paper I posted - and you have just said nothing of substance other than your continued dismissal. Why are you playing your hide-and-seek games, toneyb?

PS. I'm still interested in your answer to this observation:

viaro: Dude, you must have been reading your own fallacy into the report - which is what pseudo-skeptics often do. What I mean is this: Sumitra was NOT the subject of a "murder investigation", nor would she be the principal or ancillary subject or object of a "mo

The reason why I was hoping you would calmly point out some substance in response is because I'm beginning to observe that you're towing the line of pseudo-skeptics who read their own conclusive biases into a report that is NOT saying what they want the public to believe. This is what is going on at skeptic.com - and I want to be sure you're not trying hard to dribble around issues like they do. Thanks in advance.

toneyb:

Where did Carl Sagan say that Stevenson's methods are scientific accurate or give credence to psychokinesis?

Did I say so? Do you mind reading precisely what I said and sticking to just that? And please, don't run away from the request I posted there - please address it.

toneyb:

The skeptic.com say that those words came from Stevenson himself and they gave instances where he violated the said methodology he claimed to follow.

I posted his methodology from the same site - please show me how his methodoly that appears at the same site "violated" said methodoly, thanks.

toneyb:

They did not acknowledge his scientific protocols at all, they gave that reference to show that he himself does not even abide by what he claims to be his protocols and methodology.

Please sir, READ WHAT I SAID and stop this dubious claim of yours!
I could make this simpler: they posted his methodology - which they could not show how it violated the methodology that they would have simply followed in such a research. You initially stated that they did not tacitly acknowledge his "claims" - I never said they did, for crying out loud. But I did say that they post his methodology, no? If they did, that was what I had meant by "tacitly acknowledging" his methodology. That may not score well with you - but you could do better by showing how his methodology on the merit of his methodoly violated the said protocol, thanks.

Stevenson went to use data after he himself agreed that the translator was dishonest. So much for the fact that nothing was wrong with the data

I would like you to show me what was wrong with the data itself, not the person himself.

viaro:

I did NOT state that Car Sagan "agreed" with any claims about reincarnation - infact, I well anticipated this unnecessary jargon from you and questioned what Sagan might have meant by such observations ascribed to him. It is noteworthy that Sagan himself remarked that where such things are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE. Please tell me why such a scientist would first acknowledge that checking such are "accurate" and then recommend that such studies need to be carried out instead of being abandoned or ignored?

Carl Sagan made NO such remark.

From your quote.

But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

From the quote it can be clearly seen that Carl Sagan only opined that there are three claims in parapsychology that deserve serious study and of the 3 claims the 3 claim is that that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

This is ONLY a claim, The claim says that young children sometimes report details of previous life and according to the claim it turns out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

The submissions were all part of the claims that Carl Sagan says deserves study. Nothing there suggest Sagan said anything like "where such things are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE." as your wronglg stated.

nuclearboy:

DeepSight went at 2225. Toneyb is now at 1166  

I wonder how many posts he'll get to before he learns that "multi-tasking Viaro" is actually a particularly hungry cannibal who lives on the flesh of "unbelievers" who dare oppose him.

Chei, I wonder what raw toneyb will taste like

Hahaha . . . commander nuclearboy! Howdy? My heart missed a double beat when I saw that you have posted before my penultimate reply!

^^^ General Viaro:

Your boy is alright. I just keep having these repeated nightmares that one day, I went against you and ended up on a spit being slowly turned atop a fire. That was when it struck me that you must be a cannibal.

BTW, where are DeepSight's bones. Twould be nice to grind them and soak in Gari. Maybe I'll gradually imbibe that almost inhuman civility the guy possessed before he climbed on your spit.

@nuclearboy: Deep Sight isn't gone o! He'll be back! He said so himself yesterday or so.

(offtopic: Here's one Gospel song I love, by T-Bone. Hope you guys enjoy it! )

[flash=500,500]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM3BzNl2U6c&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]

toneyb:

Carl Sagan made NO such remark.

From your quote.

But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

From the quote it can be clearly seen that Carl Sagan only opined that there are three claims in parapsychology that deserve serious study and of the 3 claims the 3 claim is that that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

Lol, toneyb, I don't know waht you're on about here - but please compare both quotes and see the highlighted. What is it you're trying to point out here, please?

Now, if you have a real objection, perhaps it is in this part of the highlighted which you had excerpted from my previous reply:

      It is noteworthy that Sagan himself remarked that where such things
      are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE.

So, how is that different from what I have posted from your own reply, and then included the part of the excerpt from where I had quoted that same pointed? What really are you so painfully trying to distinguish and delineate as different in all three statements/quotes, toneyb??

Even more remarkable is that you're making the same point that appeared in the above - see:

toneyb:
This is ONLY a claim, The claim says that young children sometimes report details of previous life and according to the claim it turns out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

So, okay - what then has been your point?

toneyb:

The submissions were all part of the claims that Carl Sagan says deserves study. Nothing there suggest Sagan said anything like "where such things are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE." as your wronglg stated.

Well, here again is the quote from Wikipedia -

Wikipedia: In The Demon-Haunted World (1996), Sagan wrote that claims about reincarnation have some, though dubious, experimental support, arguing that one of three claims in parapsychology deserving serious study is that, "young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be [b]accurate[/b] and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

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

If I should take your objection in another angle by allowing the possibility that Sagan disclaimed any such things, I would ask simply: is it possible for you to show me where Sagan disproved (or proved as false) the "claims" in studies he was referring to?

nuclearboy:

^^^ General Viaro:

Your boy is alright. I just keep having these repeated nightmares that one day, I went against you and ended up on a spit being slowly turned atop a fire. That was when it struck me that you must be a cannibal.

Admiral nuclearboy, I hope I'm safe? You can't throw me to the rank of 'general' just incase I get court-marshalled! I hear from the grapevine that you're soon to add another star to your numerous (and much-envied) shoulder-clips! Congrats in advance (that's another way of me saying: pls sir, remember me when the drilling of the other recruits begin!).

nuclearboy:

BTW, where are DeepSight's bones. Twould be nice to grind them and soak in Gari. Maybe I'll gradually imbibe that almost inhuman civility the guy possessed before he climbed on your spit.

Well, it so happened that these days both his bones and other paraphernalia follow my trail - couldn't shook 'em free!

Hehe . . . I long for him to come back - soon! And thanks to MyJoe who filled us in on about the holy controversies between 'em angels on our behalf! I almost agreed to be host for Castiel!

viaro:

I've addressed your objections and pointed you to resources. You, on the other hand, are NOT facing the points I made but just trying ever so hard to ignore them by posting excuses from skeptic.com.

The same old sophism again. . You label your objections as objections and label the very well detailed objections from skeptic.com as excuse. How clever . I dig your style Mr Viaro.

I've outlined what I posted on Carl Sagan's supposed statement - and I don't see how your assertion is saying what I posted. I would appreciate a lil honesty from you, please.

Relax and don't get all worked up over statements you actually made. Here is what you said.

viaro:

Would you be saying that your so-called "accusations" have anything to do with objectivitity if scientists like Carl Sagan acknowledge that Stevenson's research was "accurate"? Was Carl Sagan a "believer" in reincarnation or psychokinesis? And what do you have to say about scientists who acknowledge that "Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research"?!?

Where did Carl Sagan acknowledge that his research was accurate?

Now, as regards the other scientists who dismiss Stevenson's research as untenably scientific, I have also shown why they dismiss it - showing this from several sources. Apart from the fact that they were not willing to consider the research on Stevenson's invitation to his critics to do so, it should strike the objective reader that the other scientists are simply IGNORING his researches or otherwise just criticising them without their own study on such phenomena.

False. The skeptic's website showed why the believe that Stevenson's research was scientific untenable. Here is an example:

What Stevenson was looking for were stories that could not easily be explained by hypotheses other than the survival of personality. He knew that stories of previous lives could get contaminated in a variety of ways. They might be due to cryptomnesia. The source might have been a movie, a book, a play, a radio program, an overheard story or conversation. He thought that the best evidence for reincarnation would be those cases where someone wrote down the instances where a child gives evidence of a PLE and then later the written account is verified. For example, a father writes down his three-year-old son's statements that he was Joey the blacksmith in Portsmouth and was stabbed by pirates in the neck on a wharf in Hong Kong. Later, it is discovered that there was a Joey who was a blacksmith in Portsmouth who was killed by pirates in Hong Kong. Adding poignancy to this account would be the discovery of some sort of birthmark on the neck of the child. One problem with such a method is that the verification process may not occur for a decade. But even if it takes place within a few months of the written record being made, we must take it on faith that the father is being honest. We have no way of knowing whether the father (or an uncle) in a semi-drunken state read an account of Joey's death to his son and told him that that mark on your neck is the mark of Joey. We have no way of knowing that the father is being completely honest with us. In other words, we have to assume a story is uncontaminated in order to declare the case "solved" (as Stevenson calls those cases "when evidence of a person that corresponds to the experient's statements concerning a past life is found" [Mills and Lynn: 290]).

   In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he hunted with -- all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.*

As Mills and Lyons note: "Merely because a particular case does not seem to be explicable in terms of social construction, it does not follow that the PLE reported is a genuine residue of a past life" (302).

I have requested that you show me how you would have proceeded to study such phenomena and the methodology you would have chosen for your study - beyond the usual dismissal that is characteristic of pseudo-skepticism that appears in your comments. I also responded to your comments on the paper I posted - and you have just said nothing of substance other than your continued dismissal. Why are you playing your hide-and-seek games, toneyb?

I would start first by NOT using data I get from sources I my self agree were dishonest

PS. I'm still interested in your answer to this observation:The reason why I was hoping you would calmly point out some substance in response is because I'm beginning to observe that you're towing the line of pseudo-skeptics who read their own conclusive biases into a report that is NOT saying what they want the public to believe. This is what is going on at skeptic.com - and I want to be sure you're not trying hard to dribble around issues like they do. Thanks in advance.
Did I say so? Do you mind reading precisely what I said and sticking to just that? And please, don't run away from the request I posted there - please address it.

Please restate the observations so that I can drop my opinion.

I posted his methodology from the same site - please show me how his methodoly that appears at the same site "violated" said methodoly, thanks.

They gave a clear example of how he acknowledged that his source of collecting data was dishonest and then went ahead to use the data he got from the same dishonest source.

Please sir, READ WHAT I SAID and stop this dubious claim of yours!
I could make this simpler: they posted his methodology - which they could not show how it violated the methodology that they would have simply followed in such a research. You initially stated that they did not tacitly acknowledge his "claims" - I never said they did, for crying out loud. But I did say that they post his methodology, no? If they did, that was what I had meant by "tacitly acknowledging" his methodology. That may not score well with you - but you could do better by showing how his methodology on the merit of his methodoly violated the said protocol, thanks.

Read the statement above as example of how he violated the said methodology.

I would like you to show me what was wrong with the data itself, not the person himself.

. What kind of equivocation is this Viaro? . The man got data(information in this case) from an interpreter whom he himself acknowledges is dishonest and went ahead and used the said data(information). How you fail to see something wrong with the process is truly beyond me.