Jump to content

Talk:Reincarnation research/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Issue

The pretexts given for removing the examples of cases studied by Stevenson are merely those, the real motivation being that two editors do not want any examples to be present in the article. If I am wrong, please correct me. If not, please explain why you think examples would not be appropriate. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Question from my talk page moved here:
How could the material from this diff [1] be worded to as to meet your approval? It reads: In some cases, however, children claim to have previously been members of lower social classes. In one instance, a girl named Swaran Lata, who was born into an upper-class family in India, reported memories of being someone who cleaned toilets. She habitually cleaned up the excrement of other children, and refused to go to school when she was young, saying that "We are sweepers. Nobody studies in our family, and I never sent my children to school."[1] Thanks for the help, Mitsube (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The material you wish to add is obviously intended to be a rebuttal to skeptical remarks contained in the article, specifically those by Randi in the paragraph previous to it. Rather than try and pick anecdotes from Stevenson's research to support your view that the skeptics are wrong, you'd do better to find Stevenson's own remarks that address the issue and attribute them to him directly. Of course those remarks would have to be further framed within a majority view of the subject. I don't think such back and forth criticism and response would add anything to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Jim Tucker (not Stevenson) mentions to give an example of a child claiming to have come from a lower class, see it here: [2]. This is relevant to Randi's point that trying to move up in class could motivate liars, does it not? Perhaps if we also included the previous example from the same page of someone remembering coming from a higher class as well? In fact, we could removed the example in the article at present, and replace it with the two complementary accounts from Tucker's book, carefully attributed, thus removing it from the Randi criticism altogether. What do you think? Mitsube (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't support adding more material. By selecting a number of "complimentary" examples from Tucker and Stevenson's books, I think you're going to run into a problem with undue weight WP:DUE and undue credibility WP:FRINGE being given to the fringe view of the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, after taking a closer look at this addition it seems to be attempting a force-fit of detail from an isolated example extracted from a primary source (Stevenson) in the middle of a section that is summarizing Stevenson's views and methods. I don't think it adds anything to the article, and I'm going to take it out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not matter of undue weight, it is one example of the topic of the article. An example is entirely appropriate in the discussion of a general theme. Mitsube (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with LL, this is poorly sourced WP:UNDUE and bordering on WP:OR in a poor attempt to answer a criticism. Verbal chat 07:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Mitsube, filling out the article by adding in "examples" that you personally find the most suitable/impressive is WP:OR, not to mention unencyclopedic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>Considering this is an article about reincarnation research, it seems that a) there could be a specific mention of Randi's criticism and Stevensons examples as responses; b) just a use of those examples as research examples; c) and that it's hardly fringe or undue to detail the examples of a leading academic researcher on the topic. Obviously one must be careful about plagarism but that is an issue easily fixed by an editor, with a little help from cooperative editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem is not examples per se, but how these examples are selected. Out of a multitude of varied examples described in Tucker and Stevenson's books, an editor has cherry-picked only those that he feels support the author's conclusions that reincarnation is the best explanation. It might be different if we had a reliable source that covered Stevenson or Tucker citing a certain example and saying why he believed it was significant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is disingenuous, as you have removed such coverage in a different reliable source: [3], on the grounds that it is not clearly attributed enough (the reasonable move would have been to more clearly attribute). People on this article are editing in bad faith. Mitsube (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
People can have more than one reason for opposing an addition. Please assume good faith. The copyvio was only the most pressing reason for removal. Verbal chat 18:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Mitsube, I think you misunderstand. If you are trying to add data to the article that answers Stevenson's critics, I recommend direct attribution from a reliable source, e.g., "In his interview with Time Magazine, Stevenson/Tucker cites the case of a girl named Swaran Lata as highly significant, saying that it answers his critics by showing such-and-such, etc. etc". LuckyLouie (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What does this have to do with my last post regarding your actions? Mitsube (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Constructive suggestions rather than just deletions always helpful to promoting a better article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ramster stuff

Is pretty bad. Nearly all of it is sourced to Ramster himself, a Wikipedia 101 no-no. But also it mostly consists of a single fantastic case that presents a number of specific claims unbalanced by alternative, mundane, explanations. It's not enough to just say that Ramster said these things and consider it neutral by attribution. For all we know it's completely made up. But even if Ramster is being honest, a fantastic claim presented in great detail without any alternative explanation beyond Ramster's own is not neutral presentation.

First, though, the primary sourcing needs to go. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, and have removed Ramster material as non-notable and unreliable. I would also argue that hypnotic regression is more about therapy than research anyway. Johnfos (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable Helen Wambach work

Psychologist Helen Wambach, who started out as a skeptic, engaged in hypnosis of thousands of individuals, taking evidence on very concrete things they saw. She is mentioned in many books books google search, some of them probably of higher quality than others. She also is mentioned in a number of news.google articles before her death in the 1990s. I'm sure that at least two of her early books were relative best sellers, coming out in Bantam Book paper back editions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your enthusiasm, Carol, but we need to be a little careful here. If Wambach is a notable author, then there should be published reviews of her books coming up in this google search. But there is very little, so I doubt that we can mention her in this article. Johnfos (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In general there aren't too many reviews of books from the 1970s floating about. Just as good or better are mentions in published books. Especially if they are by academics or others with relevant credentials. I noted there are a lot of mentions, but did not get around to finding the best. There also are a couple things on scholar.google. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If you think that Wambach is notable, please go ahead and start an article on her. Johnfos (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It's on my long list of articles to start. But if do so will also be doing research for this article :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A feel-free-to-incorporate RS

Stevenson has presented the idea of reincarnation "as having considerable explanatory value for several features of human personality and biology that currently accepted theories do not adequately clarify."

Stevenson, I., "The explanatory value of the idea of reincarnation," The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. CLXIV, 1997, No. 5.

Twipley (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Blanking"

Verbal, can you explain what you meant by "blanking" in this edit summary please? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Interpreter

As Stevenson gathered data from all over the world, the interpreter's "dishonesty" does not muddy the waters as much as the article currently does. Mitsube (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The slander about a specific interpreters eventual faults during the investigation of some of the cases in "Twenty Cases" should not be in an article about reincarnation research in general. Maybe a general remark in a critisism section on doubts about interpretations from sceptics. There is a specific article on the book Twenty cases where this particular critisism can better be placed, if at all - I don't know if Robert Todd Carroll PhD can be used as a reliable source, since his scientific credentials in this specific type of research is unknown to me. If his slanderous remarks is cited, then Carol Bowman M.S.'s description of Stevenson's methodology should be there too;

"Dr. Stevenson takes every precaution not to make mistakes himself. If he doesn't speak the native language (he knows five languages), he will use two interpreters, and sometimes three, for the interviews. In addition to the notes taken by the team of interviewers, the sessions are taped. He collects and photographs hard evidence, like written records and birthmarks. He transcribes and organizes his notes within days of the visit and carefully builds a chronology of the unfolding of the memories, looking for flaws and gaps."

No doubt Stevenson improved his methodology over the years, thus the deniers concentration on the early cases from the 60's. It should be mentioned though, that he came back to the families after some years with another interpreter, to check if the story held over time. The vast majority did. Hoaxes/conspiracies involving families living in separate towns who doesn't know eachother rarely holds as Stevenson's (& followers) cases does Hepcat65 (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you please make the necessary changes to the article? I'm sure there would be support for such changes. Mitsube (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If I can find time.. Hepcat65 (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is Carroll's interpreter story from the horses' moth, Stevenson himself - it points to some important info Carroll omitted..

I wrote and had accepted for publication in 1964 a monograph about some of the cases that I had investigated. At this point doubts were publicly expressed about the honesty of the man who had been my interpreter for several of the stronger cases in India. Learning of these suspicions, the publisher halted the publication of my monograph. Although the man in question undoubtedly had been dishonest in some matters—something I did not know during my first journey to Asia—I did not think he had deceived me as an interpreter. However, rather than lose the extensive work involved in the cases in which this man had helped me, I decided to return to India and study again these cases (and some others) with new interpreters. The happy side of this misfortune was that the cases I investigated again proved to be even stronger than they had earlier seemed to be. Moreover, I learned the value of repeated interviews. From this experience I date my habit of trying to return to cases for second and third interviews whenever possible. Too often after leaving the site of a case I think of questions that I should have asked when I was there; I can ask them on a second or later visit.Stevenson at The University of Southwestern Louisiana 1989

Hepcat65 (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering why The Skeptic's Dictionary is being used. It is clearly not an objective source given the title, it doesn't appear to be an academic work, so what is the basis for its use? Mitsube (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

He is notable, but he isn't trained in psychology or indeed any experimental field. Mitsube (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It has indeed found to be reliable, by you, please reprise your argument. I honestly don't remember it. Moreover, I have argued that the only source describing the topic as "fringe" should not be used, what do you think about that Verbal? Mitsube (talk)
I think that you are wrong, and RSN has found the sources suitable for fringe topics like this. Take it to FTN or RSN again if you wish. Verbal chat 10:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please point me to the discussion regarding the skepdic.com, and justify the use of the Time article, which has not been discussed, and which I propose to remove for the reasons you have not yet addressed. Mitsube (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You have not proposed any valid reasons for removal, you are merely claiming the source isn't valid. Take it to RSN or FTN if you insist, but removing RS material is disruptive. Verbal chat 10:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I will post the argument for the second or third time, in a new section. Mitsube (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Verbal, you know yourself that he returned and reinterviewed the subjects with a different interpreter. This kind of selective memory is disruptive. Unomi (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
More personal attacks, and irrelevant. Verbal chat 10:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
How is this irrelevant? You are willfully leaving the reader without the knowledge that this particular criticism was addressed with him returning with different interpreters. Yes, that is disruptive, no that is not a personal attack. Unomi (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I will note that Verbal has accused three editors of personal attacks on this talk page in the last hour, and in none of the three instances was there a personal attack. Does that constitute disruption? Mitsube (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is where it stands on the skepdic.com source. I removed the information sourced to it about Stevenson's interpreter being accused of dishonest, on the grounds that, as Hepcat shows, Stevenson returned and did the case again with different interpreters. Verbal made no comment here and undid the edit. I also commented on the use of the source in the first place. It has now been demonstrated that it cannot be relied on for a complete and objective picture of the situation, which given its name and the fact that it is self-published, is not surprising. Nevertheless, Verbal has claimed that it is reliable. Though I was originally content to remove the misleading information, I think that the section should in general be expanded, and I now believe that the discussion of the interpreter should be left in as is. For further information I do not believe that skepdic.com should be used because it is unreliable. And in fact, we should track down the sources that it uses and replace references to it with references to them, but that will take some time. Mitsube (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to support your assertion that it is unreliable. It was found reliable here, at Ian Stevenson, and multiple other fringe subject articles. Verbal chat 11:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, the source is manifestly unreliable given its omissions of facts regarding the dishonest interpreter. It is a self-published website, written by a professed skeptic (not a reviewer of a prestigious journal), so we cannot expect much more. And I have no doubt that you have have found it to be reliable where you have used it in the past, though I hope that will now change. Mitsube (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence of the introduction

Neither of the linked citations support the sentence. And I think that one sentence criticizing the entire field is (possibly more than) enough, e.g., "critics have labeled it pseudoscience or fringe science". We need a source on fringe science. A reporter at a convention can't really speak for the merits of the entire field, and in the article he doesn't explicitly claim that reincarnation research is fringe science.

I am not sure that labeling the entire field with a deprecating word is honest. There are very different kinds of reincarnation research, which have gotten very different receptions. It would be more informative to include that information in the intro. What do people think? Mitsube (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with Mitsube on this. The lede (intro to the article) is clearly pushing a line which is not NPOV. Mitsube is surely right to say that one reference in the lede to 'pseudoscience or fringe science' is enough. More than that tilts the article into bias from the very outset. My impression is, in fact, that there is a good deal of bias in this article. More neutrality needs to be established. This article should not be an opinion piece which seeks to discredit reincarnation research. It should simply state the facts in an unbiased manner. Suddha (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Philip Anderson source does not say that Gardner calls reincarnation research fringe science, nor that reincarnation research is fringe science at all. And he is a physics professor, not a reliable source on psychology. Mitsube (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  • A very pertinent point: Anderson and Gardner do not (according to the source) label reincarnation research as 'fringe science'. You are right here, Mitsube. Regards. Suddha (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Reincarnation research is not a branch of psychology, except in that memories can be explained by psychologists. Stevenson's work and the field as a whole has been described as fringe and pseudoscientific. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. Verbal chat 08:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, please respond to the points I have made above in a thorough manner. Regarding the above fragmentary response, your use of the passive demonstrates the crux of the matter. It has been described as pseudoscience by skeptics self-published and otherwise, not reviewers who publish their papers in fora similar to those Prof. Stevenson published his in. Mitsube (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't made any relevant points that I can see. Please propose what specific changes you intend to make. Verbal chat 10:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I propose to remove the word "fringe". See below. Mitsube (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I oppose this change, plenty of valid RS support that statement. See the RS. Verbal chat 10:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please describe them, below. Mitsube (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Amongst others, they are the ones you have just removed despite opposition. Verbal chat 11:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Despite your opposition, yes, and perhaps I would not have done so if you had explained A)how the sources are reliable, and B)how they support the statement. That's how it works: please read WP:V again. Mitsube (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Methodological problems in Stevenson's research

Please explain how the source supports the statement. Mitsube (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I will remove it unless someone can justify it here. Mitsube (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for these criticisms, as Mitsube knows unless he's forgotten the discussions at the Ian Stevenson article. Verbal chat 10:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but not in the article you claimed it was in, which is, again, the whole point of this section. Mitsube (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Verbal says he is too busy to justify this material at the moment. Mitsube (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Intro

The brief intro to this article had quite a lot of details on various criticisms, which is not neutral. I moved those to the section on criticism where detail belongs. The criticism is till mentioned in the intro but more briefly now. Greetings, Sacca 09:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly better there, but neither source makes the claim about Gardner, and I've made the case that the Time source is a very weak basis for including the label "fringe science" in the article. Perhaps Verbal would be willing to comment on this. Mitsube (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
well if that's true, maybe it should be edited further. I dont think Time is good enough.
Also, the section on Beliefs about reincarnation belongs in the Reincarnation article, not here.Greetings, Sacca 10:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No, what you had written in the lead was incorrect and not supported, by research into reincarnation beliefs is the only actual valid research carried out in this domain. To remove it would be to damage this article. Verbal chat 10:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Your sentence cannot be understood. It is unintelligible. Please try to express yourself more clearly. Greetings, Sacca 10:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)More personal attacks. All you need to say is "clarify please". The edit made to the lead was not supported, and hence it was right to remove it. However, research into reincarnation beliefs is the only actual valid, non-fringe, research carried out in this domain and should be included in this article. It is clearly research related to reincarnation. Verbal chat 10:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It was unintelligible to me as well. I think it was, in fact, unintelligible, and this was not a personal attack at all. Mitsube (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Repeating a personal attack does not improve the situation. There was nothing "unintelligible". If you don't understand you can ask, politely, for clarification. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and use this page for suggesting improvements to the article - such as I have been doing. Verbal chat 11:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Calling a statement unintelligible is not a personal attack. I think the problem is that you took it personally, when it was just a statement of fact about something you wrote hurriedly, without checking over. If you hadn't been accusing someone of damaging the article the response would have likely been to simply ignore it. Mitsube (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Fringe"

The word "fringe" is sourced to two sources. The second one clearly does not state that someone has called reincarnation "fringe science", Gardner or otherwise. Now as to the first, the Time article. The Time source is titled "science on the fringe", and does indeed mention reincarnation research, but doesn't actually call it fringe, is only the words of a reporter at a convention, and is the only source for the phrase "fringe science". So I propose to remove the part about critics labeling reincarnation research "fringe science". The work of Stevenson, having been repeatedly published in highly reputable journals, is not "fringe science". Mitsube (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. support. Greetings, Sacca 10:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as pure advocacy. The acceptance of this topic as a serious area of scientific research is well documented. The appeal to Stevenson, who is notable for his misspent research (see his bio here). It is well sourced, supported, and common sense. Verbal chat 10:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • You are missing the point, which is that the label "fringe" includes Stevenson's research by default, and it not well-supported. I am removing it. Mitsube (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Please self revert, you have removed well sourced and relevant information with no justification based on wikipedia policy. Much fringe science is reported in mainstream journals, that does not alter the nature of the field. Verbal chat 11:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I have justified the removal, as is plain to see. And if you want to include the sentence "reincarnation has been described by X as fringe science", source that sentence appropriately, in accordance with WP:V. Mitsube (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
          • It is well sourced to RS. Verbal chat 11:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
            • How so? Do you have any that you have not showed us? There were two sources used previously. The second made no mention of reincarnation research as fringe science, so that one is out. The first did not explicitly do so either, and had other problems as well. So there are no RS's available to us here that support the statement you seem to want to include. Mitsube (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Clarification needed"

What kind of clarification are you looking for, Verbal? Mitsube (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal has refused to explain why he tagged the material. "Stevenson collected more than 2,500 reports" seems fairly clear to me. Mitsube (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have not refused, we need clarification as to what these reports are. The relevant and supported link to anecdotal evidence would clarify this, for example. Verbal chat 11:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. Is the example below what you are talking about? Mitsube (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
What example? Please clarify. Verbal chat 11:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You have already read about it in the section below. Mitsube (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy is disputed

Verbal, please explain what facts you are disputing. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The description of the research is now misleading. Verbal chat 11:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
So use a different tag. The one you have up now is just cluttering up the article. Mitsube (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The tag is correct, I am disputing the factual accuracy of the description of his work. Verbal chat 11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The description of his work has not changed, the only change was the removal of some unsourced opinions about it. The portrayal of the facts is the same. Mitsube (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

The first section suffers because there aren't any examples of Stevenson's research. I propose to add the following:

Here is one case Stevenson researched, as described by Washington Post reporter Tom Schroder:

In one case chronicled by Stevenson, a young boy from Beirut described being a 25-year-old mechanic who died after being thrown from a car speeding down a beach road. Several witnesses reported that the boy provided the name of the driver of the car, the place the crash occurred, the names of the sisters, parents and cousins of the person he said he had been, and people he had hunted with. These details all matched the life story of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and with whom the boy's family appeared to have no connection.[2]

What do people think? And how about the general idea of including an example? Mitsube (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed previously and removed after discussion, which caused you to say you were leaving this article. I oppose the reintroduction for the same reasons as previously. Please provide a link to those discussion, Mitsube. Verbal chat 11:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. I never said I was leaving the article, and I never did. And having looked back at that, I think the thing to do is just use the suggestion of the person who responded to the notice on the content noticeboard, which is:

Stevenson chronicled the case of a Beirut boy who described his life as a 25-year-old mechanic in minute detail, down to the names of friends and relatives and the particulars of his death in an automobile accident. Such a man was found to have existed and to have predeceased the boy by several years, though there was no clear reason that the boy or his family should have known about this man.

In fact I should have just used that wording at that time when she suggested it. If I remember correctly, your reasons for opposing this example shifted over time; after I attempted to remove the copyvio, you first reverted what I had done without responding to the new attempt, and then stated that other issues had been raised, without noting what issue you had. Do you have any at this time? Mitsube (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement is backed by the reference clearly, and it is also clear that it is a notable reference. I accept the proposal. SilverserenC 19:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tags?

Verbal placed the "factual accuracy disputed" tag and the first "clarification needed tag" into the article with little or no justification (see above), and I think they need to be removed. Does anyone see a justification for them? Verbal is too busy to justify his edits at the moment, but maybe someone else sees the uses of these tags and can explain them? Mitsube (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the Original Research tag because all of the original research in the article that I noticed prior has been removed. All statements are now sourced.
I have removed the factual accuracy tag because the section is well-referenced. Since everything is referenced, there is no more need for the tag, per Wikipedia:Accuracy Dispute.
I also removed a clarify tag that was sitting in front of a reference. Since it's referenced, what's there to clarify?
However, the significant viewpoints tag and the neutrality tag must still be displayed, as they are still accurate over this article. SilverserenC 19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits. The clarifyme tag was there because I have read the source, and don't see how it supports the statement. I originally placed a "verification needed" tag there, but Verbal removed it, claiming he had verified the information. I asked him to explain this above, but he has not done so. So I added the tag requesting clarification. I will end up just removing the sentence. Mitsube (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
(section header changed per WP:TPG)
Mitsube - will you please stop personalizing your dispute over how this topic should be covered? Silver seren - thank you for looking into this. I am guessing that the {{clarify}} was asking for additional detail for either interesting or methodological problems. These can be dealt with through normal editing, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not necessary to have the tag for something like that. I'm just here to be a neutral voice in this matter and work toward making the article better. If either Mitsube or Verbal have valid references and arguments for what they're saying, then I will support them, but it has to be valid. Bringing personal emotions into this isn't going to help anything. SilverserenC 21:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good. For the record, Verbal did not justify the tags despite my repeated requests on his talk page and here, and did say he was busy. But if my mentioning that came across as too personal, I apologize. Mitsube (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The remaining clarifyme tag should also be removed. The reports are described in the paragraph following the tagged phrase. Should this be mentioned, instead of the tag? Something like, "Stevenson gathered over 2,500 reports (which included information of the kind described below) ..." Mitsube (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I will do this, and remove the tag. Mitsube (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Another factual accuracy tag

Verbal, which factual claims do you dispute? Mitsube (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Template

According to WP:AD, this template should only be used if:

  • it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
  • it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
  • in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
  • it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

None of these are true. This template does not need to be there. SilverserenC 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. Thanks for listing the criteria, now we know just what we're dealing with. Mitsube (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I will remove as per the reasoning and consensus established here, and lack of justification from the editor who added it. Mitsube (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions about recent tagging

Too few opinions

Verbal, would you like to add the statements of Sagan, Clarke, and Harris from the Ian Stevenson article? Would that be enough opinions? Mitsube (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I will briefly mention their opinions, direct the reader to the Ian Stevenson article, and remove the tag. Mitsube (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I stated their opinions concisely, and did not again mention the Ian Stevenson article, which is already linked to at the top of the section. Mitsube (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research?

Verbal, what did you mean when you tagged the article as containing original research? I agree Silver seren who pointed out that there didn't seem to be any. What were you referring to, or what that a mistake? Mitsube (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

I added the tag most recently (agreeing with Verbal that it was needed!), but I am now satisfied that the article is not biased, and the tag can be removed. Does anyone have specific problems with neutrality? Mitsube (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I will remove it. Mitsube (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I have added more critical opinions as well as more supportive ones, all while keeping, I hope, the section from getting too long. Mitsube (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
All right Greetings, Sacca 07:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Going nowhere fast

I can't figure out what's going on here, so I'm going to try stubbing the article down. The only sources which actually call anything "reincarnation research" are those sources which deal with Stevenson's group (with now only one active researcher left). Research about belief in reincarnation and past life regresesion hypnosis were essentially synthesized into this article in violation of Wikipedia policy.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you revert again I will report you for the 3RR vio. Please use engage on the talk page instead of reverting. Mitsube (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Revert generally means moving to a previous version. I considered that version to be totally different. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

I tried redirecting the article to the only book ever written on the subject. We'll see how that goes. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not allowed to do that. You have to discuss things first. Redirecting without discussion is against Wikipedian policy. Continue to act like this and I shall report you. SilverserenC 17:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Care to cite that rule? Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I would say it falls under a Page Move war, as redirecting is essentially the same thing. You are supposed to establish consensus on the talk page before moving or redirecting a page. SilverserenC 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference when you redirect an entire article, deleting all of the information in it. That is not being bold. Especially not when the same user has already been edit warring. SilverserenC 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree. Just because they disagree with your opinion, that doesnt make it edit warring. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring is two-sided. It was between ScienceApologist and Mitsube. It is possible that they both may get blocked. I'm just hoping for a page protection myself. But it was most definitely edit warring between the two of them. SilverserenC 19:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Trim Down

I have remove portions of the article that are duplication of portions other articles. Those articles are certainly sufficient to give their respective topics adequate and complete representation here. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit for two reasons.
  1. We should probably wait until the edit warring ticket finishes.
  2. Removing half the article seems highly inappropriate. Please explain specifically what you believe is a duplication and why. SilverserenC 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
All of the material removed is duplicated in the articles referenced. I've left the links to those articles, I seee no reason to have the same material in two places. This is not the article about Stevenson. That article is that-a-way --> Ian_Stevenson. I don't think we have an edit war, and I'm certainly not party to one if there is. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Guy, can you please tell me what duplications you are removing? I don't see them, personally, but I'm not all that familiar with this article yet. --Ludwigs2 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Read the diffs. I propose that the material I removed belongs in the articles about that subjects. Stevenson's work belongs in stevenson's article. This article should have a link and a quick summary. Why should it rehash the same details? Ditto with the repressed memories. We have articles on both already. I'm saying "here's why I removed this" its not enough to say "I dont like removing lots of stuff" without addressing the point. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to force people to go to another article. I oppose the deletions. Mitsube (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing duplicated information in your diffs though, nor am I seeing summaries and links to the main pages being left behind when you take them out. I'm just seeing a huge chunk of the article being deleted. SilverserenC 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The sections he is removing duplicates content that is in the linked article. I suggest that you stop reverting unless you are fully aware of why you are doing so. Your behavior is getting quite disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
having duplicate material across different articles is not in and of itself a problem. that being said, can we discuss this matter without resorting to ad hominems? I'd rather this didn't break down into the normal name-calling session. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
sure, I propose that the material I removed belongs in the articles about that subjects. Stevenson's work belongs in stevenson's article. This article should have a link and a quick summary. Why should it rehash the same details? Ditto with the repressed memories. We have articles on both already. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've carefully looked over the diffs and I think I was a little rash in my actions before. I still believe that the difference is something that should have been discussed here before it was implemented, not after. As it is much more controversial when content is removed than when it is added, which causes many editors to think that it is a negative action. I apologize for reverting so quickly. SilverserenC 21:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

SA's POV pushing language changes should be reversed. Furthermore the deleted material should be restored as I, Silver, and Ludwig noted above. Does anyone else think so? Mitsube (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. The current article presents the skeptic's view. Nothing more. How about getting back to an article that talks about what reincarnation research does and sweep the skeptical take on the whole enterprise to a section on criticisms?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think Ludwig's is the most recent one that actually contains anything other than the reactions of skeptics. Mitsube (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I oppose changes that are suggested by stating another editor is POV pushing. If you'd like to make a specific change to the article, propose it for discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose that Ludwig's version be restored, as the current version uses highly opinionated language ("certain believers in reincarnation" as if that is relevant to the results "deprecated", "derided" (not in the source). Also much reliably sourced content has been removed. Mitsube (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Anthon and Mitsube: lets get back to an article that actually talks about the reincarnation research that has been done, especially Stevenson's work, and present the skeptical take in a section on criticisms. A few substantive suggestions for expanding the article are here. Johnfos (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ghettoizing disagreement into a "criticisms" section is depreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with the responses to the work following directly after the descriptions of the work, positive and negative together. Mitsube (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson section

The section currently has one positive opinion (from a journal in the field) and three negative (from outside the field). This is clearly not neutral. Mitsube (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It reflects the reliable sources. Verbal chat 08:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it reflects notable opinions. The sources used have no qualifications to critique psychological research in an authoritative way. Mitsube (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It also reflects our article on Ian Stevenson and his credulous methodologies. Verbal chat 12:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
None of the "reliable" sources offer serious criticism of his methods, and I doubt you have read any of his books yourself, so your opinion is not relevant either. Mitsube (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not useful. The sources are appropriate to critique a fringe pseudoscience topic. If you have a problem, I suggest taking it to WP:FTN. Verbal chat 08:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I am confused by your post, please explain it. Mitsube (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Saying "I doubt you have read any of his books yourself, so your opinion is not relevant either" is not civil and constitutes a personal attack. Please discuss edits, not editors, and stay on topic. Verbal chat 10:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if I have inadvertently upset you. Mitsube (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is much easier to find reputable sources that critique a fringe pseudoscience topic than it is to find ones that support it. Most of the supporting articles will not be reputable at all and likely will be tabloids. Which is why it is understandable for such a topic to have more negative opinions than positive ones. If you have a problem with this, Mitsube, then you should search for reputable, positive sources yourself. SilverserenC 10:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
In general that is probably true. For Ian Stevenson's research the opposite is true, in that he has been given support by multiple reputable peer-reviewed journals, and none of the criticisms of his work have risen to that level, skepdic.com for example. Mitsube (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Then you need to find those journal reviews, put the evidence into the article, and reference them. If you do that, no one can argue with you, but you have to do that first. SilverserenC 10:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
See e.g. [4], [5], [6]. The problem is that Verbal is aware of this but still insists on using sources like skepdic.com to rebut them. Mitsube (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Those are rather nice references. Go ahead and put them in and use the evidence in them. SilverserenC 19:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the criticisms of his methods seem realibly sourced, valid and appropriate. His work is suggestive, really a series of case studies, not proof. Regarding the two articles from the JNMD, may I point out they are from 1977? Is that really the best sources available? If so, doesn't this indicate that in 33 years, his research program was notably unsuccessful in supporting his hypothesis? As a paranormal claim, noted skeptics like James Randi, and verifiable criticisms like "um, we only see this in cultures that already assume reincarnation exists..." seem appropriate. These claims are fringe, and extreme. Per WP:REDFLAG and WP:PARITY, it seems like their criticisms should be left in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RS content removed

ScienceApologist, would you please explain your removal of RS content here? There is nothing wrong with speculation if it is reliably sourced. And you linked "particular attribution" to a place which doesn't exist. Please explain what is wrong with particular attribution. Regarding what you changed the sentence to, please see above for objections to that and respond there. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The section title has changed, now it's WP:FRINGE#In-text_attribution. Your text implied that Jurtz was the only skeptic thinking that reincarnation research was pseudoscientific. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a problem with the reasoning here. The research itself it not pseudoscientific. Its methodology has been endorsed. Stating that "this research allows a reasonable person, if he wants, to believe in reincarnation" is also not pseudoscientific (and hasn't stated to be). This is the only firm conclusion Stevenson drew. Drawing the conclusion that reincarnation has been proven to be a fact is what Kurtz has stated to be pseudoscientific. That is a different thing. This is a very important point. And he is the only source for that. Mitsube (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole point of pseudoscience, in a sense, is that they use methodology while simultaneously arguing for explanations, mechanisms, and justifications that are mumbo-jumbo. A good example of this is the egregious use of quantum quackery by New Age reincarnationists. That's pseudoscience, pure and simple. Whether they followed correct protocol in their interviews is beside the point. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. Mitsube (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
So then what's the point of complaining about the sentence? Rewrite it if you think it to be problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I will respond to this after I return and report you. Mitsube (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, you need to use the talk page and explain your removal of RS content. I am restoring it. Mitsube (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No content was removed. Mischaracterizing user's actions like this is very problematic behavior. You are treading on very thin ice, Mitsube. Down this road, blocks and bans can be seen. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you did removed reliably sourced content. Specifically with this edit, and previously, you removed the following: "but not all, people reincarnate, or that the conditions necessary for remembering a past life are specific enough to narrow the population which can do this. For instance, the vast majority of cases investigated at the University of Virginia involved people who had met some sort of violent or untimely death." Sourced to Cadoret, Remi 2005 and Tucker 2005. And you did so on the grounds that it was "speculation". Now please explain why you did this and what is wrong with a reliably sourced proposing a possible explanation for something. Mitsube (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It's original research speculation, pure and simple, meant to argue against the fact that most people do not remember past lives. Special pleading is not an acceptable practice in an encyclopedia. If you want the details of who was "investigated" then it belongs in the investigation section, not as a rejoinder to legitimate criticism when that's not the point of the source. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It's cited. It's not original research. That's the whole point. If the authors are addressing the idea then it is completely justified. Mitsube (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just because something is cited doesn't mean it's not original research. Read WP:SYNTH. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you even looked at the source that you are claiming doesn't say what the article had it sourced as saying? Mitsube (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and it is a primary source that has been used to justify original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
What do they say? Mitsube (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you not read them? They are articles about the UVA group's research design. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Other scientists labelling reincarnation as pseudoscience

sorry, this is about the whole field of reincarnation, in the context of "pseudoscientific beliefs"
  • Dorothy B. Rosenthal, "A learning cycle approach to dealing with pseudoscience beliefs of prospective elementary teachers", Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4 (2), doi:10.1007/BF02628883, Science, fringe science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience, literally "false science" refers to ideas "for which their proponents claim scientific validity, but which in actuality lack empirical support, or were arrived at either through faulty reasoning or poor scientific methodology" (Even & Dann, 1990, p. 10). Pseudoscientific beliefs include, for example, astrology, crystal power, numerology, voodoo, prophecy, and reincarnation. (For a review of the various currently popularpseudoscientific beliefs, see Moore,. 1992.) In practice, pseudoscience includes those knowledge claims that are not accepted by the majority of scientists. {{citation}}: External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
It continues by saying that some claims are univestigated, that they are at the frontier of science, and that they can move into accepted science as more research is done, Unfortunately, it doesn't specify which ones.
  • Adolfo Peña, MD, Ofelia Paco, MD. San Marcos National University. Lima-Peru., Attitudes and Views of Medical Students toward Science and Pseudoscience, Medical Education Online, Pseudosciences are defined as "claims presented so that they appear (to be) scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility."9 In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation. Pseudoscience topics include yogic flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, Uri Geller, placebo, alternative medicine, channeling, Carlos hoax, psychic hotlines and detectives, near death experiences, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, faith healing, and reincarnation.10{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Journal blurb: Medical Education Online (MEO) is a peer-reviewed international Open Access journal for disseminating information on the education and training of physicians and other health care professionals. It was launched in 1996 as the first ever freely available online journal in the field of medical education and has since then grown to become a highly ranked source of information in this area, with indexing in PubMed/MEDLINE and inclusion in NIH's digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature, PubMed Central. As of 2010, MEO is published by Co-Action Publishing who will also provide free access to the valuable archive. (this article was picked up by Randi in his weekly article[7])
  • Raymond A. Eve and Dana Dunn (January 1990), The American Biology Teacher, 52 (1): 10–21, (footnote 2) (...) We operationally define our use of the term "pseudoscience" to cover any claim that is far from the mainstream of acceptance by a large majority of contemporary scientists. (...) {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "Psychic Powers, Astrology & Creationism in the Classroom? Evidence of Pseudoscientific Beliefs among High School Biology & Life Science Teachers" ignored (help)
reincarnation in one of the "pseudoscientific beliefs" polled in the students. footnote 2 has a short discussion on how scientists usually define pseudoscience.

For the ones below, I only have partial quotes where the word "reincarnation" appears, someone with access could complete the quotes:

So, pick your source and fix the text to avoid attribution to a single scientist. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources, other than Kurtz, describing Stevenson's research as pseudoscientic:

review of the cited book. It is cited in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Science and Pseudo-Science entry, under the section "Bibliography of philosophically informed literature on pseudosciences and contested doctrines." [ http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/reviews/reviews_11_4_kappraff.pdf another review] pages 8-11, this time from the Society of Scientific Exploration: "Edwards is not at all sympathetic to the possibility that there are limitations to the scientific world view to which he adheres. 'Reincarnationists, at least those who know a little science,' he tells us, 'constantly look for gaps in existing scientific explanations, which reincarnation is then supposed to fill'"
  • Jonathan C. Smith (2009), Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit (illustrated ed.), John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 1405181222, Believers in reincarnation often cite the work of Ian Stevenson (1980, 1997), who devoted over 40 years to tracking down leads and claims (...)
Unfortunately, google books cut the text at that place.
  • Leonard Angel, "Reincarnation All Over Again", Skeptic magazine, 9 (3), Evidence for reincarnation rests on backward reasoning. A review of Ian Stevenson's Reincarnation and Biology. (...) Some academics who have read the supposedly scientific studies of Ian Stevenson and others are reporting that the belief in reincarnation is as well justified by scientific investigations "as.. .say, the belief in the past existence of dinosaurs." (...) How has Stevenson's work managed to impress so many people, some of them with solid academic credentials? Part of the problem is what I see as a form of persuasion through faulty tabulation of data too massive to sift through. Daunted by the sheer size of Stevenson's book, most scholars will get their lasting impressions of it from the summary of the data Stevenson offers in tabulated form. From such perusals, the work may well seem cogent. And so the word circulates that the latest accumulation of evidence for reincarnation is convincing. (...) Stevenson is so accustomed to reasoning backwards that he keeps confusing data he has hypothesized to be true with data he has established to be true by primary evidence. (...) Rather, Stevenson uses "backward reasoning," supplying missing evidence that would favor his theory, and then uses the supposed evidence as support for the theory. Further, Stevenson's analysis of his data repeatedly falls prey to well known statistical fallacies. Stevenson's case, irreparably, falls apart both in the presentation of evidence and in his analysis of evidence supposedly obtained. (...) Stevenson has shown not the slightest evidence that the sorts of correspondences allegedly found between birthmarks and past lives' trauma sites are improbable or difficult to explain by coincidence, even if he really found the evidence he claims to have found. (...) This is the classic set-up for a statistical blunder and Stevenson has fallen right into it. (...) The backward reasoning continues, allowing us to safely dismiss this latest claim of scientific evidence for the reality of reincarnation.
Dr. Leonard Angel teaches philosophy at Douglas College Canada. He is the author of articles in the philosophy of science, books on religion and science, including Enlightenment East & West (...)
  • The Indian Skeptic magazine carried several articles on Stevenson [8]
  • Skeptic Eye magazine [9] March 2000 " (...) Stevenson is a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia who has collected a large number of cases he thinks are compelling evidence for reincarnation (...) Yet I wondered just how much better Stevenson’s evidence (essentially a bunch of interesting anecdotes) was (...) Clearly, all that Stevenson can claim he knows for sure is that some kids seem to know a lot about some dead people. Does that necessarily suggest reincarnation as the answer? (...) “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Stevenson’s work is, unfortunately, not extraordinary evidence. Until someone can find a way to study the subject in a way that isn’t so dependent on the honesty and reliability of the people involved, it remains speculative and brimming with a lot of wish fulfillment. (...)"

And, of course, the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience also lists Stevenson. This fits "described as pseudoscience" quite well. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to contribute, Eric. I don't find in any of these sources the statement that the research itself is pseudoscientific. Did you not copy the whole passages? Regards, Mitsube (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Mitsube, you are not dealing substantively with the good faith contributions of editors here and your heavy-handedness is unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding me. I acknowledge that there are people who are critical of various things. But application of the label pseudoscience to Stevenson's research is not supported by these or other sources. Mitsube (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
We can apply it to the idea of "Reincarnation research" in general. The Pseudoscientific use of Stevenson's work is well-documented. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I may be supportive if you can explain just what you mean. And we may have to think about renaming the article. Mitsube (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The explanation seems clear to me. I'm not sure why you're confused. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused as to what you think "reincarnation research" is. Mitsube (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Far as I can tell, it's what Stevenson and the vestiges of his group have attempted. That's the only connection to the term that I have seen in reliable sources, in any case. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
What Stevenson actually did, as opposed to conclusions that were drawn from his research, has never been called pseudoscience as far as I can tell. Mitsube (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
In other words, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(end indent) I have not looked at them. Even if they do not mention criticism per se, they could quoted addressing the idea, if they do. I will take a look soon. Mitsube (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Diff

A number of editors have been reverting my attempted improvement of this article. So I enumerate below the reasons for changing:

  1. Make attribution clearer. It's to medical researchers and practitioners. "Mainstream scientists" is nebulous.
  2. Moving the Kurtz pseudoscience criticism (carefully documented by Enric above) to the lead to indicate the idiocy of this work.
  3. Removing oversectioning.

$Changing the wording of the Sagan and Clarke sentence. They thought the ideas were loony.

No RS were harmed in the editing of this section and nothing was removed.

I await the explanations for why a revert was necessary.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "mainstream" is in the two sources cited. The Kurtz material is now used for just what it says. And I changed the wording for the Sagan and Clarke section (from what you had put in and then objected to). Mitsube (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Use of the word in a source does not mean it is not an ambiguous word. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not ambiguous. Mitsube (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It's ambiguous. Discuss. What qualifies one as "mainstream" is difficult to say. Stevenson is not exactly "mainstream" in my book, but he is in other books. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Mainstream means mainstream, and both the sources cited use it. It means the community of scientists. Mitsube (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Circular definition much? Stevenson isn't in my community of scientists. YMMV. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wha?

What just happened to the article, it's gone? Did someone just make an unauthorized redirect? SilverserenC 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that was his fourth revert as well. Mitsube (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted it back. If that was indeed his fourth revert, then you should go report him to the 3RR noticeboard. I shall back you up, just make sure to link me there when you create it. SilverserenC 17:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time to report the 4th revert or the delete by redirect at the moment, but when I get back I will, if someone else hasn't already done it, which would be really helpful. Mitsube (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll go do it. I've never done it before, but I think I can figure it out. SilverserenC 17:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Redirects do not need to be "authorized." Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
When that same user has already been edit warring, yes it does, or they further their own example of edit warring. SilverserenC 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It takes how many people to tango? Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
At least two, but the steps start to get really complicated with more Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I noted both of them above. They will both be considered. SilverserenC 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You only reported one person. I wonder why: [10]. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Only one person reverted 5 times, that is you. I have reverted 40% of that amount. Mitsube (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, your diff counting is off. I count two reverts, and one was only partial that I can see. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Well we can agree to disagree on that. It is for others to decide. Mitsube (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Read WP:REVERT lately? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Article is now biased

The changed wording by User:ScienceApologist has now completely skewed the article as a whole. It is now almost wholly negative and uses language that is designed to make a reader automatically think reincarnation research is a hoax, without showing both sides credibly. I'm going to add this change to the Noticeboard Edit Warring charge that i've already made. Other opinions on the changes? SilverserenC 22:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A hoax? I think you may mean something else. I don't think we're claiming that Stevenson, for example, is trying to trick anybody. And what is the "both sides" idea? I wasn't aware that there were "two sides". ScienceApologist (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is obviously not an attempt to present the topic in a neutral way. Mitsube (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
How so? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Explained below. Mitsube (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You mean in the next section? Where you had a nice little discussion with a bunch of people who agreed with you while you ignored Hipocrite? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition

Please give the language from the original source that has been used to support the "much deprecated" description. Mitsube (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

[11]. Hipocrite (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. What page were you referring to? That is the front cover. We need to see the page where you got this information. Mitsube (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Like I wrote "p 183" Hipocrite (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good for one opinion. Stating Cordon's opinion in the intro as the final word on the subject isn't supported yet. Mitsube (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to reference bomb it if that's what your asking me to do. I don't think you want 20 footnotes following the statement, however. One link to a general reference work should be fine. Hipocrite (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated by one person isn't "much deprecated". That was actually ScienceApologist's original research at the time. If we can find a general source saying something along those lines of "the idea is generally derided" that would be what I have in mind. Does that make sense to you? If it's out there I'm sure you can find it without much trouble. Mitsube (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It's linked above. Hipocrite (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Undent. I took the liberty of adding the page number and collapsing the link. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're looking for more sources substantiating criticisms, there's always these: [12], [13], [14], [15] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Those are good. They don't mention "derision", they are neutrally presented statements that past-life regressions produce fantasies. We should just include that language, which is actually sourced. Mitsube (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Precise use of particular words are not needed. We're all intelligent enough to know when something is being deride or not. If you don't think there is derision, explain. Don't just hide behind the "They didn't use the actual word." argument. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Basic principles

Here are some things I hope we can agree on as far as writing this article:

  1. The article should not present the work as constituting proof of reincarnation.
  2. The article should state Kurtz' opinion that claiming that the work is proof of reincarnation is pseudoscientific. If there are other high quality sources that say that as well we can remove the attribution to Kurtz. We can discuss whether or not to mention that in the introduction, then, after we have assembled the sources other than Kurtz and judged how that body of material compares to the main subject of the article; the research and responses to the research itself in the academic community (the conclusions drawn from it are secondary).
  3. The intro should be neutral. Just state what kind of research was done. It should then state that this has been ignored or dismissed by other scientists. Those are the most important points. We may include mention of conclusions drawn from it if appropriate.
  4. The opinions of skeptics that are not in academic sources don't rise to the same level of importance as regards the article as do the responses to the work in academic sources.
  5. The article should include notable criticisms and responses. This should be tiered based on the standard of the source, i.e. academic vs. non-academic, published by a reputable press vs. self-published. For non-academic and/or self-published, we consider notability.
  6. Above all, the work itself, the subject of the article, should be described clearly. This material should come from reliable sources.
  7. About the hypnotic regression material, we can include mention of it being altogether different from the UoV research in terms of quality. There is one good source (I assume, I don't know much about the author or publisher) found by Hipocrite. Also the Kurtz source, if it says what it is quoted as saying, is good for that as well. Skepdic.com need not be used. It is self-published and not of the same quality as Kurtz. However the source it uses for its claim, if it gives a source, could be investigated and used. Mitsube (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. Agree
  2. It's not just Kurtz's opinion. This suggestion is in direct violation of WP:FRINGE#In-text attribution.
  3. Agree as along as the conclusions that the research says nothing about reincarnation but has been used by New Age pseudoscientists to support their claims is included.
  4. This suggestion is in direct violation of WP:PARITY since the conclusions of past life regression and even Stevenson's work have not been published in highly regarded journals, for example.
  5. The most reliable sources are those which point out how this research does not show that reincarnation happens.
  6. Agree
  7. Skepdic.com is a great source and should be used in the article because it is written by an acknowledged expert in pseudoscience (which this topic is).

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. Agreee
  2. No. This research into the paranormal is pseudoscientific. -period- This is an uncontestable fact. The resounding silence from every reputable scientific source on the topic is proof of that. Nobody has lately published material stating the sky is blue either.
  3. The gist to me is "people have studied this, they proved nothing, scientists ignore the work done."
  4. Agree with S.A.
  5. No. You've got the weighting wrong. an 'academic' paper is no more reliable than a self-published source, unless its found a peer-reviewed reputable source, and I don't mean an open-source or self-published jouranl.
  6. A brief introduction to each methodology, a link to the full article if it exists, or a paragraph on metholodolgies that don't warrent their own article. Thats all we need here.
  7. I don't know skepdic well, so I cant endorse it. Reliable Sources noticeboard.

Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Disconnect

There seems to be a rather odd one here between different parts of Wikipedia. At Talk:Ghost there's a very long discussion about a statement by the US National Science Foundation apparently describing ghosts, reincarnation & other things as pseudoscientific. As far as I can make out, one side wants to include such a statement in the article, while the other wants it to make clear that only something purporting to be science can be pseudoscience, which seems to me just common sense. But over here nobody seems to have mentioned it. Peter jackson (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching that debate. It's silly. We're not meant to come to our own opinions about what any of these things are, we're supposed to take our conclusions from the sources and what they say. In this article, we show both sides, because we have sources for each side. It's as simple as that. Go off of the sources, not your own opinion. SilverserenC 17:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole point of pseudoscience is that it is an approach that adopts the trappings of science with none of the methodological rigour, skepticism, criticism, emphasis on falsification or integration with other fields of research. It seeks the cultural capital, tries to adopt the authority of science, without bothering with proof, theory, empirical study, change in response to criticisms, disconfirming evidence, logic, etc. Peel back the veneer of science and you should find supporting data derived from methodologically rigorous studies converging on a theoretical foundation that allows replication and prediction. If disconfirming findings are met with backpedaling, special pleading, goalpost-moving and denial, you've got a pseudoscience. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it's warranted by the source or not. And we can put the NSF's statement that belief in reincarnation is pseudoscientific in that section of the article if someone wants (but no, not the first line of it). It makes no difference to me. It would be better if the NSF hadn't attacked only non-Christian doctrines, but I think their hands are tied there. Mitsube (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The NSF would easily be a reliable source to verify that belief in reincarnation is pseudoscientific. It's not used yet, but could be (but would be redundant to the sources currently in use - unless states more than this bare assertion). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been fully protected for two months per the result of WP:AN3#User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Mitsube (Result: Protected). If consensus is reached about the major issues, the protection can be lifted. Until then, please request changes through {{editprotected}}. This should guarantee that discussion will occur before major changes are made. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Edelmann source

I will remove it, for these reasons:

  • The reasons Anthon.Eff states here. The source is not up to snuff. Note that at that time, Verbal found the source to be an RS.
  • Verbal stated at a more recent time that the source is unreliable: [16], and removed it from the Jim Tucker article. This occurred after I quoted a statement from it that was mildly positive. I assume that he now believes the source to be unreliable.
  • The source does not even appear to me to support the sentence it is listed as supporting. Verbal has not responded to my many requests that he explain the use of the source for that sentence. Mitsube (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I see four separate points by four separate people, but no discussion or acknowledgements. The Journal of Consciousness Studies is according to its webpage a peer reviewed journal. What is the issue with it? The diff on the Tucker page doesn't seem to support it being removed - it was moved. The statement it sources in the page is "Theologians Jonathan Edelmann and William Bernet criticized Stevenson's methodology, and stated that the research provided no conclusive evidence for the existence of past lives". The source says "There are a number of weaknesses with the current methodology used by parapsychologists to study reincarnation claims, even though these studies have provided a wealth of interesting information and provided a much needed rationale for further study", includes some specific criticisms, and after discussing statistical methods for rejecting the null hypothesis, concludes "Such a result has yet to emerge, for none of Stevenson’s, Haraldsson’s, or Mill’s cases involve this large collaborative effort. We believe, however, that the work done by Stevenson and others provides a rationale for conducting further research in reincarnation." Though this can be adjusted, it does seem to support the statement in the article. If you're concerned about the reliability, perhaps you could bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Please check the diff on the Tucker article again. You are wrong about it. He removed the content on the grounds that it was "(unreliable) puffery". If it's unreliable its unreliable. He also removed more content sourced to that source on the grounds that it is unreliable. Verbal and I agree on this. The source is unreliable. These non-scientists are completely wrong in their attempts to contradict the reviewers at the Journal of the AMA and the Journal or Nervous and Mental Disease (among others). About their criticisms of "parapsychologists", they are probably referring to Peter Ramster et al. They don't mention Stevenson in that context. If there are valid criticisms of his methodology you can find a better source. Mitsube (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Please review the actual content of that diff - Verbal is not removing the reference. He removes the statement "an important contribution to creating an ideal protocol for studying reincarnation" (that would be the puffery he refers to in his edit summary I think) but moves the reference to the same paper at the end of the paragraph. Verbal appears to be removing what he sees as NPOV wording while retaining the reference for a different statement in the same article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Described as pseudoscience

I have looked at the sources.

Mitsube, Thanks for taking the effort to do this. Ultimately, it is the best way to make contributions to wikipedia. It takes a lot of motivation and effort to do it, and research so painstakingly, but what you wrote down here is very good work for the encyclopedia. Greetings, Sacca 11:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurtz

The Kurtz source is no doubt being relied on for the following sentence:

Interestingly, these doctrines, held on a basis of faith, have now been given

some kind of pseudoscientific credence by a number of parapsychologists and psychiatrists, and reincarnation is presented by the media as if it has been verified by science. For example, Ian Stevenson, American doctor and former president of the Parapsychological Society, maintains that there is evidence for this claim, especially in India, based upon the memories of young children of their

previous lives.

Now claiming that there is evidence for something is not the same as saying that it has been proven. Stevenson himself did not claim to have proved that reincarnation happens.

And more to the point, Kurtz himself does not state that the research described in this article is pseudoscience. He makes the distinct claim that claiming that this research proves that reincarnation happens is pseudoscientific. The research itself is not being called pseudoscientific; only the use of the results of the research. I am therefore removing this from the article. I will replace it with "Paul Kurtz believes that some have drawn pseudoscientific conclusions from this research" "Paul Kurtz believes that deducing from this research the conclusion that reincarnation is a proven fact is pseudoscientific", and put this in the appropriate place. Mitsube (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The research in question was undertaken to study reincarnation, and deduce a paranormal source for the memories of these children. I note he doesn't claim or test for false memories, or confirmation bias in confabulation. He studied reincarnation. It is therefore a pseudo-scientific study of reincarnation, and therefore pseudoscience. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Guyonthesubway. Stevenson did not claim to be studying reincarnation. He said he was studying cases suggestive of reincarnation. He said that his research did not prove that reincarnation happens. As skepdic.com puts it,

However, he resented being described by journalists as trying to prove reincarnation. He believed that he had produced a body of evidence for reincarnation that must be taken seriously. But he admitted that "the evidence is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations, and one can only censure those who say there is no evidence whatever."

You can read about this here, which is the text of a lecture cited by skepdic.com. I have been thinking about the best way to rephrase the first paragraph of the introduction to best reflect this sort of information. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
By a reasonable man test, he was studying nothing but reincarnation. He sought no explanation for these cases (like a parent looking for fame, or a lying interpreter). He actively sought cases that would prove reincarnation. He looked in a location where he didnt speak the language, had subjects and interpreters that were motivated to lie to him, evidence was sparse, and independant records to confirm stories were non-existant. It demonstrates a clear and obvious desire to find evidence of reincarnation and nothing else. You might wonder why he didn't look in Iowa, as well. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You first sentence is original research, and I disagree with it. He was studying cases suggestive of reincarnation. Hence the title Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. He spoke five languages and chronicled many cases in the UK, Canada, and the US. In the cases that he didn't speak the language he used multiple interpreters and investigated cases more than once. He also examined independent records such as coroner's reports, which often included photographs displaying wounds. I have seen some of these photographs myself in one of his books. If you are interested in learning more about his methods you could look at these descriptions in prestigious journals: [17], [18], [19]. But the point of the talk page is not to argue about the quality of his research. It is to discuss sources and what material to include, etc. Mitsube (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Stevenson's personal opinion (e.g. that he was not engaged in reincarnation research) is certainly relevant, however it can't be treated as a reliably-sourced fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I would think that you and other people who have sided with Verbal in the past would be particularly amenable to calling it something other than reincarnation research. Calling it reincarnation research implies that reincarnation happens doesn't it? It seems like that to me. Mitsube (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The use of the phrase 'credulous research into reincarnation' (in the Intro) seems problematical to me - it skews the tone of the article from the very beginning. Does this phrase(or a sentiment expressing this exact idea) actually appear in the quoted source? If not, I think the phrase had best be removed. Regards. Suddha (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Credulity is certainly the issue here. No serious scientists believe that reincarnation actually happens. Sagan is particular bemused when he writes about it in Demon-haunted world. It's funny to me that believers latch on to his approval of the methods of Stevenson when he in the same paragraph documents how Stevenson's personal belief in spiritual physicality is preventing him from moving on to more legitimate research. Oh well, the man's dead now, so I guess we should let it go. The UVa group has only one researcher left and the trustees of the medical school have moved to reallocate funds away from this fruitless endeavor. Dying like the rest of parapsychology. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Credulity is your opinion. And I would appreciate it if you would respond to my point that Kurtz criticizes use of the research rather than the research per se, which is I hope something we can agree to point out. Mitsube (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No, Kurtz points out that the research itself is being driven for credulity reasons, to support the pseudoscientific protestations of those who steadfastly believe in reincarnation. That is strictly synonymous with the word "credulity" and nitpicking about whether the word itself is used is very poor form. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
In the above text, he does not point that out. Does he point it out elsewhere? And even if he did, using the ill-informed opinion of one skeptic over the judgment of Stevenson's editors and referees is not acceptable, your condescending language notwithstanding. Mitsube (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
He points it out prominently in the cited source and it certainly isn't only his opinion but is rather the opinion of the vast majority of thinking academics on this planet. Trying to impeach Kurtz will get you nowhere. It's just about the best source we have for this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to impeach Kurtz. But he doesn't make claims about "the opinion of the vast majority of thinking academics on this planet". Mitsube (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
"the research itself is being driven for credulity reasons" doesn't make sense. I don't know what you're trying to say. Please try to say it again. Mitsube (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Stevenson et al. are researching this way because they believe in reincarnation. Confirmation bias is the name of the game. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The claim of confirmation bias is your own unsubstantiated claim. Mitsube (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Skeptic's encyclopedia

  • The first thing to note is that nowhere does the article label the research described in this article pseudoscience. The fact that it is mentioned in a book called "pseudoscience" does not substitute for such a claim. And the article in question is entitled "Reincarnation", not "Reincarnation research". This is the key point.
  • It is not a reliable source. The low-standard of fact-checking is demonstrated by the fact that Stevenson's name is misspelled, and that his research is dismissed without effort to actually engage it, as would be required by a serious scholarly source. Furthmore, the author Phil Mole claims that belief in a soul is a requirement for a belief in reincarnation. While true in one sense, in another, the Buddhist belief in rebirth does not require such a belief, and it is ofter lumped in as "reincarnation". Since he claims that Buddhists believe in reincarnation in his second paragraph, he is wrong in the fourth.
  • Who is Phil Mole? Why is he a reliable source for descriptions of the research described in this article?

For these reasons I am removing this. Mitsube (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To your second point, you're just arguing semantics. Call it a soul or whatever you like, the part of the self that remains to be reincarnated or reborn is convinently called a 'soul' in the source, roughly analagous to 'citta-santāna'. I wouldn't bring a necessarily strict western definiition every time someone uses the word 'soul'. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Buddhism does not moot a "self" either. The author uses the word "soul" in the first paragraph that is incompatible with Buddhism. These distinctions are not just semantic in Buddhism. The Buddha was relentless in getting people to stop extrapolating from experiences views about the the world (especially about ontology). But maybe you are right and I am nitpicking too much about that. Mitsube (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Stevenson introduced the term "psychospore" for whetever it is that transfer memories and personality traits from old to new bodies.Hard to detect, though. Hepcat65 (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Replacement

I am replacing it with the statement from the obituary, that his research was ignored or dismissed by most scientists. This only applies to Stevenson, technically, but as he is the standard-bearer, I feel it is acceptable to use this as evidence that all similar research has been treated the same way. Mitsube (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rehash of an old argument

Mitsube brought up the same argument about a year ago. Please see these discussions from the archive about whether calling reincarnation research pseudoscience was valid. [20] [21] 152.16.15.144 (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is Verbal not logged in. For this first link, I did indeed make the case about the Kurtz source (not the other one) at the end of the discussion, and Tim Vickers responded with a statement that wasn't true, namely "The field is not described as pseudoscience, the article states that the field 'has been described as pseudoscience'. This statement is an unarguable fact, as people have made that statement." This was the last post on that topic. In fact as this talk page discussion shows, it has not explicitly been called pseudoscience at all, and there is no reliable source for this claim. About the second link, I did not post there. It seems that the poster was confused and made a mistake. Mitsube (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Please strike out your first sentence as it's a violation of no personal attacks and civility policies. No opinion on the rest as I am not up to date on the issues going on yet. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain your first sentence? I fail to see how my first sentence is a personal attack or incivil. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Reincarnation research is pseudoscience, Mitsube's paras on "past life regression" are in-universe and fail to mention that this, too, is pure hokum. That is a serious problem per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • We have discussed this thoroughly. The research itself is not pseudoscience: it has been praised for its thoroughness. It is the conclusions drawn from it that have been called pseudoscientific, rightly so in some cases. Mitsube (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jim Tucker, Life Before Life. Macmillan 2005, page 122.
  2. ^ Shroder, Tom. Ian Stevenson; Sought To Document Memories Of Past Lives in Children The Washington Post, 11 February 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reincarnation_research/Archive_2&oldid=1040046151"