Talk:Reincarnation research/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unbalanced section

Apart from restoring the version with my edits, I also restored an unbalanced section tag to the hypnotic regression section. Two issues:

1. No reliable sources call that "reincarnation research". I'm hoping for a source that does so.
2. Past life regression being rank pseudoscience of the worst sort (most psychoanalysts even think it's idiotic), we need to make sure that the reader understands how derided it is if we do find sources which justify it's continued inclusion. The mainstream view that past life regression is nonsense is not currently present.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this article really describes reincarnation research. It is research into a class of cases of children who remember previous lives and have birthmarks matching wounds on the deceased, which is suggestive of reincarnation. I am fine with leaving in the tag. But you have to find RS support for your second point. Mitsube (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing this section too, if you are okay with it. I don't see it as being actual "research". Finding reliable sources is always the name of the game. Right now, the article is filled with a lot of unreliable credulous sources, unfortunately. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that any of this research constitutes reincarnation research, as I pointed out above. I can't think of a better title for the article though. I do not support removing the section, but I welcome your addition of sourced statements such as "most psychoanalysts even think it's idiotic" which you said above. Mitsube (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's not reincarnation research, it certainly doesn't belong in the article. Either come up with a better umbrella term or remove it. Those are your choices. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's come up with a better name. How about "Research suggestive of reincarnation". Mitsube (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No way. It certainly doesn't suggest reincarnation to most thinking people. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Children remembering previous lives at leasts suggests it (to anyone). Be that as it may, what do you suggest instead. Mitsube (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it suggests that it's likely that there are some people in need of cluebats. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is at least suggestive. We should take a poll on some noticeboard. But barring that, what do you suggest instead. Mitsube (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific justifications for belief in reincarnation might be one option. That seems to connect the three disparate subjects in the article. Or, if you prefer to focus on Stevenson's work and those who follow in his footsteps: Parapsychology investigations of reincarnation claims. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That is calling the research pseudoscientific. 22:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's calling the justification pseudoscientific. Big difference. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Having "Pseudoscientific justifications" as the main subject implies that that is what the article is about, thus implying that the research is pseudoscientific. Mitsube (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A section title does not indicate what an entire article is about. If we have a "History" section, it does not make the entire article about "history". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about a section title. Mitsube (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

As I have discussed above, I am not entirely comfortable with the title of the article. The research isn't reincarnation research: its research into cases which are suggestive of reincarnation. I suggested the name "Research suggestive of reincarnation" above, and ScienceApologist objected to this. I don't agree with his objection, but maybe there is an even better title that is even more neutral.

I have objected to skepdic.com in the past, but I think that something it says is interesting (and I have read this in other places as well). Stevenson's work in particular, but I think the same applies to all of the research, constitutes evidence for reincarnation, but not conclusive evidence.

Taking the above into account, I propose that we rename the article "Evidence for reincarnation". We can even mention in the intro that X, Y, and Z (of high quality here) believe that it does not constitute conclusive evidence for reincarnation. I think this would resolve much of the tension related to this subject.

Any thoughts? Mitsube (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• How about this thought: you appear to be pushing fringe nonsense and should take a step back. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stay civil. Your comment has nothing to do with the question that Mitsube is asking and makes no sense in context anyways, because Mitsube is saying that the fringe work is not reliable as "research", so the article should be renamed. If you disagree with a name change, say so, do not attack him about it. Silverseren^C 08:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. This is an encyclopedic article, please keep your personal opinions on what is 'fringe nonsense' out of it.Greetings, Sacca 09:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. The present title is about an area of research. Just reporting on what it is, what it does, what 'people' (researchers) think about it and its 'conclusions' and suggestions.

Evidence of Reincarnation would quickly become more polemic I think. It might be a valid topic, but it's different from the present article.

I like your previous title of Research suggestive of reincarnation. That seems a valid alternative name for this article. This article is about the research that's been done, not so much about the 'evidence'. Greetings, Sacca 09:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The current title is just fine. "Research suggestive of reincarnation" is awkaward, and to me means the same thing. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's clear the word "suggestive" was Stevenson's attempt at making his papers more amenable to academic publishing. According to Ian Stevenson, his life's goal was getting science to consider reincarnation as a possibility. So we should avoid adopting Stevenson's non-objective view of his own investigations as the title of an objective WP article. And anyhow, Beliefs about reincarnation can hardly be "suggestive of reincarnation". The article's content is a bad fit for that title. The "beliefs" section of the article would be better sited at the main Reincarnation article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Information about methods and people -studying- those beliefs belongs here, the actual beliefs belong there. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "Academic studies related to reincarnation" would be a more suitable title then. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, awkward. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we're working too hard here. I can see why this article went to Afd. It consists of an assembly of three loosely-connected efforts we're struggling to portray as a unified "field of research". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My question, in light of LuckyLouie's comment, what source connects these three topics? I feel like this is a WP:SYNTH issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Particularly given the hypnosis section really isn't evidence of reincarnation and the beliefs about reincarnation are in no way evidence of reincarnation any more than belief about God is evidence of God, or belief about aliens is evidence of aliens. In most articles we simply reference the sources, there's no need to have specific discussions of the methodology and specifics of the "evidence for". I still think merging to reincarnation is a better option, particularly since there is no real scientific consensus that reincarnation occurs and the evidence isn't seen as compelling. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first off, hypnotic regression is entirely about reincarnation. That is the entire point about past lives. Hypnotic regression allows you to see past lives of yourself, in which you reincarnated into your current form. I do not believe there is any argument for hypnotic regression to not be about reincarnation.

Second, the beliefs section, in large, references studies done in terms of reincarnation. It is titled beliefs because they are studies on beliefs, but they are still scientific evidence, which is why they belong here rather than on the reincarnation page.

...third...um...since when is there scientific consensus on anything? Most subjects that are important don't have any consensus, which is why you know they are important.

I still disagree with merging. Silverseren^C 18:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So if we are tasked to write an article about "reincarnation research" we need some reliable sources that give us an overview of who and what is notable in the field. I think part of the problem is typically, our most reliable sources only mention Stevenson in connection with the term "reincarnation research" and not the others who've been synthetically grouped here and at Category: reincarnation research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this isn't my research field. I'm just an observer here to maintain the integrity of the article. You guys (and gals) have at those source searching sites and try to come up with stuff. It really shouldn't be that hard. Even if it isn't in the center of "scientific agreement", reincarnation gets a respectable amount of studies done on it. Silverseren^C 18:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There are parsimonious and research-based reasons to suspect that "past life regression" is confabulation and pseudomemories, as well as empirical evidence to back this up - "memories" of past lives are erroneous about basic facts of life of the time of the past life. There is every indication that hypnosis does not allow you to see past lives, but it would be a good way to get to know what people believe historical life was like.

The beliefs section are nothing more than surveys about how prevalent beliefs are, and what the content of those beliefs are. They in no way prove that reincarnation is real. They are scientific evidence of beliefs on reincarnation, and thus technically fit into an article titled "reincarnation research", but do not demonstrate anything about reincarnation. They would easily (and better) fit into the page on reincarnation proper.

There is extensive scientific consensus on many topics - evolution, climate change, particle physics, astronomy, medicine, disease, confirmation bias, etc. There are still dissenting opinions, and much disagreement about specifics, but in most fields there is general agreement about fundamentals. There are review articles, textbooks, lectures, conferences and other publication venues that are clear and explicit on the areas of agreement and disagreement. Most subjects don't have absolute consensus because most subjects are still being investigated, but there is usually some consensus in anything but the most emerging fields.

I wouldn't argue we're required to give an extensive overview of reincarnation research if the research base is weak, there is little mainstream support, and the topic is fundamentally fringy. And for specifics, the NYT obit for Stevenson suggests that interest in parapsychology has waned ("With the planned closing later this month of the Princeton University laboratory devoted to studying telekinesis and extrasensory perception, the University of Virginia center remains one of the few academic facilities of its kind in the country. ").

The amount of studies on reincarnation research would doubtless pale behind the amount of research on say, religion in general, hinduism, biochemistry, economics, materials science, neuropsychology, or nearly any other topic if serious scientific interest. NPOV doesn't mean the topic is given a free pass on criticism or a credulous, loving exploration - WP:UNDUE states that we should be proportional in our representation and discussion of the topic. If you can summarize the work in a field by primarily summarizing the work of one person, that suggests the field itself isn't particularly important (i.e. see Psychohistory, which is pretty much the brainchild and pet project of Lloyd deMause and no-one else). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

J'accuse!

So, I'm going to come out and say it:

While all these subjects are about reincarnation, the term reincarnation research is ONLY reliably sourced to Ian Stevenson and others like him. Past lives regression and the section on beliefs in reincarnation belong elsewhere if this page is to remain titled "reincarnation research".

What do others think?

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're leading. Next you'll say that the page should be merged with Stevenson's. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There are others who do reincarnation research. E.g.: Jim B. Tucker. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a question of following what our sources say about "reincarnation research" rather than what we as editors think fits in this category. If Stevenson and his successor at UofV are the only two guys that independent third-party sources report as notable and active (well, admittedly, one's dead) in "reincarnation research", then the article should cover them and exclude the rest. But if the article is open to covering anyone who ever proclaimed to research reincarnation in a serious way, then maybe Art Bell would be included here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is 'past life regression' research? Perhaps something about the developenet of hypnosis as a tool to explore past lives? Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be. But we need to find an objective third party source that defines what "reincarnation research" is, what it includes and what it excludes. "Reincarnation research involves the factual checking of children's reports of their past lives, and the use of hypnosis to investigate past life regression" sounds nice, but it's just some editor's opinion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is true, as of now. Let us check the sources to see if they mention this before cutting out half the article, though. And we can get consensus to do so. What do others think? Mitsube (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What would you be cutting out, specifically? Silverseren^C 22:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For me it would be fine to split it up into 3 articles. We could still keep this page in shortened form, without much detail.Greetings, Sacca 23:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A sort of disambiguation page for the topics that cover reincarnation research? Yeah, I could see that as a possibility. Silverseren^C 23:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

But the content from here should be placed in those other articles before we delete anything here, in order to ensure we don't lose any references or information in the process. Silverseren^C 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good in theory. Still need to find a criteria for deciding what goes on on the disambig page. Otherwise it's just List of subjects related to reincarnation research masquerading as Reincarnation Research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, there only appears to be one subject here and it's not even a very significant one outside the fruit loop community. Even the discredited recovered memory nonsense is more credible than this. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Sacca, this comment from Guy has forced me to change my opinion from before. I am against turning it into a disambiguation page. Valuable information, reliable, sourced information, would be lost in the process. This article works quite well as an overall look at research on reincarnation and allows readers to delve more deeply through the Wikilinks into related articles. For that express purpose, this article is useful and it should not be made into a disambiguation page. Silverseren^C 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, the moment you use biased, POV language such as "fruit loop" and "discredited nonsense", you lose all of your own credibility in this or any debate. Silverseren^C 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• • If I may say so, this is a pretty flimsy rationale for switching opinions. Just because you don't like the language someone uses doesn't make the entire argument incorrect. Genetic fallacy anyone? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    • But that person does lose credibility, which is what was actually written above. Mitsube (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The research on PLR supports the idea that subjects are confabulating, not recalling past lives. It's research on hypnosis, not reincarnation, and certainly not justification for any sort of belief in research given the errors of basic recall of the subjects. There is only one real body of research on reincarnation, that is the work by Stevenson. The research about the beliefs in reincarnation is not proof that reincarnation exists, and is far better placed in the reincarnation page. This leaves the Stevenson research, which is also relatively brief and could easily be integrated into the reincarnation page as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead changes

The changes in the lead that User:ScienceApologist made did not use the title of the article in the correct manner and it used non-NPOV words, such as "derided". Because of such, I have replaced it with the old lead. If changes need to be made to the lead, such as expanding the single sentence on what mainstream scientists do not like about it, then they should be proposed here, in entirety of what to be added on. Silverseren^C 22:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How many reverts are you intending to make to this article? Hipocrite (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Um...the one? O_o What do you mean? Oh, and I like how you reorganized the lead, really nice. It looks good. :3 Silverseren^C 22:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• The lead looks really awesome now. Good job, guys. Silverseren^C 01:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I hope I didn't ruin it with my tweaks. Let me know. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead referred to is the protected version. I don't think the {{cn}} tag is required since there are three lines of inquiry and all are discussed in the body and lead. The page still reads like an inappropriate synthesis better dealt with on the main reincarnation page, but the current lead seems OK. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the citation needed was appropriate. The "three lines of inquiry" definition makes it sound like examining beliefs about reincarnation in surveys is part of parapsychology. WP should not be breaking new ground by defining what this "field" is for the parapsychologists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I'm OK with simply removing it, the three lines of inquiry can stand on their own without an lead-in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this sentence somewhat ambigious at best and misleading at worst

"Some skeptics consider reincarnation research to be pseudoscientific." It reads as though only a small part of the sceptic community is questioning this.

I'm not sure how to word to be inoffensive but the truth is probably opposite:"Some sceptics consider reincarnation research to be scientific." Dux667 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pre-existing beliefs

This sentence: "In a book review criticizing one of Stevensons' books, the reviewer raised concerns that many of Stevenson's examples were gathered in cultures with preexisting belief in reincarnation" is not supported by the source. Mitsube (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha. OK. well just remove it then if that's still possible with the lock-down. Greetings, Sacca 08:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The source does seem to include this - [1], "In a community that believes in reincarnation, an elderly man...The father was a strong believer in reincarnation, and was sure...The child’s mother and grandmother strongly believe in reincarnation, and they are the only ones who have witnessed the child “remembering” his previous life....An Indian woman dreamed that a recently deceased man of their village...Both occur in communities that believe in reincarnation, and where critical thinking is (shall we say), not thought of as a primary skill. The scope for self-delusion is high." Also, the reference to the James Randi Educational Foundation, which was removed for some reason, also mentions this though somewhat tangentially [2]. A better wording might use something other than "cultures" ("communities and families" would be my suggestion) but the point seems valid. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with WLU's suggestion of changing culture to communities and families. I disagree with the suggestion of removing it. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's still mentioned for a minority of the cases. This is original work. Mitsube (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Almeder article is the best source for this, because it explicitly mentions the criticism and gives a response. The response is needed either way for NPOV, if this attempted criticism is to be included at all. The criticism doesm't make sense, given the high number of cases he recorded in cultures that did not have preexisting belief, and you both know that. Mitsube (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Almeder article is not independent. WP:FRINGE#Independent sources are needed. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Almeder article you are referring to. The criticism make good sense and is mentioned in several sources - including the skeptic's dictionary for Stevenson (which should be included - per WP:PARITY, it's an adequately reliable source). The mention of confirmation bias by Carroll is also important and should be included. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You can link all you want, but if you include the misleading criticism we have to include the response for NPOV. Skeptics have thought of many negative things to say about Stevenson's research (they are all to be found in Edwards' book; I think the website posts are derivative of that). We can't and won't include them all (though I will note that Almeder has refuted them all). Mitsube (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I link to demonstrate what I would use to verify text applied to the page. Stevenson's research is fringe, and not accepted as good-quality mainstream research. Skepdic is an appropriate place to find criticisms. Unless it is inaccurately summarized, it can't be misleading. The things thought about the research are only negative if one has a preconceived opinion that there is not just merit to the research, but see its conclusions as foregone. Otherwise, they are just criticisms, which all scientific research must experience to improve and generate a reliable conclusion. Stevenson's research is at best suggestive, it is certainly not conclusive, and not even particularly convincing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was mainly addressing SA. The peer-reviewed journals give Stevenson's research top-marks, but drawing firm conclusions from it is another matter. Skeptic websites don't have the standing to critique his methods, which have already been validated by the usual academic methods. Mitsube (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No one but no one is arguing that Stevenson's methods of interviewing subjects was problematic. What people generally point out is how far-fetched his conclusions are. Generally, Stevenson was not able to or chose not to publish his conclusions in mainstream journals (he only jumped to those in his books, speeches, and in the fringe literature). What skeptic websites are equipped to do per WP:PARITY is point out how those jumping to conclusions is an example of pseudoscientific reasoning. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the context of discussing conclusions the skeptics' ideas are acceptable. Mitsube (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• In addition to Mitsube's point above, which strikes me as correct, people might like to consider the possibie bias against reincarnation research in societies / research communities (in which 'group think' is all-too prevalent) which tend not to believe in it: bias can cut both ways! Best regards. Suddha (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Fight the supposed bias in the relevant research communities/societies. We can do nothing about it here. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Nor did was Suddha wrote suggest otherwise. Mitsube (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, he asked us to "consider it", which is something that the point I linked to says we probably should not do. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Has any instance of reincarnation or of reincarnation research produced an effect (that is, a measurable result)? Wikipedia is (eventually) based on science. User:Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Research need not produce an effect. Mitsube (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

True. Null results happen all the time and generally are not considered meaningful. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Right Suddha, 'skeptic' websites are an expression of the cultural bias against reincarnation. Skeptic website-opinion is irrelevant when put next to a peer-reviewed journal. Simple, basic Wikipedia policy. Greetings, Sacca 11:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That skeptical websites are biased against irrationality is hardly a reason to question them. It's like getting upset with a reliable source for being biased against unreliable witnesses. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They are biased against what they percieve to be irrationality, but their perception can be skewed. Mitsube (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

But, lacking any reliable source which impeaches their perception (and all we have currently are the protestations on this page of believers in reincarnation and people who are fans of reincarnation research), we are not equipped to make that judgment. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Sacca. You make a good point. Best regards to you. Suddha (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. The majority of scientific disciplines essentially ignore reincarnation as irrelevant, though it is heavily studied as a religious belief - making it game for disciplines like social studies, religious studies, and in general humanities approaches. Stevenson's enquiries are unique and notable because of their rarity - a scientific effort to prove that reincarnation exists. There is virtually no serious scientific study of reincarnation - you can count the people with scientific appointments in academic institutions on one hand (well, probably, I'm guessing). It is considered pseudoscientific, and our policy in dealing with that is "...not to present those views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views." This would fall into the second category of something generally considered pseudoscience, and there are several appropriate sources to confirm this. The actual number of peer-reviewed sources on the topic are very, very small - I've seen those articles from the JNMD from more than 30 years ago, and some surveys (which are studies of belief in reincarnation, not reincarnation itself), but most of it is published in books, by a single author or small group. The past life regression shouldn't even be there since it has been scientifically investigated and found to be much more easily explained as cryptamnesia and confabulation. PLR is not evidence of reincarnation, it's evidence of hypnosis' ability to create false memories. In this case, skeptical sources such as the Skeptic's dictionary are important places for criticisms to be found, to represent the mainstream scientific opinion because most scientists ignore these issues as unimportant, unproven and not worth their time. We should fairly and reasonably depict Stevenson's work on the topic, but also depict all criticisms raised about his work - and there are a lot. He cherry-picked, used case studies, found proof in families and cultures where reincarnation was taken for granted as real, and his "evidence" is not overwhelmingly convincing. It's protoscience, it's still in the discovery phase, it is certainly not a slam-dunk that proves reincarnation exists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WLU, can you try to be more concise please? It would help me if you could break up your posts into smaller sections. I will respond to your points as I perceive them. For one, please stop saying that the research itself is pseudoscientific. It is not. We only have one good source, Kurtz, stating that to use this evidence in a certain way, namely as proof, is pseudoscientific. Stevenson never claimed that his research constituted absolute proof in reincarnation. And your criticisms all seem to make sense, but some of the assumptions you are making are not true. For example, he had many examples in Europe and North America. And he disproved many of the cases he investigated. About PLR, let us discuss that later. I think we are all agreed that that should be dealt with differently. Stevenson himself (successfully) attempted to debunk that method. I can provide you with links if you'd like. Mitsube (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, that's one of my shorter posts. I can't really substantiate my points without explaining them. The research is pseudoscientific, it adopts the appearance of methods without adopting the rigour, alternative explanations or testing a hypothesis - pseudoscience. Skeptic's dictionary also points to this, and there are numerous sources that point out that given his methods, you can never really prove anything. PLR should simply be removed - it's not proof of anything but the human ability to create memories given the appropriate inputs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So you base your opinion of whether something is scientific or not on the skeptic's dictionary? You must be kidding?

Stevenson never claimed his research 'proved' reincarnation, only that it suggested it. There's no proof, but his method was scientifically very sound. Greetings, Sacca 22:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that skeptics think his method wasn't sound. See this article. http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Edelman.pdf Unfortunately it seems the sections that described the common methodological flaws in some of the reincarnation research to date has disappeared between versions...152.16.15.144 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But the skeptics are not the ones the academic community relies on to make these judgments. About the Edelmann source, is has been rejected. Mitsube (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. Can you imagine scholars going to the skeptics website to see if something is scientific or not? Greetings, Sacca 07:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that most fringe science and pseudoscience is essentially ignored by scientists. Scientists don't go to skeptic websites. They take one look at Stevenson's stuff and toss it in the garbage. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, publish it in medical journals. Mitsube (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the 1970s. Many scientists today toss that special journal series (which was done as a personal favor by a friend of Stevenson) straight into the circular file. It's funny how moribund parapsychology from the research is still heralded now some 34 years later as a "breakthrough" and "revolutionary". It certainly didn't take that long for Galileo, Copernicus, or Kepler to be recognized. YMMV. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Skeptic's dictionary is an adequate source, published by John Wiley & Sons for the paper version, and Carroll as a reputable expert for the topic of skepticism of fringe and paranormal claims. I would use it to verify information for this page. Skepdic also addresses what can be said using Stevenson's methods - "Most people are not likely to be too impressed when they realize that all Stevenson had to show for over forty years of research is that it is now false to claim that there is no evidence for reincarnation. It is still quite reasonable, however, to claim that there is no compelling evidence for reincarnation." [3] The Edelmann's source hasn't been substantively discussed that I'm seen, the above section points to a diff with two words - I would rather see a substantial discussion reaching consensus about a peer-reviewed journal being discarded. I see nothing unequivocal in any of the links or discussion particularly since you replace the same reference here. In addition, though I respect Verbal, that doesn't necessarily mean he is correct - an explicit discussion rather than diffs, would be preferred; and ideally on the WP:RSN. Also, please note that your analysis of the Edelmann article appears to misunderstand Verbal's actions - he's moving it to the end of the paragraph, not removing it outright. Verbal appears to be removing an NPOV statement (that would be the "puffery" referred to in the diff) but keeps the reference for use at the end of the paragraph. Edelmann seems to be a suitable and reliable reference and there does not seem to be consensus it is an unreliable source.

Also, SA's comments seem appropriate and within wikipedia's treatment of pseudoscience. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For discussion of Stevenson's methods we can use the medical literature. In the second diff Verbal does remove the information with reference to RSN. Mitsube (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you link the diff please? Even better would be a link to the RSN archived discussion. Finally, since we're discussing something pseudoscientific, WP:PARITY applies - what is unreliable for a BLP page could very well be reliable for a discussion of a pseudoscientific methodology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"It certainly didn't take that long for Galileo, Copernicus, or Kepler to be recognized." (SA) Well, depends what you mean by recognized. I'm not sure you could say there was a scientific community in the modern sense then to do the recognizing. For the record, a few facts:

1. Copernicus published his suggestion, which was original only in detail, not in general concept, in 1543
2. Kepler published a valid proof of it in 1619
3. in 1633, Galileo rejected Kepler's proof & published an invalid one of his own

Peter jackson (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Valid and invalid proofs cannot be done for empirical science. You might want to be a little more careful in how you word things. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

By all means. Kepler produced a description of the way things work that was far simpler than anything suggested earlier. In accordance with modern scientific practice this would count as establishing the theory. Galileo's argument that the earth's motion explained the tides is wrong.

For an example of scientific ideas taking 34 years to be recognized see Gregor Mendel.

May I suggest you avoid such distractions & concentrate on the main point, that the scientific community, as illustrated e.g. by the US NSF, rejects this sort of thing? Peter jackson (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Kepler's description was more complicated than Copernicus' suggestion. Science moved at a much different pace in the 19th century than it does today. Cheers! ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Kepler's description was a lot simpler than Copernicus', who still had plenty of epicycles, deferents, equants & excentrics, especially if you include the corrections required by later observations. Peter jackson (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How are you measuring "simpler" exactly? The later sections of De Revolutionibus simply don't work even if the epicycles, deferents, equants, and excentrics are used. The details of Copernicus' work result in predictions that are less accurate than the Ptolemaic model and so that is not what we are generally referring to when we discuss Copernicus' suggestion, innovation, or the "Copernican Revolution" even. Only the heliocentric aspect of Copernicus' work can be viably called a "model", and since Copernicus used circles instead of ellipses, his crude suggestion is a simpler model approximation than Kepler's detail adjustments with the introduction of elliptical orbits. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant the simplest explanation that actually fits the facts. Kepler's ellipses are much simpler than Copernicus' detailed system, with necessary corrections, as well as slightly more accurate. But actually the most important thing about Kepler is the 3rd law, which presented a pattern in what had hitherto appeared an arbitrary collection of numbers. And it only works heliocentrically, while the 1st 2 laws work equally well in Brahe's model. And it made predictions that were later verified, though probably only after it had been subsumed under Newton's theory. Peter jackson (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused still by what you mean, though, because Copernicus' detail system did not fit the observational facts. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said. Kepler was more accurate. As observational precision improved, Copernicus' theory (& Ptolemy's) required more & more adjustments to fit. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Undent. This is tangential - the research supporting the existence of reincarnation is highly equivocal and flawed. The "best" is the studies of children - which are verifiably seen as flawed and was only conducted by a single research group. The past life regression "evidence" is nothing of the sort since it is transparently cryptmnesia and confabulation brought about by hypnosis. The remaining "research" is simply about beliefs in reincarnation - which in no way proves its existence. I still see no reason this page can't be merged into reincarnation, particularly the final section. Are there any suggestions on how the main page should be adjusted based on this discussion? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Funding cut-off

Though the information is now gone, the statement that the money that Carlson gave to Stevenson was cut off by Carlson's widow is not supported by the skepdic article. That article says that she was supporting having new faculty brought in to work with Stevenson, and eventually withdrew the funding for that. It doesn't have to do with the money left to further Stevenson's research in Carlson's will. Mitsube (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. Can you find another source that discusses the funding? It looks to me like Carlson's money was not being used for any of Stevenson's work by the time of his death. This is a matter of public record since UVa is a public institution. Anyone feel like digging? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you have misread it. Mitsube (talk)

So I presume you have no other sources on the matter. Well, as the discussion below indicates, I'm not the only one who thinks that you're wrong, so maybe the person who is misreading it is you. Perish the thought! ScienceApologist (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That particular bit of information may be better placed on the Ian Stevenson main page. The skepdic article states "The funding came from Carlson's widow, Dorris, who supported their work until she cut them off in 1973." That pretty clearly verifies that Dorris Carlson cut off Stevenson, any other information or modifications should be based on other sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"The funding" for what, WLU? Mitsube (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

“ 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. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." So, not only was Stevenson allowed to continue his spirit studies, he was able to bring in several prominent parapsychologists to work at UVa, including Gaither Pratt from J. B. Rhine's lab, Rex Stanford, and John Palmer. The funding came from Carlson's widow, Dorris, who supported their work until she cut them off in 1973. For the most part, Stevenson worked alone, though he occasionally collaborated with people from other universities. His UVa colleagues did not knock on his door and ask to join his research program. ”

Presumably the parts in bold. I would say, based on this quote, that Dorris Carlson cut off the funding to pay for Gaither Pratt, Rex Stanford and John Palmer's work. Can you see a different interpretation? And again, I don't think this point is particularly useful on this page, I think it is more relevant on the Ian Stevenson page, so unless someone believes it should be replaced in the article, I don't see much point discussing further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much irrelevant now I guess, but Mitsube is right. The Chester F. Carlson Professorship in Psychiatry was established in 1966 and continues today. This endowment was independent of any money from Carlson's widow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.103.166 (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird sentence

"Many of Stevenson's subjects displayed skills and interests which seem to represent a continuation of skills and interests developed in the claimed previous life."

I think that this sentence doesn't really add substantively to the article and, in fact, detracts from it because it has essentially zero content. From the hedging on "Many" to the vague "skills and interests" to the idea of "developing" them, I just don't understand why this sentence should be here at all. I have removed it because it just doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. There may be something here to discuss, but I'm not sure what it is. Preferably, we should find an independent third-party source which describes this anyway. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to imply a continuity of personality across lifetimes (i.e. people in this life like and do the same things that the people in the previous lives did and liked, which is taken as anecdotal evidence that it's the same person). It's badly written as presented, but it seems to be sourced and attributed - should we rewrite it to be a bit clearer and leave it in? I could go either way with that. --Ludwigs2 06:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think specifics may be required if any point is going to be made here. There is a big difference between "the child liked chocolate and that dead guy also liked chocolate" and "the child picked up a violin and played Paganini as well as the recently deceased concert violinist." ScienceApologist (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation check

Can we get a quote that explains that this line of reasoning found in the article is correct?

"In a review criticizing one of Stevensons' books, the reviewer raised the concern that many of Stevenson's examples were gathered in cultures with pre-existing belief in reincarnation.[5] In order to address this type of concern, Stevenson wrote European Cases of the Reincarnation Type (2003) which presented 40 cases he examined in Europe."

Thanks.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One reviewer said that an aim of European Cases of the Reincarnation Type was to "show that cases of the type described above occur in European cultures, where fewer individuals believe in reincarnation than in Asia" [4]. Another reviewer says the book "provides abundant evidence that a particular objection so prominent in the early days of Ian Stevenson's work is demonstrably inadequate" [5]. Hope this helps. Johnfos (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tags

A large slab of text has been brought in from Reincarnation#Studies of past-life reports, without discussion, to replace much of what we had here, see [6]. Now we have a situation where reincarnation research work is being alluded to but not properly discussed. Far too much basic information is being left unsaid. For example, the phrase "In a review criticizing one of Stevensons' books" is used but the book is not identified. The phrase "Subsequent researchers from his group" is used but these researchers are not identified. The fact that Stevenson wrote twelve books relating to the issue of reincarnation has been removed from the article, along with much other useful material. What we are left with mainly is ridicule of and conjecture about Stevenson, with some very strong language being used. We are told that Stevenson's work has tended to "polarize opinion" but I can't find any source that uses the term "polarize opinion". The term "unwarranted supposition" is another piece of strong language being used but a search of the source has failed to locate this phrase. Much of what is now here is synthesis or poorly sourced material (with no page numbers being cited for the book references used). And at least one unreliable source is used, the Skeptic Report. So I really have no choice but to add POV and "Factual accuracy" tags to the section. Johnfos (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think revising is a good idea. We can say which book it was, feel free to add that. We can identify Jim Tucker. I'm not sure whether twelve books is all that relevant, but I'm open to discussion.

If you don't think Stevenson's work "polarized opinion", then how would you describe it? "Mixed reaction" seems throwaway.

If you'd prefer a synonym for "unwarranted supposition", I'd be glad to consider it.

I don't think there is much synthesis here.

Page numbers can be added. Request them if you are wondering.

Skeptic Report is reliable.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine, happy to work with you on this. Sounds promising. Happy to accept Skeptic Report as reliable if you say so. Will come back to this tomorrow... Johnfos (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis tag

While we're at the tagging game, I think it's time we revisit the question of which secondary sources have linked surveys about reincarnation, Stevenson and Jim Tucker's work, and past life regression under the umbrella of "reincarnation research"? If someone could show me where this collection has been talked about explicitly as "reincarnation research" that would be most appreciated. Otherwise, we may need to spin-out some of these sections into other articles and redirect this page to Stevenson or reincarnation.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing in February, by taking the article to AfD on synthesis grounds. If this did not settle the matter for you, feel free to take the issue to the wider community again and present your case at a new AfD...

"Reincarnation research" is a term commonly used in the literature to describe the things discussed here. Many books use the term reincarnaton research, in a number of different contexts, see Google books

-- Johnfos (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Give me a quote where past life regressions is referred to directly as "reincarnation research" please. Also, find a quote where surveys about people's belief in reincarnation is called "reincarnation research". The only things in all the books you list that are called "reincarnation research" are Jim Tucker and Ian Stevenson's ideations. By that logic, we should remove the other two sections as synthesis. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

External Youtube link

I had added to the external links section both here and at the reincarnation article the following line:

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhMDU9GcVg Reincarnation Evidence: Stevenson's Research]

noting next to the edit summary "hoping that such a youtube link is here welcomed."

However, it has been removed. Care to elaborate a bit? I thought it was pertinent to the matter.

Thanks in advance, Twipley (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me modify my stance in a slight manner: I believe this is a worthwhile contribution and link for here, but probably not for over at the reincarnation article. Twipley (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ckatz, have you even taken a look at the video? I think it to be informative and pertinent to the matter. Without due justification of the removal, I might even go as far as to put it back in the next few days (being bold). Any objections? (Note that I have talked with the producer of the video, and that he sees no wrong in the fact that I have uploaded it to YouTube.) Twipley (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I watched the video. It consists of Robert F. Almeder talking about a book with some claims of reincarnation. The video says that the work in the book is revolutionary and the best explanation for the studies is that reincarnation works. He says that just because we do not know why something happens is no reason to deny that the thing occurs. Also, if 100 people jumped off a tall building and 95 died while 5 landed gently, we should not dismiss the 5 exceptional cases as statistical freaks, but need to investigate the occurrences. In short, the video fails WP:EL and should be removed from External links. It is just someone soapboxing about a topic without saying anything at all that adds to an understanding of the topic. The arguments presented are very weak: no one has ever jumped off a tall building and landed gently, and if someone wrote a book with a claim that such an event had occurred, the rational response would be to ignore it as a mistake, hoax, joke, or other nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sentence for discussion

I'm moving this sentence here for discussion:

There is no scientific evidence of reincarnation, and it is considered to be pseudoscientific.

No one is claiming that there is proof of reincarnation, but some scientific evidence is certainly presented in Old Souls: The Scientific Evidence For Past Lives and Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's Memories of Previous Lives and many other quality sources. Johnfos (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• I always thought reincarnation as a theory was considered pseudoscientific only because it is (or seems) non-refutable. You know, the critical-rationalism epistemology of falsifiability as enunciated by Karl Popper? Ultimately, at least in my book, it depends on the way a given theory is stated, whether the statement should or not be considered pseudoscience. Twipley (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• Reincarnation itself cannot be said to be 'scientific', 'unscientific', 'non-scientific', or 'pseudoscientific'. To that extent, the statement is nonsensical. These terms could be used, however, to describe any attempt to provide a scientific theory of reincarnation. Whether such a theory was 'pseudoscientific' would require elucidation according to the accepted use of that term. I note that Stevenson likened his work to a 'forensic' investigation, since it involved interviewing witnesses, examining bodily markings, etc. In this context, reincarnation might be the best explanation of the data in a particular case. That doesn't make it scientific, of course, but neither does it make it 'pseudoscientific'. The core of the problem for science is the lack of a model to explain the transfer of memories from one person to another across lifetimes. Once again, I'm not sure that the reincarnation research that Stevenson and his colleagues carried out could be called 'pseudoscientific' on that basis. As far as I am aware, they do not try to provide a scientific model to explain the data. They merely gather the data, and some of it is empirical (birthmarks). It seems to me that the birthmarks are akin to wounds in a murder case where no murder weapon has been found. The most that a detective can say is that a wound of this nature is likely to have been caused by such and such a weapon. There is no evidence of a direct cause. In the case of the reincarnation investigator, they can examine the birthmark empirically, say whether it is unusual or not, and claim that it is congruent with a certain type of wound. That would not be pseudoscientific. An attempt to explain a direct causal relationship between a wound on a deceased person and a birthmark on a living person, in terms of a scientifically unverifiable substance, could be pseudoscientific. But, to the best of my knowledge, neither Stevenson nor his colleagues have ever done this. Falsifiability in itself is not a sufficient criterion, and Popper has been criticized for this aspect of his philosophy of science. Simon Kidd (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

@Johnfos...none of those books would be considered WP:RS reliable sources. @Twipley and Simon Kidd...we have a reliable source that says that it is pseudoscientific. Reincarnation research implies science. And it isn't. There is NO reincarnation, but if you want to provide a reliable source from a peer reviewed journal that says we get reincarnated, show it. You're both trying to employ some philosophical runaround to try to delete the sentence. Not sure that works. Reincarnation is the "best explanation" is fallacious at best. In fact, the best explanation would be a hoax, with the next best, someone is remembering a book or a story that replaced another memory. Let's remember Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the best. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, you're imputing a motive to me that doesn't exist. I was not trying to have anything removed. I was merely answering the question as asked. I've no problem with that sentence being there, although I think it should probably read 'According to some, there is no scientific evidence for reincarnation, and attempts to provide a scientific basis for it are pseudoscientific.' That would be more appropriate in a generalist encyclopedia. Simon Kidd (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Johnfos for removing the sentence. It doesn't belong in the introductory section. There is already a section that covers 'reception' and that is where criticism usually goes. I think OrangeMartin misunderstands the significance of reliable sources. Being published in a reliable source does not make something true - it merely means that we can rely on this as an accurate representation of the author's opinion. See here for a review of Mary Roach's book. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that there is very little published about reincarnation research in actually reliable sources. This is expected for a topic that is entirely ignored by most of the scientific community. For this article to imply that its topic is a well-established theory without significant controversy would be misleading in the extreme. Establishing context is a goodly part of what the lead is for. In the interests of providing an accurate summary of the article, the sentence should stay. Is there some way that it could be rephrased to meet your objections without obscuring the point? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mary Roach wrote a book favorable to reincarnation research, as I recall. I guess I need to be reminded if she said something different. And OM: I really object to statements like There is NO reincarnation. Who set you up as the metaphysical judge of everything? Seems to me that the UVA folks did the best research on reincarnation, and they ended up agnostic (or maybe even believing). Hey, maybe it's not my belief either, but one can't act as if one knows everything. Right? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe Anthon has got it here. In another line of thought, and more importantly, I think most of us here may possess different definitions of the terms "theory" and "pseudoscience." I can only speak from my own personal perspective. I used to be a positivist, like Simon Kidd seems to me to be, but with the years I have through reflection changed my mind to that of a "Popperian," experience quite being moved to second, although still much important, rank. In other words, it seems logical to me to assert that unscientific propositions are irrefutable in nature, and vice versa. Currently gained evidence here loses all importance compared to futurely gainable one. Furthermore, although somewhat unrelated to the current argumentation, one of my professors once adopted an oblique-to-mine position in regard to a reincarnation-is-non-science stance of mine -- showing me how a student of his once wrote a thesis which, under a neuropsychological framework, has been supported by gained evidence supporting a certain proposition related to reincarnation-research work as conducted by Stevenson and his team. Twipley (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence as it stood is tantamount to WP:OR. There is no harm in stating that some consider it pseudoscience if it's accompanied by WP:RS, and it is also appropriate to say that some consider Stevenson to have been rigorous (of course with WP:RS). It's not our job to make unattributable conclusions that exclude other attributable views - in this case the unattributed claim that "there is no scientific evidence of reincarnation" suggests the listed WP:RS's that take a different view don't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.103.166 (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is better, isn't it?

I made a change: [7].

It was reverted because the edits were "POV".

I'd like to discuss this. What makes the edits "POV"?

I think that these edits conform more closely to the sources and get rid of an unrelated bit of nonsense from Roger Penrose.

Thanks,

128.59.169.46 (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly upsetting that Orangemarlin continues to avoid the talk page. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look at your changes. I have only looked at the "three examples", where you are misrepresenting a direct quote from Carl Sagan in order to push a certain POV.

I haven't checked the accuracy of the rest of changes, but they all appear to carry the same POV. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What POV is it that I'm supposed to be pushing here? How exactly is the quote "misrepresented"? In the section of the Demon-Haunted World where this subject is lightly touched-upon, the context is pretty clear that Carl Sagan is only saying that he was intrigued by these reincarnation stories. Right now, the article breathlessly proclaims that he thought it was one of the most promising lines of research! I'm just trying to get this to comport properly with the source. Do you disagree? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You were changing the meaning of Sagan's own words: removing the contention that the claims might be true. And you were implying that the existence of validating data was only his personal belief, when he was plain out asserting the objective existence of the data. I can't read your mind, of course, but you appear to be introducing inadvertently your own opinion, subtly altering what Sagan actually said. If you want to insert that context, it will have to be based in what sources actually say.--Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sagan indeed said that the claims "might be true", but he said it based on the evidence he cited not based on his personal (non-)belief in reincarnation. Essentially, what the current wording says is that Sagan thinks that it is possible that reincarnation is happening. If you read the chapter referenced, it's pretty clear that he's saying he finds the evidence intriguing: enough so that he doesn't dismiss the evidence outright. The conclusions, on the other hand, are not parsimonious which was the point Sagan was making when describing why scientists simply IGNORE pseudoscience. That's the context. So, how does that fit into the subject of this article other than by carefully pointing out that Sagan was only intrigued by the evidence NOT the outcomes? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it could be feasible, but you are not going to achieve it by changing direct quotes.

P.D.: Errrr, Carl Sagan does think that reincarnation might be true? That bit about 1% of pseudoscience turning out to be correct at the start of the relevant paragraph in his book? And saying that those claims "deserve serious study". Maybe you are simply wrong about Sagan. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pure OR, but Sagan said, "We are all star stuff contemplating star stuff." From everything I've read from Sagan, his belief was that we were "reincarnated" into new stars and planets (and by that logic, life) as the universe regenerates itself. I'm going with Enric Naval that you are wrong about Sagan, though you wouldn't be the first. There's some other article that claims Sagan was religious or something. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I'll continue down the OR track, but Sagan was big into the pot smoking hippie-ness of the possibilities of what intelligent life meant in the context of the universe and specifically was interested in the possibilities of intelligence beyond The Astonishing Hypothesis of Crick. In many ways, the public's ongoing obsession with SETI owes much to Sagan's (mildly fallacious) belief that intelligent life was almost the teleological goal of the universe. But his ideas to this effect are left intentionally vague and more-or-less obfuscated. For example, while the religious content in the movie "Contact" was emphasized heavily, Sagan really de-emphasizes this in the book. I'm sure you're aware that the "reincarnation" bit you're referencing here is one of pure physical rearrangement. It's no secret that the majority of atoms in our bodies were forged in stellar furnaces. But I've read a lot of Sagan and I've never seen him even hint that he thought stars and planets had any persistence of personality or consciousness.

To be clear, the context of Demon-Haunted World is one where the parapsychology "movement" was still in its early excited phase and the academic community was more-or-less going along with the idea that it could become an academic field. The three bits of parapsychology evidence Sagan seems enamored with are random number generator ESP tests, Ganzfeld-type experiments, and Stevenson's stuff. There was a time when academics thought that parapsychologists were actually being methodologically sound in their research. That time has passed, of course, and it is hardly fair to poor dead Sagan to prop up a dying field like this with a quote he can no longer comment upon (unless I'm his reincarnation or something).

So, this is my issue. What we have here is an article which uses the "skeptical" authority of Carl Sagan (known for his famous baloney detection kit) to prop up the ill-considered qualitative work of a biochemist who, as a child, was indoctrinated into a belief in reincarnation by a strict theosophist mother. I'm just saying that by calling me the "POV-pusher" you all are missing the real point of what is going on here: namely that supporters of parapsychology are trying to use Wikipedia to roll back the clock and make it look like these guys were on to something when they can't even get their wares published in mainstream psychology journals any more let alone flagship interdisciplinary journals of record like Nature or Science.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I never changed any direct quotes. I'm not sure why you think I did. I've got the book right in front of me and am reading the paragraph, he's definitely saying that he doesn't think that the claims are valid (i.e. "parsimonious") but instead he's saying that he believes that because of intriguing research the claims are worthy of consideration. The "truth-value" is caught up in the phrase: "but as examples of contentions that might be true." This does not in my reading seem to indicate that Carl Sagan is saying that he thinks reincarnation is possible. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Explain a diff: Roger Penrose and "quantum consciousness"

Roger Penrose is a brilliant fellow who, like many older scientists, has gone down a rabbit hole of crankiness with his obsessions over quantum mind issues. Regardless, this curious side-note into this storied academic's career is not related to reincarnation whatsoever. Please leave this original research out.

[8]

128.59.169.46 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate tag

This tag that Orangemarlin posted is pointing out a big problem with the prose. Stevenson was able to get some of his friends to support his methodology, but he was never able to convince anyone (including, arguably, himself) of the reality of reincarnation. Essentially, the man devoted his life to careful study of a fantasy. Meticulous data collection aside, that does not a good researcher make. That he was lauded by various commentators including some rather prominent psychologists perhaps says more about the climate of the 1970s when this research first started being conducted (far more accepting of parapsychology nonsense than today's academic climate) than it does about the actual worthiness of Stevenson's research. Harping on the point that he was a good researcher is essentially special pleading. If he was a terrible researcher, we wouldn't have an article on him.

In short, I think that we need to remove a lot of this puff-piece praise for Stevenson's work. It remains a backwater field and a moribund project, Tucker's continuing promotions notwithstanding.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good edits. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

More past lives research

Thirty Years Among the Dead by Dr. Carl A. Wickland, M.D.. Originally published in 1924. This book suggests that an obsessing spirit may transfer memories to an earthly person, giving the impression that the earthly person was remembering their own past life. Wickland's theory is rather that the earthly person is "remembering" the departed spirit's past life. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the Carl Wickland stub but found that the links there to external sources are dead. Many more citations are needed there to present reliable info on his research. Then we should be in a better position to assess how relevant his work is to this page and how notable it is. Johnfos (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Free download at [9] --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Have added Carl Wickland as a See also link... Johnfos (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

An introduction to possible broad support for reincarnation

Much new material [10] has been added from a single source and I feel it is not entirely on topic and is WP:Undue weight. Perhaps it would be more suited to another article, (perhaps Human Genome Project or one of its sub-articles), or could be cut down drastically for inclusion of a summary here. Johnfos (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree (and sorry about the delay). First, if you bracket down "Reincarnation research" to cases - and here a few cases - then what are you left with? Taking "expert" opinions on their veracity? Even if skeptics(/a few scientists) acknowledged that a case was a likely instance of reincarnation (unlikely to say the least), then still, so what? Such cases appear to happen once in a blue moon. By the way, in what way do individual cases exceed the suggestive import of the transgender phenomenon?

The big picture of reincarnation's possible generality has apparently been long overlooked and is appropriate here. It is also a very common pre-modern view. I have succinctly pulled three points from a 2011 paper which introduces this overdue and complementary approach. It is dominated by big conservative references (mostly Sci Am and NYT). Why not consider the gaps in science as consistent with - and evidence for - the reincarnation phenomenon? Conversely, the presumption of the correctness of the scientific view has been used to marginalize this topic.

The suggestion for inclusion in the Human Genome Project is a telling one. Trying to get an alternative view of life published there, in which the primary source is not a main stream science publication (how could it have been?), would be absolute futility. If you want to bracket down "Reincarnation research" to make it main stream science-kosher then the obvious "cut down drastically" update is to get rid of the topic. This new section might possibly open up the coverage and encourage questioning the scientific understanding of life.

BasicPerspective (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ted Christopher has an interesting thesis, that reincarnation could explain several anomalies of human diversity where there is no available materialist-based explanation. It would be good to look at Christopher's complete article but we may be able to go by what's written here as an accurate summary. I'm not sure how much the argument is about reincarnation per se, as opposed to simply there is probably some transcendent aspect of human existence that explains these things, which might be reincarnation or simply a non-material "soul". I think the tie-in specifically to reincarnation needs to be made clearer.

I am concerned that there may be original research here based on your statement "I have succinctly pulled three points from a 2011 paper which introduces this overdue and complementary approach." We can't use our own ideas here, only what Christopher (and others?) have said about reincarnation in published papers. Christopher himself must explicitly point to the gaps in science as evidence for reincarnation, and a direct quote from him would be very good to show this.

Also the way this section is written now is more a summary of a published paper than a distillation of Christopher's thesis as it applies to reincarnation, hence a bit of WP:UNDUE weight. A better approach would pare the text down to a shorter section along the lines -- "Ted Christopher has proposed that reincarnation may be an explanation of a number of anomalies of human diversity which materialist-based explanations do not address adequately: (A), (B), (C), and (D)." I would also suggest we find a better section title.

Finally, I wonder what reaction there has been to this paper? Any commentary published in response? Even though EXPLORE is published by Elsevier, I will wager other editors will dispute that this paper is a reliable source. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with EPadmirateur's analysis. The section not entirely on topic and is WP:Undue weight, etc. and I have now removed it. Johnfos (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to preserve this summary of the Christopher article for further analysis. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

An alternative research approach is to look for large scale evidence for reincarnation which should stand out from science’s expectations. Ted Christopher used this approach in an introductory essay in Elsevier’s EXPLORE (and also used the term “transcendental”). The possible support for reincarnation considered included: some suggestive behavioral enigmas; the mysteries surrounding monozygotic or identical twins; and the very surprising inability thus far to identify the DNA origins of some of our innate features (i.e., science’s “missing heritability problem”).

In considering behavioral enigmas, it was stated that

there are a number of unexplained phenomena including some innate phobias or philias, prodigies, unexpected sexual orientations, and particular anomalies such as children born nerd-inclined. Also ... a psychology experiment has suggested that most young children do not view death as the end of psychological being.

Additionally, some “people [spend] their entire lives wishing they were the opposite sex and [recently it was reported] ... that many of them who have undergone sex-change efforts (transitioned) ‘knew they had been born into the wrong gender from childhood’”? Also science has observed very surprising and diverse personalities amongst several animal species.

The EXPLORE article discussed the contradictions between science’s material-only understanding of life and those associated with the premodern reincarnation-influenced perspective. With the former, DNA “created us, body and mind” and that DNA came together in the happenstance of conception (and thus each of is incredibly lucky to be alive). Alternatively, with reincarnation there would be an underlying nonmaterial soul (Ian Stevenson’s “psychophore”) which would influence an individual’s life. Such a soul could be apparent via otherwise inexplicable behavioral tendencies, our dualistic sense, and also perhaps via transcendental cause and effect relationships influencing an individual’s fate (including health). In this sense, “to the degree that science can show that the conception-beget DNA plus realistic environmental impacts define individuals, then this would minimize the import associated with possible [reincarnation]”. This hypothesis would have to be extended to include whatever pans out from science’s follow-up theories, including epigenetics and jumping genes, although only epigenetics is possibly relevant to heredity.

The search for those DNA origins has been frustrating thus far,

The central follow-up to the Human Genome Project has after a “tour de force” effort - in a “beyond belief” finding - identified “almost nothing” connecting the common variations in DNA to the occurrences [and apparent heredity] of common diseases like cancer, diabetes, and mental illnesses.

Thus the development of “personalized medicine” is still “postponed”. This disease disconnect could be consistent with a transcendental cause and effect process. In the behavioral realm only 0.4% of the variation in intelligence scores has been attributed to the common variations in DNA. Christopher’s article discussed aspects of the possible complementary contributions of reincarnation, and also mentioned that because “transcendental living import would be independent of DNA, it does not appear it would have any direct impact on evolution”.

Also considered were some relevant mysteries surrounding monozygotic twins. These include the causes of the initial split of the single cell zygote; their large differences (including personality and health); their amazing closeness (“when separated at birth and reunited as adults, they say they feel like they have known each other all their lives.”); and their shared behavioral tendencies which they can exhibit even when raised separately. An example of their differences is that the likelihood of a male monozygotic twin of an exclusively homosexual twin will also be gay, is only 20 to 30%.

From other reincarnation research and traditional beliefs, it was suggested that identical twins were very close in a previous life and that this led to them being born together. This could account for their rough personality similarities - as often found between close friends, shared behavioral preferences, large differences, and also their extraordinary closeness. “Superficially, such twins are material-only replicas produced by the same DNA blueprint, but underneath there are two separate beings with mostly separate backgrounds accounting for much of their unexpected differences”.

This is in response to the removal of my content. And secondly to the reasonable points raised by EPadmirateur.

First, I take it Johnfos has apparently waited for something he could take as a seconding of his desire to remove the new section and has simply removed the section. This is utter bullshit. We will cross wiki-paths again.

Second, EPadmiratuer I suggest simply giving the (now) existing section a good read thru. Probably want to print it out as I did. You have some standard introductory blurb-age and then two minute case summaries. Minimal education value to this point. Then the apparent the punchline - the conclusions and reception section - which perhaps has a final ceiling or an asymptotic value of a Sam Harris quote from a dogshit-caliber article. That quote - like the rest of the spin - has no meaning at all. Who couldn't or wouldn't say something like "or something interesting is going on" and to what effect? The current article is a dead-end on an important topic.

All of the stuff that was added was very relevant and basic material. If the reincarnation cases reflected something real than there would likely be a bigger footprint associated with it. That is what was introduced here. We aren't talking about ice cores from the Antarctic in which the data and analysis are inherently limiteds to a few experts. This is basic newspaper and general science magazine stuff with an obvious backdrop to everyday life. Who cares who wrote it when you can check the material out yourself? That new section had significant educational - and very relevant - content. Scientists are very unlikely to address the ideas raised because to do so would draw attention to just how clueless they currently are.

The larger question here is whether wikipedia-ists are willing open up such significant and taboo topics to significant user input. What would be wrong with having a follow-up section on innate inexplicable phobias. Articles on such topics show pretty regularly with a significant suggestive reincarnation input (sometimes with explicit comments to that effect by the phobia-ists and of course never with any of the cited "experts" acknowledging that). Science doesn't reject reincarnation, it will not consider it.

The conservative model you could follow for such topics would be NYT's. Avoid the topic completely and more generally never question science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicPerspective (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi BasicPerspective, regarding User:Johnfos, please assume good faith. WP does not need to be adversarial, but there needs to be a spirit of collaboration since we are all equals as editors. In my experience, Johnfos is a very reasonable person and a fair-minded WP editor. But collaboration means being willing to discuss reasonably and make compromises.

I think some accommodation can be worked out because I think Ted Christopher's thesis is interesting and relevant here. However, there are several problems with presenting it in this way -- a repetition the thesis. First, that approach affords it undue weight given the rest of the body of reincarnation research. Any revised mention of the thesis needs to focus on the essential argument, not every detail -- people who are interested in the details can follow the references. Secondly the thesis is broader than the focused area of this article so the revised summary needs to highlight the essential argument regarding reincarnation. Finally, we need to avoid original research and include only what Christopher says regarding reincarnation.

So, I think some shorter, more focused summary of Christopher's paper can be put in this article. Are you willing to work with other editors to do that? --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The whittled-down version I could imagine would be taking the 4 sentence abstract and simply quoting it.

The question I re-state is - what kind of a trajectory have you bracketed this topic down to? Look at a phenomenon like the transgender one. Certainly suggestive of reincarnation. But if you limit yourself to explicit articles from this perspective you get the null set.

The pre-update - and post-deletion - article doesn't say much and focuses on spin. Is that what you want? (By the way, Tucker's book has a number of American cases including ones involving parents who are religiously nonaligned/opposed to the idea of reincarnation but whose experiences led them to a different conclusion. Retracting some spin - beginning with the Harris quote - could have been paired with some better cases.)

The focus you are implying warrants an updated article title, like "Case-based reincarnation research". To me "Reincarnation research" implies investigative efforts trying to find evidence for or against the common premodern idea of reincarnation(/metempsychosis/other synonyms).

BasicPerspective (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting your point here very well. Prior reincarnation research focused on memories of an apparent past life in young children with suggestive corroborating evidence from the facts of the remembered life and from birthmarks mimicking injuries suffered in the past life. The lead has the statement "No line of research has conclusively demonstrated the existence of reincarnation."

Ted Christopher has presented a thesis that suggests possibly one or several new lines of research. His proposal, I think, is still very preliminary. Therefore a only summary of his thesis is appropriate as it relates to reincarnation. You can't use his abstract because the abstract doesn't say much about his argument, just that there is the “missing heritability” problem with the DNA-based model suggesting "an underlying complementary transcendental contribution to life", i.e. a soul or something like that. Therefore the "the common premodern transcendental perspective" might fill in the "hole in the scientific understanding of life". Nothing at all is mentioned of the implications for understanding reincarnation in his abstract.

So from what you wrote, his argument seems to be: there are all these anomalous phenomena -- such as the mysteries surrounding monozygotic twins or the drive for gender transformation -- which can't be explained by prevailing, materialist DNA-based model. These phenomena suggest that an underlying transcendent nonmaterial soul causally influences the person's life giving rise to these otherwise inexplicable behavioral tendencies and health outcomes -- the things that science's conception-beget DNA plus realistic environmental impacts can't explain. The identical twin problem in particular can be explained best from this perspective -- also borrowing from other reincarnation research and traditional beliefs -- identical twins were very close in a previous life and that this led to their being born together: “Superficially, such twins are material-only replicas produced by the same DNA blueprint, but underneath there are two separate beings with mostly separate backgrounds accounting for much of their unexpected differences”. Christopher conceded that science's "follow-up" theories, like epigenetics and jumping genes, might be able to explain some things materialistically, or might support this hypothesis.

That could be the basis for a section on Christopher's thesis. I would hope that Christopher has proposed some lines of research suggested by his theory that will further support his thesis.

Your comment that "The pre-update - and post-deletion - article doesn't say much and focuses on spin. Is that what you want?" gives the impression that we WP editors have -- or should have -- a particular agenda. That's incorrect. As editors, we are reporters of the existing reliably-sourced literature. If the reincarnation researchers have "focused on spin" then that's what the article needs to reflect. If Ted Christopher has added something that adds to reincarnation research, then that should be put in. But it all needs to be balanced -- Christopher's one paper versus a lifetime plus of research and publication. If Christopher's thesis gains some traction among other researchers and there are further developments, then this section could be expanded. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)