• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

Alternative explanations - why bother ?

hedpe9999 said:
I don't think it's possible. Science gains its currency through mathematical models and/or empirical investigation(material causes and effects). That is why physics only deals with the simplest of physical systems. Once it is cut loose from the empirical realm, it devolves into metaphysical speculation and loses its power. Take a look at the current crisis in physics with the speculations on string theory and multiverses. Nobody even knows how to test these "theories."
Click to expand...

Except that physics and the science that's 'proven' reincarnation (judging by all the books of case studies and metaphysical speculation written by very convinced psychiatrists/psychologists) operate entirely differently, in spite of the fact that both are theoretical sciences.

Physics measures the behavior of objects. Psychology measures the behavior of people.

To keep myself occupied during my denial period, I spent 10 years studying one particular aspect of human psychology in order to prove a theory of mine that was entirely unrelated to reincarnation. To do so, I analyzed the available data and mined it for datapoints and correlations. And then crunched the numbers. Available data in psychology = case studies.

Psychology measures data by correlating case studies obtained in a research project. They prove things by presenting the numbers gained from analyzing the case studies and mining them for datapoints and correlations, and then they make nice charts and graphs out of them. That's the hard data.

From what I've been hearing from people, most psychologists are open to the subject when it comes to their patients talking about it, because they've gotten convinced. I know my brother, a psychologist, is a believer. But the code of silence means he doesn't admit it to his colleagues easily.

But, the only scientific people writing about the subject are not presenting the charts, graphs and statistics that their case studies should be providing them with. They are also gathering their case studies randomly in the course of practice, not in the framework of a study, or according to a fixed model.

Don't point fingers at the scientists who don't admit they believe. Point them at the ones who do.

Phoenix
 
Ah, I thought you meant a reincarnation science in the spirit of the "hard" sciences (understanding the mechanics of it, creating mathematical models, etc.). In terms of the "soft" sciences, I think reincarnation research would fit in quite nicely.
 
hedpe9999 said:
Ah, I thought you meant a reincarnation science in the spirit of the "hard" sciences (understanding the mechanics of it, creating mathematical models, etc.). In terms of the "soft" sciences, I think reincarnation research would fit in quite nicely.
Click to expand...

The difference between hard and soft sciences is largely a matter of semantics (hard sciences are generally considered 'more equal' than soft sciences).

Phoenix
 
Phoenix said:
The difference between hard and soft sciences is largely a matter of semantics (hard sciences are generally considered 'more equal' than soft sciences).

Phoenix
Click to expand...


The point I was trying to make is that reincarnation research will always be based on anecdotal evidence like the social sciences. It will never achieve the ability to map all local causes and effects like physics or chemistry. Therefore, reincarnation researchers will never have a way to understand this phenomenon with any depth.
 
With the current level of technology at our disposal we are indeed limited to anecdotal evidence regarding people's subjective experience. As Phoenix has so rightly said data gathering in this area has been sloppy and haphazard at best. Because of this our understanding is quite patchy and prone to misunderstanding and liberal interpretation of the facts (such as are available) by those wishing to push their particular barrows. A bit like palaentologists making great leaps of deduction about dinosaur behaviour from looking at a single tooth, many of our beliefs may be inclined to be erroneous or at least inaccurate. But this does not mean we will 'never' be able to gain a greater, more in depth understanding of reincarnation, the nature of 'life' and consciousness and even perhaps some inkling into the workings of the soul.

Michael Talbot described a very interesting experiment in The Holographic Universe (I don't have the book here, but someone may be able to provide the name of the researcher involved?). A psychologist had begun to believe in reincarnation after having many patients regress 'accidentally' to previous lives under hypnosis. She decided she wanted 'proof' so she set about to hypnotise 1000 people from all walks of life and asked them a stock set of questions about an historical period between 1860-1890 (or something).

The results were highly consistent. People recalled the period very clearly, various minute and quite specialised historical details were very consistently described, their demographics (whether they were rich/poor, male/female, young/old) fit with the demographics of the time (eg. there were only one or two wealthy aristrocratic people, most were involved in some menial work, etc). There were a handful (who were not 'incarnated' at that time presumably) who came back with some fairly bizarro stories, but on the whole I would say that this is the type of study that would provide real, useful, verifiable data which would tend to support a belief in reincarnation. Really, not that difficult to carry out if a bit time-consuming and also fairly easy results to replicate I would have thought.
 
A psychologist had begun to believe in reincarnation after having many patients regress 'accidentally' to previous lives under hypnosis. She decided she wanted 'proof' so she set about to hypnotise 1000 people from all walks of life and asked them a stock set of questions about an historical period between 1860-1890 (or something)
Click to expand...

I think the person your thinking of is Helen Wambach.
 
Thank you Zetascair, that's the very one.

Helen Wambach

"Initially motivated by a desire to debunk reincarnation, beginning in the mid-1960s, Helen Wambach conducted a 10-year survey of past-life recalls under hypnosis among 1,088 subjects. She asked very specific questions about the time periods in which people lived and the clothing, footwear, utensils, money, housing, etc. which they used or came in contact with. Wambach concluded found peoples' recollections to be amazingly accurate and wrote that ''fantasy and genetic memory could not account for the patterns that emerged in the results. With the exception of 11 subjects, all descriptions of clothing, footwear, and utensils were consistent with historical records.''
Click to expand...

She has done a similar experiments looking into the future with startling and somewhat unsettling results and has also done studies taking people to their 'life between lives' states.
 
The progression book is called Mass Dreams of the Future. It is very interesting as the future she saw was fairly consistent and confirmed by other authors, such as Bruce Goldberg and Brian Weiss. I definately recommend it. I can see how we are heading towards such a future already. I've seen similar in my own progressions.
 
hedpe9999 said:
will never achieve the ability to map all local causes and effects like physics or chemistry. Therefore, reincarnation researchers will never have a way to understand this phenomenon with any depth.
Click to expand...

Considering that science still has not figured out why larger objects have more gravitational pull than small ones, only that they do, I am not too worried about the need to understand why reincarnation works. As long as it does, I'm cool with that.

Physics, a very theoretical science, has observed that some objects behave in different ways (sometimes a wave, sometimes not), but they don't have the slightest idea what the cause is. Only that it happens.

Science is based on progressive discoveries. Baby steps. First, prove that something happens. Then, some other guy comes along and develops a theory as to why or how, and then it goes from there. First, you have to have some basis for the rest of the discoveries.

Like Newton who came along with 'gravity happens' after that apple bonked him on the noggin. Everyone else has built on that foundation.

Phoenix
 
https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/21/jse_21_3_tucker.pdf


In my opinion this article is relevant to this discussion. It's always good to be open for other possibilities, but in my opinion there's enough evidence to prove at least that reincarnation is a possible explanation to these cases. Even probable explanation for stronger cases. (I believe in reincarnation and many people on this forum have had enough proof for themselves. By "possible explanation" I meant people who are oblivious of reincarnation research and how these things could be presented to them.)
 
Yes, indeed, very interesting. Just one thought. The example of the false memory from the post #3 does not really prove in my mind that the woman's memory was false. It is a little bit of a chicken and egg question. Could it be that she remembered what she read in the museum so well because it reminded her of her experience in the PL? It is curious that she remembered what she read in the brochure in such detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top