What is your opinion on this subject? What do you think about this story:http://www.fox8.com/wjw-reincarnation-tx...0900.story ? Real or an elaborate hoax?

You mean apart from it being bollocks?

Kyu

(June 21, 2009 at 5:27 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: You mean apart from it being bollocks?

Kyu

It's that open minded attitude and your ability to not jump to conclusions and really consider all the various aspects of an argument that we really like about you Kyu..

(June 21, 2009 at 5:27 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: You mean apart from it being bollocks?

Kyu

That's my exact opinion on it as well, that video seems pretty convincing for some, but I doubt the credibility of the source.

(June 21, 2009 at 5:41 am)Darwinian Wrote: It's that open minded attitude and your ability to not jump to conclusions and really consider all the various aspects of an argument that we really like about you

Why go through all the pain and hardship when you already know what the conclusion will be? I just cut out the middleman.

Kyu

Kyuu is most efficient!!

Entertaining video for the morning cup o' coffee. But I would also question the credibility of the source.


Edited to answer the question "Real or an elaborate hoax?" I call elaborate hoax.

(June 21, 2009 at 7:52 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Why go through all the pain and hardship when you already know what the conclusion will be? I just cut out the middleman.

This is the same attitude the creationists take. The fact is, we don't know what the conclusion will be, and we will never know. Science doesn't prove things, it gives them a probability of being correct. Just because reincarnation (replace with any weird pseudoscience or belief) hasn't got any evidence to back it up doesn't mean the evidence won't eventually turn up.

Your attitude is the complete opposite of skepticism. If we took the same attitude you took, Lynn Margulis wouldn't be recognized as the person who discovered how eukaryotic organelles originated. In the 80's she came up with the idea and it was rejected because there was no sound evidence to support it. However, when she came up with a testable theory and the evidence to support it, science had no option but to agree. The point is, instead of rejecting it without even looking, they heard what she had to say, researched into her findings, and made a decision.

Hmmm.

But there are uncountable absurd things without evidence though, Adrian. So it's up to whoever to decide whether to spent his/her time checking X thing without evidence out right?

Because there is no time in one lifetime, never mind countless lifetimes, to check out if there's any evidence for the uncountable things that you so far know of no evidence of ( the FSM, Russell's Teapot, Zeus, "God", the Afterlife, etc, etc, etc the list goes on and on and on)...so how does one objectively decide what to spend time checking out if there's any evidence of or not exactly?

Why should reincarnation, for instance, be (objectively) put above any other (at least seemingly) absurd thing without evidence? And if it shouldn't (as I don't see how it should) - then isn't it simply up to you what you spend your time checking out? Aren't all bets off when it comes to absurd things that thus far at least, appear to lack evidence?

I mean you might as well get the telescope out and search for Russell's Teapot mightn't you? And if not, are you being unskeptical?

And if you think that's a strawmen...please do clarify why

EvF

It's not a strawman; what it is is a refutation of a point I didn't even make.

I am not saying we should all be investigating things that have no evidence; what I object to is when someone presents some supposed evidence and Kyu rejects it without even analyzing it. I happen to agree with him that the video itself is "bollocks", but what I think myself and Darwinian were commenting on was his attitude that anything that is related to reincarnation is automatically "bollocks". Such an attitude is both anti-scientific and close-minded. The correct position to take on these claims is one of neutrality. Once a video like the above one has been debunked (which I think you can do pretty easily) then perhaps we can move it to the realm of "bollocks", but not before, and certainly not globally on any evidence presented.

If you are presented with evidence that goes against what you personally believe, or what science has deemed impossible, you can do a few things:

1) Ignore it (which is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but you cannot expect to then keep going around saying "there is no evidence" seeing as you were presented with some and ignored it). Most creationists seem to choose this one.
2) Look at it from a neutral perspective and make a decision (which is what skepticism / science is all about).
3) Keep hold of your preconceptions about the subject, and reject the evidence on the basis of these preconceptions.

Now of course, I could be wrong about Kyu's attitude; he could be just making a light-hearted remark, but if it is a serious position then I object to it. Everything should be open to criticism and evaluation, and when new evidence arises, we should investigate it, not just assume the fallacy that because claim X has had no supporting evidence so far, new evidence Y must be invalid.

Well the fact that you haven't looked at the presented evidence for something as absurd as reincarnation, (so far believed to be absurd by people such as me anyway) that of course doesn't mean there can't be any evidence, indeed. Because you can't possibly know that and you haven't checked it out yet, right.

But what I wonder is if there's no real, practical reason to take it any more seriously than the FSM...then I'm thinking that if you believe that Kyu's attitude is indeed as you say "that anything that is related to reincarnation is automatically "bollocks"." and that "Such an attitude is both anti-scientific and close-minded." - then I wonder if you would also say that it's anti-scientific and close minded to say that anything releated to the FSM is automatically bollocks?

Now on principle, of course you can't absolutely know that anything related to the FSM is bollocks. But in a practical and sense you can very seriously argue that it's so bloody improbable that it's not bollocks that it's a waste of time to look into it right...(the FSM that is)...would you agree with that? And if so...do you believe it's the same case with reincarnation or not?

I don't think Kyu is claiming what would, indeed, be fallacy. Namely; because I think he's aware of the negative proof fallacy. That of course being that whether he checks the 'presented evidence' out or not...it's a fallacy to believe it's absolutely disproved. It's perhaps possible that reincarnation could still exist with or even without evidence - simply because you can't prove a negative

EvF