Would this be decent evidence for reincarnation?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Statistically they are meaningless without evidence to back them up.

This is the evidence in question. The past life memories of young children. This is something you can put to the test but unlike most paranormal claims we're looking at a statistically significant hit rate with an absence of any of the usual con-artist techniques. Sure it's not proof of reincarnation as there may potentially be another explanation for it.

This isn't evidence of anything yet, though, is it? It's evidence of maybe 'something', but reading through all of your posts, that 'something' seems to be reincarnation.

This is the crux of the debate, and also what I'm trying to get through to you about. There is just as much evidence for reincarnation as there is for 'me' being everyone in the world; nothing.

They very well could be evidence of something, which is to say, they could be evidence of nothing at all.

There will have to be a good explanation for this high level of accurate predictive statements. If someone can get 9/10 details right there is a reason to explain how they are able to do this. Reincarnation is suitable explanation, certainly the children themselves claim to have lived before. No reason we know about why they couldn't have done, yes so we don't know how it's supposed to work but I'm sure we don't know quite a lot.

No, it isn't. How many times does one have to say this to you?

You're putting the cart before the horse. There is no evidence of reincarnation. Nothing. Nada. Zero. There could be evidence of 'something' (yet to be pursuaded), but that is NOT evidence of reincarnation. It appears, from our short exchange, that the only thing this supports is your own belief in wanting it to be true. This is un-scientific, and reveals why we are skeptical.

But, again, that does not thus equate to the thesis of reincarnation being right. You're putting the cart before the horse and presuming the thesis is correct using the suppositional 'evidence' that is provided. This is the wrong way around.

It would be a straightforward explanation for how a child can know details of a former life. You don't have to go out of your way to make it more complicated if you don't have to. No reason we know of why that couldn't happen it's well outside of our knowledge or experience of the world. Whether it means religions had it right it could just be a lucky guess on a certain detail.

*sigh*

See above. There is no evidence for reincarnation. You are believing something without any foundation for it to be true. Not all the variables are accounted for. In fact, as you would surely agree, not even all the variables are known.

It's still not even proven that there is anything to research!. Claims of causation and/or correlation does not equate to the same! This is logical and skeptical inquiry 101. Presumption of the conclusion based on incomplete/un-verified data leads to sloppy science and discounted claims.

Eliminate all other possiblities. What you are left with must be a semblance of the truth.

If an explanation is straightforward and would fit the evidence you have then there is a high probability that it is true.

FALSE.

I have nothing further to say other than to reiterate the above. There is no evidence of anything.

The research currently conducted seems eons away from that at the moment.

It's probably because 95% of scientists share your attitude to anything like this and won't want to touch it with a barge pole. This isn't getting properly researched. Same goes for a number of other phenomenon that are poo pooed.

Irrelevent.

If there is something to be found, it will be found. I completely understand why people think those who believe in reincarnation are loons do so. The author of the book your cited has respectibility and academic integrity precisely because he does not draw a conclusion from the incomplete evidence to which he is researching in. In fact, reading from the book reviews, he discounts a lot of what he investigates as derviatives of coincidence. He doesn't claim that reincarnation is true (that I can read), and if he did, then I would also have to dismiss him too based on the principle of standard scientific investigation and the collation and dismissal of unverifyable evidence.

It could be explained away perfectly by natural, easily verified data.

By chance you're only going to get a certain hit rate of guesses. If you have something significantly better than chance then something significant will account for it.

Assertion. No evidence.

It could be nothing, just a blip of coincidence.

If it was just one case perhaps but it occurs throughout the world and in all cultures including cultures that don't generally believe in reincarnation such as our own.

Which may be true, whatever 'it' is, even if 'it' exists (which, do I have to remind you, IS NO PROVEN!). Still not evidence for reincarnation.

It could be lies.

Young children aren't very good at lying, you can tell because they cover their mouths with hands as though to conceal the lie. Adults are much less obvious and may touch their finger to their lips briefly.

Irrelevent.

Bares no relevence as to whether reincarnation is true, or whether there is even a phenoenon worth researching into.

Not good enough. 'Apparently the best explaination' to me = no evidence, just presumption and guesswork. Again, I refuse to accept this as 'true' until all avenues of exploration have been conducted and all other explanations dismissed. This is not the case. Even the book you cite admits this.

We have evidence of something interesting and now we have to find a good explanation for the evidence we have. A good explanation is that consciousness is somehow separable from the body and can be transferred into other bodies via some kind of process we don't as of yet understand. There could potentially be a better explanation if you can think of one.

SEE: Above. No evidence, just assertion of what is true.

I don't know of a better explanation because I have no reason to believe that any of your assertions are true. But I can think of an infinite number of other explanations as to what is occuring if we take it as given that there is something going on at all.

All equally sound as reincarnation based on the fact that there is no evidence for reincarnation.

Parsimony doesn't equate to adequate, especially not in this case, and especially when the data is so lacking.

I think the data is lacking because it isn't being seriously researched. To many scientists something like this would be the equivalent of a religious heresy as they're deeply invested in a materialist worldview this wouldn't really support.

So here we see the first casual reference to a bias against the context to which you are basing your claims.

This would explain why you are so willing to accept something that has ZERO evidence to back it up yet casually dismissal of this fact when people such as myself and several others on this thread bring it up.

And the context of your claims is that paranormal/supernatural occurances have NEVER once been found to be true or accurate. Not once. Everything that was once thought to be magic has turned out to be not magic, to quote Tim Minchin. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You need to provide this in order to disprove our skepticism. I at least am a pragmatist. If evidence turned up to support your claim, I would consider it. So far I have read nothing, so your claims are easily dismissed.

Now I realise that you are inferring there could be something else 'physical' or material at play that we don't know of. This could be true. But it's not the same as equating this unknown to what you refer to as reincarnation. That is a step out of the bounds of logic and into the realm of guess work, belief, and faith.