Talk:Reincarnation

Parapsychology: Lead and article context

Reincarnation research is a bizarre article that probably should be dealt with separately, but essentially three points come out of it:

1. Parapsychological research by Stevenson and Tucker
2. Past-life regression
3. Surveys about belief

The final subject is, I think we can all agree, highly relevant to this page. The first subject is not well-discussed there nor here, so work should be done. The second subject is absent here and arguably doesn't belong there. I'd like some people's thoughts on this.

But primarily, I'd like to discuss how prominent people think Stevenson and Tucker are to this particular subject. I contend that they are actually minor players and should be folded in to some modernist consideration section as a historical oddity since they are so marginalized. Others seem to think they deserve considerable more prominence, but seem to argue that they do because they are accomplished scientists or have uncovered empirical evidence for something. Amazing new discoveries, of course, should be kept out of Wikipedia until verified by independent sources which has manifestly not happened for Tucker and Stevenson's stories.

So I propose to incorporate Stevenson and Tucker into the section on modern Western beliefs about reincarnation. I also propose making the sentence in the lead into something more like a clause to tack on to the mention of New Age and Theosophist beliefs.

Please respond.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think we should stick with a separate "Parapsychological research" section about the work of Stevenson and Tucker, and a sentence or two summarizing it in the lead. Johnfos (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, that looks to me like only a partial "oppose", and this isn't a vote or an attempt to determine consensus so I'm not sure why you are bolding it that way. It'd be nice if you actually justified your position rather than simply stating it. For example, do you think that these two are particularly major players? Is a short sentence okay? (e.g. "Some parapsychology researchers have investigated reports of reincarnation"?) What are the parameters? Why should we keep them separate from other sections? What distinguishes them from other Western believers in the subject like Deepak Chopra, for example? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see it as a full oppose, not a partial oppose, and think it is time to try and reach some sort of consensus. There has been plenty of discussion about reincarnation research on this page an elsewhere, and my most recent contribution is here. Please refer back to it if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT apparently. Anyway, the point is you didn't seem to want to include any past life regression, so on that we agree. The particular beliefs of Stevenson are actually a bit more complicated than his predilection for theosophy, but Tucker's New Age adherence is clear from his book's adoption of quantum quackery. That's not entirely relevant to this page, but it is at least an indicator of the direction this "research program" has gone. You are refusing to answer my particular questions and don't really seem interested in dialoging about what the appropriate direction is. Instead, it seems you prefer to declare your preference and then refuse compromise. Consensus cannot be reached with such obstinancy. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The parapsychology section still reads like the blurb on the jacket of a book by Ian Stevenson. It either needs to be titled Ian's Stevenson's research, or it needs to be balanced with other material. Tossing out examples, Raymond Moody did past life regression research along parapsychological lines. There's probably other filler as well. Point is, it doesn't need to read like a promo for Stevenson. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

He did get the most coverage. We could say Stevenson and others at the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies. Tucker and at least one other professor were in that division and they helped him. There are other researchers who publish in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Mitsube (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose No proof for SA's claims. This "theosophy" thing is getting pretty old. Mitsube (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Theosophists believe in reincarnation explicitly. Stevenson admits to being influenced by them. Pretty straightforward. Similar to those people parading around their "discovery" of Noah's Ark. Transparently, they all happen to believe that Noah's Ark was real for religious purposes.ScienceApologist (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • You have repeatedly stated that Stevenson believed in Theosophy, but there is no evidence of that. Mitsube (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stevenson has freely admitted in his books that his interest in the paranormal derived from theosophy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

His mother's beliefs are what initially got him interested. Mitsube (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what he says in his books. He says that his mother was a theosophist, but that he investigated the paranormal because of his own interest in theosophy. Whether she played Monica to his Augustine is irrelevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be specific. Exactly which books are you referring to where Stevenson discussed theosophy as the driving force behind his work? Please provide page numbers. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Every place he discusses it he says that. Are you serious? Which books of his have you read? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's take European cases of the reincarnation type which I read recently. I don't recall any particular mention of theosophy. So please just provide the page numbers where Stevenson discussed theosophy in this book, as the driving force behind his work. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That I don't have this particular book on hand makes this request prohibitive. However, does he even discuss his motivation in that book? His 1989 essay is certainly one of the most prominent pieces where he discusses why he started discussing the issue, IIRC. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You mention a "1989 essay". If you are referring to The Flora Levy Lecture in the Humanities 1989 then I have to inform you that there is nothing there that would support your assertion that Stevenson was a "New Age reincarnation theosophist researcher". Indeed, Stevenson discusses his "discontent with psychoanalytic and other current theories of human personality" as being the driving force behind his work, and refers to a 1977 article he published entitled "The Explanatory Value of the Idea of Reincarnation", for which he had "more than 1,000 requests for reprints from scientists all over the world". In this article Stevenson drew attention to reincarnation as a hypothesis of explanatory value for a wide variety of unsolved problems in psychology and medicine. So, in summary, Stevenson was a psychiatrist who considered that the concept of reincarnation might supplement those of heredity and environment in helping modern medicine to understand aspects of human behavior and development. -- Johnfos (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My dissatisfaction with prevailing theories of human personality led me to extend this interest, and in the 1950s I began to read systematically in the literatures of theosophy and psychical research.

Complementary tactics from a credulous mind. Pretty clear. Those interested in parapsychology, like Stevenson, always find inspiration from such sources even while trying to crowbar a separation in methodology. It's no different from creation scientists who use the Bible as their inspiration for going out and discovering Noah's Ark. Pseudoscientific rationalizations are often derived from dogmatic investigations of that sort. I also love the self-aggrandizement. Can you imagine Einstein talking about the myriad of "requests for reprints from scientists all over the world" of his theories? Just goes to show that people who want scientific justification for their beliefs in things that lack empirical basis tend to the same promotionalism across the board. Sure, Stevenson thought he was doing good. But he never took the null hypothesis seriously and that is what made him a credulous pseudoscientist in the end. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The quote is the opposite of what you said. The quote says that because of his scientific opinions, he was led to read theosophical literature. This is not what you said. You said that his belief in theosophy is what motivated his scientific opinions. Mitsube (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling bullshit on that one. He was introduced to theosophy by his mother. Science leading to theosophy is not the point. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who quoted it. Then when it turned out that you had misread it, you call it bullshit. This conversation is pointless. You are always changing the goalposts. Mitsube (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if your reading comprehension is what it should be. I did not misread the quote. I am calling your interpretation incorrect. If it feels like I'm changing the goalposts, maybe it's because you keep changing games and fields. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the explanatory value of reincarnation for modern medicine that Stevenson was really interested in. To try and deduce otherwise from a single sentence in a single publication is a mistake. Stevenson's self-professed "habit of wide reading" is a benefit and not something to be frowned upon. Johnfos (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What Stevenson was interested in was proving the existence of reincarnation. He didn't think theosophy was convincing enough to do this. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's your ill-informed opinion. This conversation has shown that you have no proof that your claims about Stevenson's motivation are true. Mitsube (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this conversation has shown, in part, that people who are trying to promote reincarnation as being a phenomenon with empirical basis are more than willing to ignore the facts put right in front of them. That's not surprising, but it is ironic when they accuse others of doing that. The evidence is pretty clear that you are not able to really comprehend the fact that Stevenson's great reincarnated hope was born out of reading occult manuscripts. That he chose to use scientific methodology to reinvigorate these beliefs is interesting, but does not erase the fact that he followed the dogma of these religious beliefs in reincarnation. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You just don't have any evidence to support your deprecatory claims. That is because they aren't true. And it is better not to use the word phenomenon in a narrow sense. It's most general definition is simply "a significant event": [1]. More on that word above. Mitsube (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is plain for anyone to see. The truth-value of my claims compared to yours are also easily verified. The word phenomenon should be used in a more strict way when we are dealing with supposed "scientific evidence". ScienceApologist (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is plain. Your only "proof" demonstrated that you were wrong. He said that his "discontent with psychoanalytic and other current theories of human personality" was the driving force behind his work and motivated his extensive reading of literature related to psychic phenomena. This is the opposite of your claim, that "Every place he discusses it [his work] he says that [theosophy was the driving force behind his work]". And you haven't even tried to prove the separate claim, that he believed in Theosophy. One can be interested in something without believing in it. You have tried and failed to show that his research was motivated by interest in Theosophy, not belief in Theosophy, though you have also incorrectly claimed that he was motivated by belief in Theosophy at other times. Mitsube (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That Stevenson didn't like Freud is part of why he appealed to theosophy since Freud viewed such story-telling as being a realization of the unconscious not unlike psychoses. The way he positions himself as a defender of the faith in the reality of reincarnation is the crux of my claim, and it is directly indicated by what is written in the source. That you don't seem to understand this is only indicative of your continued refusal to understand the basic reason why Stevenson's work is wholly outside the mainstream. Stevenson's attempt to obtain an empirical basis for theosophical concepts could only come after being exposed to and accepting these concepts at face-value. This feature of Stevenson's worldview is also seen in the way he ignored (perhaps unwittingly -- faith as such does impose special blinders) the obvious problems with assuming presuppositions had to be confirmed by the evidence he gathered. Ask yourself the question, "what forms of evidence would have convinced Stevenson that reincarnation and the ideations of theosophy were not correct?" ScienceApologist (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You keep bringing theosophy into things unnecessarily. There is no proof he believed in it. Mitsube (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You can ignore the statements he made if you want. But insisting that there "is no proof" of Stevenson's obvious religious fervor for reincarnation is like insisting that there is no proof that Clonaid is populated by believers in Raelism. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're moving the goalposts again. Note that you didn't mention theosophy in this post. Mitsube (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Theosophy is directly discussed in the antecedent of "the statements he made". I haven't moved any goalposts (which is getting to be a ridiculously strained metaphor at this point). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well whatever you wrote, if you find quotes demonstrating a fervent religious devotion to Theosophy I'd be interested in reading them. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fervency is not a feature of theosophists. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You contradicted yourself again. Mitsube (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the two quotes with datestamps to show where you think a contradiction was made. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In this section alone, you have claimed he had a "predilection for theosophy", said that "Stevenson has freely admitted in his books that his interest in the paranormal derived from theosophy", said that theosophy was "the driving force behind his work," and said that he "appealed to theosophy". You said he attempted to "obtain an empirical basis for theosophical concepts", which "could only come after being exposed to and accepting these concepts at face-value", stated that his "faith as such does impose special blinders", then mentioned his "obvious religious fervor", but then claimed "Fervency is not a feature of theosophists". You also claimed in the article itself that he was a "believer in theosophy". And you have said that he was "fervent". Yet, theosophists are not fervent. So, you contradicted yourself. But your attempt to evade admitting this seems to suggest that you have now backed off of your unsupported and irresponsible claim, which you put into the article itself, that Stevenson was a Theosophist. And moreover, there is no support for your claim that he was motivated to investigate claims of reincarnation by a prior "fervent" "religious" "belief" in it. So please don't get us started down this same path with that canard. Mitsube (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what's happening. I'm pointing out that Stevenson has a religious fervency with respect to reincarnation. I'm not saying that he has a fervency for theosophy. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Assassins

Shouldn't something like that in the lead be sourced? Can it be? Is it true? Mitsube (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Assassins" is just another word for Nizari Ismailis - I just put it in to give you a thrill. Redheylin (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The redivision of the introduction is unsuccessful since it ignores chronology and seeks to divide the elements of faith, thought and empirical subjectivity, which cannot be achieved. This has led to the idea that, if Patanjali says he remembers it is "faith", whereas if a Stevenson subject says so it is "research". It is a pity thus to obscure both the chronological nature of the presentation and the interaction of thought, faith, popular culture and empirical enquiry so I'll seek an alternative. Redheylin (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Religious, then. Mitsube (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion when it's Patanjali, philosophy when it's Pythagoras. Still - I see you all want to get on with your edit-warring, your claim to own the page is noticed: I shall most likely leave you all for a while to make the article worse between yourselves, as I know you can. Redheylin (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would put those two in the same category. It's not a big deal. Mitsube (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Violent deaths

Tucker writes that these are the cases that they chose to study with their limited time, because they have the greatest potential of providing interesting evidence. Mitsube (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Or because those were the stories that were most likely to be talked about at home and have an effect on the impressionable imaginations of young children. Yes, it should be included. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove it again. Mitsube (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not why they investigated them. Now you're accusing Stevenson et al of bad faith in addition to everything else? Mitsube (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. I'm not the first person to cast aspersions on Stevenson. We cite a number of recent works which do so. They may not be doing their selection bias intentionally, but it's pretty obvious that they have real problems with control. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding your personal uninformed opinions is distracting and pointless. Mitsube (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that my opinions are "uniformed" is a personal attack that is distracting, pointless, and against the WP:NPA policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. Mitsube (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Eye of the beholder. See User talk:ScienceApologist boilerplate. I find it to be so because you are assuming that I am uninformed when I have read more about this subject than some 99% of the general population, and have demonstrated it. Regardless, I'll let the sleeping dog lie. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit discussion

1. It is claimed that I removed the information about when the memories occur. This is false. The information is still there. Please read carefully.
2. It is claimed that I keep removing the word "scientific", which is sourced to the British Medical Journal. It is true that I usually refer to "methodological rigor" rather than "scientific rigor" this is because the source does not specifically say that Ian Stevenson was functioning as a good scientist. The sources agree his methodology was good, but good science must also come to well-supported conclusions. No one outside of Stevenson and his fellow reincarnation believers thought that his conclusions were scientific. Thus we refer ONLY to his methodology when describing independent praise.
3. It is claimed that "similar" is too vague, and so functions only to obfuscate. However, the sources do not indicate that the locations of the birthmarks were anatomically identical: only that they were on similar locations of the two bodies.
4. It is claimed that "in some cases" is needed, because that didn't always happen. But this is not verified by any of the cases. He investigated possibilities for alternatives, but it is not for us to judge whether it is possible to find alternative explanations for all the cases or not and he never stated that such was impossible. Thus we should just point out that he investigated alternatives and leave it at that. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

1. 1. No. You said that the children he studied were between 3 and 7. You removed the data about when the memories occur, begging the question, why did he choose to study children in that age range? That's bad writing. Why did you do that?
   2. You removed the phrase "scientific rigor of his methods", which is sourced to the article entitled "Ian Pretyman Stevenson, psychiatrist who researched reincarnation with scientific rigour". So the sentence in this article is sourced, and not only that, it refers specifically to his methods. The source isn't so specific. So, what you wrote above doesn't make any sense at all.
   3. Let's see what the source says: "Further evidence of invariance is to discover that vastly different cultures appear to share with very similar behavioral and physical manifestations in these phenomena—as in the case of birthmarks symbolizing injuries in the previous personality or the apparent high incidence of violent unexpected death in many of those who are reincarnated ... The intensive study of these children has revealed several provocative findings, such as the apparent increase in death due to violence in those who reincarnate and the startling correspondence found between birth marks on the child and similar marks or distinguishing features present on the body of the reincarnated personality during their lifetime, such as wounds, injuries, and other stigmata." I had corresponding earlier. I think you removed it. Hopefully you won't remove it again. Besides, it's "Stevenson believed". So it's not even saying it's true (though it is). I'll put in "in correspondence with" hoping you won't revert that.
   4. Fine, but we can add "and he discounted some cases". That's the point I was trying to make. I will put in "... discounting some reports." Metta, Mitsube (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I tried to accommodate the peculiarities of your understanding of the text. See what you think.
2. The poorly used phrase in the source "scientific rigor" is referring to Stevenson's methods. Let's be clear about that rather than vague. The source is quite specific. Read it beyond the title.
3. similar is used in the source. I like it. Corresponding is a bit weird so I removed it, but if you want to try to work it back in with the word similar, for example, "correspondence found between birth marks on the child and similar marks on the deceased".
4. I'm fine with the current wording.

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That "similar" is general, referring to similarities across cultures, i.e. the general trend of birthmark correspondence. A man getting hit by a car in Virginia and an Eskimo getting impaled by a spear, with the corresponding birthmarks on young children, is what the author is talking about. And they are not just in similar places. As an informed expert you must have looked at one of his books where he has photographs and detailed physiological descriptions. In one example I saw, a birthmark looked just like the spread of the shotgun blast that corresponded to the fatal wound of someone who died, in the manner you might expect. "Correspond" is from the source, where it is stated as fact, we are only saying "Stevenson believed" it,

I am not trying to get the word "scientific" applied to everything Stevenson did. That's why I put in "of his methods". What's wrong with that? I can't quite make out what you are trying to write in your response on that point. Please clarify. I just reread the BMJ article and it supports my wording. I will leave what you have for now until you respond. Mitsube (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I totally disagree with how you interpret that statement which uses the word "similar", but it's not that important. I tried to reword it using "corresponding". I have looked at the photographs and descriptions. There is no rigorous correlation attempted nor any null hypothesis tested for these birthmark-correspondences. The plural of anecdote is not data, I remind you.

What's wrong with calling praise for Stevenson's method "scientific rigor" is that the scientific method has some steps that Stevenson arguably skipped. Stevenson's scrupulosity in collecting data is laudable, but science is more than collecting data. That's the reason I think it better to simply refer to his methods which is indeed the way the sources praise him. Indeed, even those who praised him argued that more work was needed. An unfinished and unconfirmed work is not "scientifically rigorous" in the normal sense. It's just important to keep the word "scientific" away because there is obvious controversy over whether Stevenson was engaged in a kind of pseudoscience. Best not to spoonfeed the reader that the work was in any way scientific. Let them come to their own conclusions, especially when the sources themselves are skeptical of Stevenson's ultimate conclusions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Correspondence" is sourced to the American Journal of Psychiatry, and "scientific rigor" is sourced to the British Medical Journal. Your disputing with them is OR. The corresponding is even in the range of "Stevenson believed". About the latter, I will try "methods and protocols" for now. Also, your latest addition is wrong. It wasn't only interviews. There were also photographs (which you have seen), obituaries, other written records, etc. Mitsube (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Correspondence is not independently validated, so I attributed it to Stevenson. Since there are no objective measures of the correspondence, we have only the author's say-so for saying this.

I'm not sure why you keep adding a laundry list of continents. Doesn't "around the world" do it?

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Cadoret states the correspondence as a fact. It is a reliable secondary source. The list of continents is important because the secondary sources say things like "He catalogued more than 2,500 remarkably similar cases, mostly in Asia and the Middle East but also in Europe, Africa and North and South America."

I found that two more of the sources use the word "scientific": one says he followed the "scientific method". So that is overwhelmingly well-sourced to reliable secondary sources and it is going back in, your original ideas to the contrary.

"Correspondence" is sourced to the American Journal of Psychiatry. The problem here is that you are personally disputing reliable scientific journals.

The AJP article also has:

"A brief description of a typical case of the reincarnation type would show the following features: 1) Starting in years 2–4, the child spontaneously narrates details of a previous life. 2) Volume and clarity of statements from the child increase until ages 5–6, when the child talks less about them. 3) By age 8, remarks about previous life generally cease. 4) Unexpected behavior unusual for child but concordant with behavior of deceased person occur, e.g., phobias for guns or special interests and appetites. 5) In many cases the child has a birthmark or congenital deformity that corresponds in location and appearance to fatal wounds on the body of the previous personality. A high number of reincarnated personalities report violent death, which the child alludes to. 6) In some cultures the individual who “reincarnates” predicts his or her next incarnation and may appear in a dream to the expectant mother of the child to announce an intention to reincarnate in the baby. 7) After the age of 10 these child subjects usually develop normally.

No "according to Stevenson" in here. Again, you are disputing a scientific journal. Wikipedia is not the place to do this.

I'm also changing a "claimed" to "proposed", because Stevenson didn't argue for reincarnation, he just assembled evidence, and "proposed" reflects that better. Mitsube (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube -- you are misinterpreting and reinterpreting sources to suit your own agenda rather than accepting the the fringe nature of Stevenson's claims.

First of all, you don't have any sources which establish Stevenson's conclusions as "scientific" objectively. This canard about Stevenson's work being "overwhelmingly well-sourced" as "scientific" is just that, a canard. Since there is obviously a controversy about Stevenson's work and whether it is scientific, we can't just state it outright that it is scientific. We can state that Stevenson's work was praised for its methodology and protocols, but Stevenson simply wasn't doing science according to some. We cannot simply summarize Stevenson's work as being scientific when there are plenty of sources which dispute that.

Secondly, the AJP article is a book review of Stevenson's work. It is summarizing Stevenson. It is not a recipe for taking Stevenson's word as gospel. Just because it is written in a journal doesn't mean that it somehow has magical powers. Since this is a review of a book written by Stevenson, this is absolutely "according to Stevenson". I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. I am not "disputing a scientific journal", I'm putting it into its appropriate context. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN.

Thirdly, you haven't explained why you are listing all those continents.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The AJP article makes factual statements about the cases. It avoids the use the extraneous use of "according to Stevenson" that you favor, because of your unsubstantiated assumptions of bad faith. I will respond about the word "scientific" below. I am willing to compromise on the list of continents. I don't know why you don't like this information. Mitsube (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't really have "bad faith" towards a source. The review article describes what's written in the book. Attributing the beliefs of those who wrote the book and who the book is about shouldn't be problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You have accused Stevenson of acting in bad faith [2] and this accusation is your basis for introducing stilted language not present in the source we are using. If the reliable, independent, secondary source states something (correspondence) as fact then we will too. "Stevenson believed that the best evidence for reincarnation was the existence of birth marks and deformities on children which he reported corresponded to fatal wounds of the deceased." is poorly written. There is a correspondence. Presumably you believe that it is coincidental. But there is a correspondence, as stated by the secondary source, which obviously does far more than summarize the contents of the book. Your interpretation of Cadoret doesn't make sense. Mitsube (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether an an actual correspondence exists or not is solely a matter of opinion because the matches were not demonstrably shown to exist beyond the level of anecdotal commentary. I don't even "believe" that it was coincidental: I submit that there is no consistent evaluation of the data to show correlation (which is the synonym for correspondence here that most people would tend to think of in (pseudo)scientific contexts). If it is "poorly written" then rewrite it, by all means, but we must be clear to attribute the belief in the "correspondence" to Stevenson and not state it as plain fact (it is, in fact, only an opinion). See WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Scientific

If you keep insisting that we describe Stevenson's work as being praised for its "scientific rigor", I think we'll have to begin the impeachment process with the following source:

NYAS report by Paul Kurtz, Paul Edwards' book Reincarnation: A Critical Examination, and Robert Todd Carroll's critique in The Skeptics Encyclopedia.

Even Eugene Brody admitted that Stevenson's work was generally regarded as "unscientific": [[3].

That's what we have.

Deal.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A VERY reliable source sourcing the perspective that Stevenson was involved in rank pseudoscience. We can

Let's be clear. The material I have currently is "praised for the scientific rigor of his investigations." That is sourced to three scientific journals. The "of his investigations" is key here. The statements does not include in its scope any conclusions people may make. Stevenson himself proposed explanations alternate to reincarnation, viz. ESP. Kurtz doesn't dispute the scientific rigor of the investigations, and Edwards and Carroll are self-published skeptics who don't have the same standing as material published in scientific journals, so they can't be used to dispute material found therein.

About Brody, it seems that you have not read the entire passage carefully enough. I'll reproduce it here. He say: "Publication of papers on these topics may imply editorial endorsement of nonscientific philosophies and conclusions ... our decision to publish this material ... recognizes the scientific and personal credibility of the authors, the legitimacy of their research methods, and the conformity of their reasoning to the usual canons of rational thought."

So I am upholding the distinction we have repeatedly made about methods (scientific according to journals) and conclusions (speculative) by including the phrase "of his investigations". Do you think the current information upholds this distinction? If not could you propose language which uses the word scientific and upholds the distinction to your satisfaction? Mitsube (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made it clear that the interpretations and conclusions of Stevenson have been criticized as being pseudoscientific. The statement is NPOV now if not succinct. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is also not right. The Skeptic Encyclopedia doesn't accuse Stevenson of making pseudscientific conclusions: [4], it just says he's wrong. The Kurtz source is one sentence but I won't argue with it. It's not NPOV because criticisms of Stevenson have been (resoundingly) refuted, but I won't push for inclusion of that fact now. Mitsube (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicky, aren't we? The "resounding" refutation was not very convincing to all, and to all a good night! ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't write the entire article based on the half-scientific truths of Doctor Stevenson and his followers. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything is sourced to independent secondary sources. Your post here doesn't make sense, and doesn't support your change to the lead paragraph. Mitsube (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

An essay from the Washington post does not override an article from a medical journal on the plausibility of reincarnation, sorry. Take it to WP:RSN. I do not see how it "doesn't make sense", perhaps from an unscientific viewpoint. The collective weight of science does not support reincarnation. A million reliable secondary newspaper sources cannot override that, especially to put a POV conjecture into the lead of this article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"The collective weight of science does not support reincarnation." Hmmmm...I didn't realize science was subject to gravity. Nor did I realize it had a collective voice, if that's what was meant. Nor do I know of any way science can test reincarnation - dye a person's soul blue and see if it returns??? I think you must mean that lots of scientists don't believe in reincarnation. But belief is not science. hgilbert (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what he means is that there is very little objective evidence and even less repeatable and testable evidence for reincarnation. I think this is true, and as a believer in reincarnation this doesn't bother me. The same is true of most cosmological theories that scientists argue over. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The same is also true of any fringe theory, including alternative medicines. A lot of people swear by homeopathy as well (even myself at times), but the general scientific consensus is that it cannot work. Science is indeed a collective voice in many cases, as represented by the thousands of peer reviewed journal entries published by reputable sources. The point is that you have a lot of respected people that say "no, its simply too ridiculous to even bother considering", and one very isolated doctor that tried to convince them otherwise. This lone doctor does not solely represent the debate on the theory of reincarnation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say anything like what you have attributed to it. Tagging. Give the extract you are summarizing or cease edit-warring: the burden is on you. Mitsube (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics

If you want to bring criticism of Tucker's idea into this, you have to find it in a reliable secondary source, not synthesize it into existence. Mitsube (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources provided are reliable and none of the criticisms of quantum quackery are synthetic. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Violent Death

There is no reason to include the "often those who met an untimely death" in the introductory sentence. No secondary source does that. Furthermore, "that seemed to him to be able to remember events in a life that had ended" is ridiculous, both because it is poorly written and because it is misleading; many others thought that the child was remembered events from a past life, he just investigated it. Mitsube (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I seem to recall in the past that you were arguing that the violent deaths were an important feature of the accounts. I myself don't care one way or the other and would be fine with removing that little tidbit. In fact, I think the entire Stevenson account is overly bloated in much the same way that Cosmic Latte has argued before. I'm just trying to see if we can reach consensus and so I'm compromising my desire for succinct summaries until such time as everybody has calmed down about exactly how to present this baloney.
2. No independent sources have ever claimed that others believe children remember events from a past life. Everyone who has said that is a true believer in reincarnation and thus it is not an objective statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Belief in the West

You cited an essay in support of removing that information from the lead, which mentions the belief in reincarnation all around the world more prominently than belief in the West. Please explain this removal. Mitsube (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence itself was only talking about the West. If you want to reincorporate a sentence that has a global view, please feel free. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

reincarnation

reincarnation sounds very scary to me it includes death

5-27-10

tamalie jefferson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.85.132 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that makes life, the universe and everything scary, Tamalie. But things get scarier the more we do not look at them. Maybe the shadow on your bedroom wall looks like a monster. If you get up and have a closer look, you find it's a shadow, not a monster. But so long as you hide under the bedclothes it goes on being maybe a monster. And if it IS a monster, then too it is better you should know about it! Redheylin (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you (and all of us) will die one day, anyway - reincarnation or not. So the remark isn't very logical! Commented by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia), 27 September 2010.

Different Than Metempsychosis

This page offers limited information on the ancient Greek development of metempsychosis (a topic of intense academic debate, particularly in regards to its likely Western origins), including details of the semi-legendary Pythagoras, his influence on the thought of two and a half millennia including that touchstone of Western philosophy, Plato. The person who advocated for the integration of the page 'metempsychosis' into this page, while claiming that "all the information from [metempsychosis] is reproduced here" (or something to that effect) is simply lying. That metempsychosis is a key phrase in perhaps the most important novel to date, Joyce's Ulysses, argues for a separate page. The editor repeatedly impaled him(or her)self on [their] own arguments in discussion (see Metempsychosis Talk). If a fuller discussion does not take fruit, I will restore the page Metempsychosis, against the tyranny of a single editor. The editor in question would benefit by soliciting citations or expert review. His or her lack of distinction has been made clear. This is not a question of ideology but basic practices. Unilateral deletion of contributed content is not generally a hallmark of Wikipedia. I hope interested intermediaries will note this. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTES by Jan Erik Sigdell TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT REINCARNATION, THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY

Some facts contributed by the author of the book in German: Reinkarnation, Christentum und das kirchliche Dogma – “Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church” (Ibera, Vienna, 2001).

To die once, Hebr. 9:27: -- “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”, hence: die once – live once – no reincarnation. The Greek word here translated as “once” is hapax. Greek dictionaries tell us that the word can also mean: “once and for all”, “at once, suddenly”, “one day, eventually”. Hence, the contradiction to reincarnation is only apparent and related to a tendentious and subjectively chosen translation that fits the purpose. [Cf. this note.]

John and Elias, Matth. 11:14, 17:10-13: -- John the Baptist is Elias (in earlier texts: Elijah). As a contradiction to this literal understanding, John 1:21 is referred to, where John the Baptist denies being Elias. His words are chosen to contradict what Jesus said! Should we believe him more than Jesus? The Christian view must be, that Jesus knew what John didn’t know. Very few consciously know their past personality and it may very well be that John wasn’t one of them. Or he may have avoided the question, telling only half the truth: “I am not Elias (now, but I once was)”. In any case, the mere fact that people asked him about this demonstrates that they took Jesus’ words literally.

John the Baptist was killed. Could this have been his karma? Read 2 Kings 18:40: “And Elias said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elias brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there” [some 400 persons…].

The man born blind, John 9:2: -- A disciple asked Jesus about the possibility that the man was born blind because of what he did before he was born (one of the two alternatives in his question). This shows that the disciple believed in preexistence. Jesus doesn’t correct him in that, but instead indicates that in this individual case the blindness had nothing to do with having sinned before being born. A general conclusion cannot be drawn.

Medieval theology has suggested, referring to rabbinical sources, that the man could have sinned in the mother’s womb (having had “evil thoughts” there), a suggestion too absurd to take seriously.

Two crucified malefactors, Luke 23:39-43: -- One of them regretted and believed in Jesus, and Jesus said to him: “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” He will have had his last incarnation. The other malefactor didn’t regret but mocked Jesus. He will still have had many reincarnations to come…

This, furthermore, contradicts the dogma of inseparability of soul and body. If they were inseparable, his soul couldn’t go to paradise with Jesus the same day.

Discussion with Nicodemus, John 3:3-4 and 8: -- Jesus said: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”. Nicodemus asked: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” He didn’t see that it would have to be a new mother. This quotation of Jesus is in modern text versions usually translated: “Except a man be born from above…”, and it is explained that Nicodemus would have misunderstood Jesus as saying “…be born again…” This explanation refers to the double sense of the Greek word anothen, which can mean both (and a few more things, too). But this is clearly nonsense, because they didn’t speak Greek! They spoke Aramaic! The Aramaic language has no double-sense word that fits here, but a single-sense word mille’ela = “from above” and another single-sense word tanyanut = “again, anew”. Clearly, Jesus used the latter, since that is how Nocodemus understood it and a misunderstanding is ruled out in the original language.

Later, Jesus says: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” This seems to make no sense. Here, the word pneuma occurs twice in the Greek text, and has first been translated as “wind” and later as “Spirit”. Pneuma means “wind” and in an indirect sense “spirit” – but also “soul”, that which makes the body alive, the “breath of life” (cf. Hebrew ruah). The latter meaning is common in religious texts. Furthermore, “sound” is here a translation of the Greek phoné, which rather means “voice”. Hence an alternative and correct translation is: “The soul goes where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice [whispering] thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born with a soul.” Now it makes sense. Jesus talks about preexistence: The soul comes from somewhere, where it was before, and goes on to somewhere else when the body dies. Of course, preexistence doesn’t necessarily mean reincarnation – but reincarnation necessarily involves preexistence…

Whom say people that I am? Luke 9:18-19: -- Jesus said: “’Whom say the people that I am?’ They answering said ‘John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again’.” John the Baptist would obviously not be possible, but the other alternatives indicate that some people in him saw a possible reincarnation of Elias or another old prophet.

Origen and reincarnation: -- Origen’s relevant original texts were burnt in the 6th century. The only texts remaining to-day are the Latin translations by Rufinus and Hieronymus, the latter only in fragments. Both admit in the introduction to the translation that they have adjusted the text to fit the Dogma and omitted certain “offensive” parts. Thus, clearly, if Origen had written positively about reincarnation, they will have omitted that or changed its wording.

Through burning the original texts, the Church has withdrawn for itself the grounds for proving its allegation that Origen would have contradicted reincarnation.

The anathemata against Origen: -- In the protocols of the Council in Constantinople of 553, the condemnations of Origen were mentioned. They were not a subject discussed in the council itself, but this merely confirmed a condemnation formulated ten years earlier in a local synod in Constantinople. The Council instead dealt with the “three Chapters”, three texts by long dead bishops, now condemned as heretical. But before the Council was opened, waiting for the pope to appear, emperor Justinian presented the text from 543 and requested the bishops present to sign it. The pope didn’t come and the Council, therefore, wasn’t opened yet. A week later they gathered again, but the pope didn’t agree and still didn’t come. The emperor, therefore, declared the Council opened without the presence of the pope, clearly against the rules for a Council.

Emperor Justinian wrote in his edict against Origen, in which he ordered the condemnation at the synod of 543, that, according to Origen: “spiritual entities were fallen in sin and as punishment banned into bodies… becoming imprisoned in a body a second and a third time or even still more times…”

The first anathema reads: “If anyone assert the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.” The Greek words here translated as “monstrous restoration” are teratodi apokatastasin. Apokatastasis normally refers to the restoration of God’s creation in its original holy order, which is certainly not monstrous… hence it will here refer to something else, but to what? Does it refer to the restoration of a new body for the soul? This would truly be “monstrous” to the Dogma… This may be a reference to reincarnation, without mentioning it by name. And if so, it confirms that Origen was viewed as advocating reincarnation.

Since the condemnation of Origen isn’t a decision by an allegedly “infallible” Council, it has never been officially forbidden to the Christian to believe in preexistence, nor in reincarnation…

The Council in Nicaea in 325: -- It has been repeatedly alleged that belief in reincarnation was condemned during the Council in Nicaea in 325. No reference to that is found in protocols of the Council. However, it is known that these protocols are incomplete. Parts of them are missing. It is also known that emperor Constantine didn’t allow the Gnostic Christians to speak at the Council and that he gave their propositions and petitions to the fire without opening them. It is historically documented that most of the Gnostic Christians believed in reincarnation, but he didn’t give them the chance to present their views.

The third and fourth generation? Num. 14:18: -- “The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” If this were so, it would be a horrible injustice to punish innocent children, grandchildren and so on for what an ancestor did! And what “mercy” would that be? Such an interpretation is contradicted in Deut. 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” The Christian Gnostics interpreted the text in Num. 14:18 as referring to the “third and forth incarnation” of a sinner. That would be just…

Added by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia) September 27 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.210.183 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Reincarnation

The existing page says that "Christian doctrine" rejects the concept of reincarnation even though 24% of American Christians believe in it and 31% of regular churchgoing Catholics in Europe expressed a belief in reincarnation.

It seems to me that the term "Christian doctrine" is innacurately global. It does not recognize that there is huge diversity in the doctrines of any number of Christian churches on any number of subjects, e.g., the virgin birth, baptism by immersion, transubstantiation, justification by faith alone, creationism vs. evolution, gay marriage, to name a few.

It does seem to me that most MAINLINE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES reject the concept of reincarnation, but there are many denominations, some of which do not claim to have any doctrines, and so, therefore, some may entertain the possibility of reincarnation. It would be extremely difficult to exhaustively research the doctrines of hundreds of Christian denominations.

At the same time, a reliable source--Geddes MacGregor, Emeritus Distringuished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern California and an Episcopal priest--concludes that belief in Christianity and belief in reincarnation are not mutually exclusive. See cites from Quest and Amazon where sample pages are available.

I see value in deleting the reference to "Christian doctrine" and replacing it with "mainline Christian churches" and adding a reference to MacGregor's work.

I apologize if this post is in the wrong place or if I should have appended it to someone else's subject because I didn't see an easy way to do this. I'm new to Wikipedia and appreciate the guidance I've received from Dr. K and a Macedonian so far. I don't wish to argue, simply make observations from my perspective with hope that the Wikipedia community will see value in my observation, or at least that it will spark a discussion that eventually lead to consensus on the subject.

I'm glad that there are people who are willing and able to spend a lot more time on this than I am. Activadvocate (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate, 2-27-2011, 10:30 p.m. Eastern time