Do you believe in life after death?

Do you believe in life after death?

  • Yes

    Votes: 87 39.9%
  • No

    Votes: 91 41.7%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 40 18.3%

  • Total voters
    218
Status
Closed

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
33,747
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Did he form a hypothesis and set out to prove it, or did he evaluate the available evidence and arrive at a hypothesis?

Has he evaluated other hypotheses and formulated a rejection?
 
Jun 2012
7,280
Malaysia
Rupert Sheldrake huh. I see.

The guy is an author. His best link to science at all is as a parapsychologist. And parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Which makes his so called 'morphic resonance' a pseudoscience mini-component of yet another bigger parent pseudoscience.

I would rather listen to a view from historical fiction author Ben Kane. At least he is a qualified pharmacist, not just another pseudoscientist.

And what has a child's scar, birthmark or disability got to do with a past life, even if he really once had a life as someone else in the past. Something like this is just strawman grade pseudoscience, man.

Just like MS Islam has so rightly pointed out, if a legless child is the reincarnation of another child who lost his leg to a train's wheels, then Marie Antoinette's reincarnation would have to be a woman without a head.

If I had lost a foot in a farming accident as a young man, that does not mean that all or even one of my sons are going to be born without a foot. Let alone a complete stranger far removed from me, with zero genetic connection to me, even if he were - let's just say for one moment - a so called 'reincarnation' of me.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
6,266
Planet Nine, Oregon
Rupert Sheldrake huh. I see.

The guy is an author. His best link to science at all is as a parapsychologist. And parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Which makes his so called 'morphic resonance' a pseudoscience mini-component of yet another bigger parent pseudoscience.

I would rather listen to a view from historical fiction author Ben Kane. At least he is a qualified pharmacist, not just another pseudoscientist.
Well, he has a traditional education:
Curriculum Vitae
 
Jun 2012
7,280
Malaysia
Right, that is how his ideas explain it. It's an alternative to reincarnation that attempts to explain the memories. Not saying I buy it.
If in his view reincarnation has such a terrific scientific grounding, then why is he now promulgating & propagating an alternative parallel theory to it? Sounds like a man desperately trying to hedge his bets. Or maybe greedily grabbing his dollars.

Nope. I'd rather not be wasting my time with any pseudoscience. Mainstream science is at least twenty six times more interesting for me.

Now, this could be just me, but he also seems to have that weirdoesque look about him. Maybe he has somehow lost the plot somewhere along the way. Too much time spent studying pseudoscience, perhaps.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2012
3,240
Dhaka
I'm sorry, it's pointless to consider the question in such general terms, it is necessary to show that he has 'lost credibility' by failing to take account of such possibilities in a specific case or particular cases. If you can point to such a case, giving the title of the volume and page numbers, I will have a look at it. In what I have read of his work, there are no obvious deficiencies in his approach that would justify such an accusation.
Transfer of another person's memory is nonsensical enough, transfer of physical wounds alongside it is doubly nonsensical.
 
Oct 2013
6,266
Planet Nine, Oregon
Effectively you are saying here that the evidence doesn't matter at all because reincarnation is impossible, so you are rejecting the idea on a priori grounds. This in turn explains why the idea has not found its way into mainstream science, because it is simply ignored because it seems to conflicts with the materialist world-picture; but that says nothing whatever about the quality or cogency of the evidence. If one actually takes the trouble to examine some of the best case histories (I don't whether your 'reading' on the matter has extended that far), there is in fact evidence that is worthy of serious consideration if one adopts a purely empirical approach. This whole discussion shows why I find it a waste of time to try to contribute to threads of this kind. People who have adopted a scientistic world-view (i.e. of reductive materialism) will start of by claiming that there is no evidence for reincarnation, say, or the afterlife, and then if one points to any evidence, they will say that there is no point in considering it because the idea is 'logically absurd' anyhow, usualy to the accompaniment of ad hominem remarks (thus if someone spends more than three decades in examining evidence suggestive of reincarnation, that just shows the 'lengths that some guys will go to believe what they want to believe').
That happens a lot; science as a religion. Not all things are conducive to repeated experiments in a lab, and there are varieties of kinds of evidence, both circumstantial and anecdotal, where tests aren't a possibility. Enough anomalies have to accumulate for there to be a change in the paradigm. Even scientists who don't have a logical explanation for certain things are sure that they will be explained conventionally one day.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://web.cse.msstate.edu/~swan/tutorials/Swan-VR2018-Tutorial-Replication-Crisis.pdf
 
Last edited:
Likes: rvsakhadeo

holoow

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
3,805
Vilnius, Lithuania
That happens a lot; science as a religion. Not all things are conducive to repeated experiments in a lab, and there are varieties of kinds of evidence, both circumstantial and anecdotal, where tests aren't a possibility. Enough anomalies have to accumulate for there to be a change in the paradigm. Even scientists who don't have a logical explanation for certain things are sure that they will be explained conventionally one day.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://web.cse.msstate.edu/~swan/tutorials/Swan-VR2018-Tutorial-Replication-Crisis.pdf
While modern science is far from perfect, paranormal stuff has zero credibility.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions