Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Rteacher]

I've only attacked the implications of scientific theories based on materialistic assumptions.

There are certainly many scientists who have positive spiritual faith.

Rather than wasting time and resources trying to prove a material basis and origin for life, scientists should try to understand how both life and matter originate from a nonmaterial Supreme Person and how an infinitely intelligent being can arrange for all the intricasies of karma and transmigration of the soul - or just accept that that's the case.

Regarding the particulars of the case in the opening post, I think that I've already stated my position that it does provide further compelling proof for reincarnation - provided that the parents are not perpetrating a materially-motivated hoax.

[mises]

[Rteacher]

He ("mindmetoo") is probably studying Vedic literatures and chanting Hare Krishna someplace...

I think the CE forum misses "Ya-ta boy's" political insights more - where's he been?

[ED209]

[Rteacher]

I haven't studied this - or any other cases - in depth, but the apparent fact that this one is consistent with hundreds of other cases that have already been documented suggests to me that it's either a valid past-life recollection or has been "doctored-up" to resemble the others.

[Underwaterbob]

[Underwaterbob]

[ED209]

This case is riddled with inconstancies and points to a family heavily invested in a self-delusion. And if we should simply believe because of previous poorly evidenced testimonies, we should then take accounts of all supernatural sightings as truth.

[Fox]

[Rteacher]

Here are some reviews of the late Richard L. Thompson's (aka Sadaputa das) book, Alien Identities - Ancient Insights into UFO Phenomena
http://www.alienidentities.com/airevs_noufo.html

(Y'all should remember him as co-author with Michael Cremo of Forbidden Archeology ...)

[Underwaterbob]

Yeah, we'll certainly find objective reviews on the website named after the book...

Here's some more enlightening stuff I managed to dredge up on this book:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/atlantida_mu/esp_atlanteanheritage02.htm

Hoo boy, better watch out for the smoking man Rteacher.

[E_athlete]

Rteacher: when your krishna-spiritual-science actually ends up in a peer reviewed scientific journal, give me a shout.

[Rteacher]

Richard L. Thompson and many of the Krishna-devotee scientists that I have quoted from (over the years) have excellent academic credentials, including peer-reviewed papers on various subjects to their credit.

The main scientist I referred to in this thread topic, Ian Stevenson, also has published peer-reviewed books and papers.

The results are described as inconclusive overall, and - predictably - results that do suggest reincarnation as the best explanation in certain cases are attacked on flimsy grounds by both atheistic skeptics and sectarian Christians ...

Chester Carlson, the founder of Xerox, donated funds to the University of Virginia's paranormal investigation Division of Perceptual Studies, for the purpose of studying the survival of consciousness after death. The research conducted there includes not only reincarnation research, but research on near death experiences. Two researchers at Virginia are the psychiatrists Jim B. Tucker and Ian Stevenson who have published books and peer-reviewed papers about their work on early childhood memories and birthmarks.

Collections of anecdotal reports suggestive of reincarnation have been published by Stevenson, in books such as Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Stevenson spent over 40 years of his life devoted to the study of children who have spoken about putative past lives. Generally, Stevenson documented the child's statements and then attempted to identify the deceased person the child identifies with. Where possible Stephenson attempted to verify the facts of the deceased person's life that match the child's memory. During interviews and when reviewing documents, Stevenson searched for alternate ways to account for the testimony given: that the child came upon the information in some normal way, that the witnesses were deluded or engaged in fraud, that the correlations were the result of coincidence or misunderstanding. But in many cases, Stevenson concluded that no normal explanation sufficed. In summing up his investigations of 2500 cases of children who appeared to remember past lives, Stevenson has said:

� My conclusion so far is that reincarnation is not the only explanation for these cases, but that it is the best explanation we have for the stronger cases, by which I mean those in which a child makes a considerable number (say 20 or 30) of correct statements about another person who lives in a family that lives quite remote from his own and with which his family has had no prior contacts. �

Stevenson has also attempted to match birthmarks and birth defects on living persons (both adults and children) to wounds and scars on persons who died before the living person was born. He stated that the birthmarks were "often unusual in shape or size and are often puckered or raised rather than simply being flat. Some can be quite dramatic and unusual in appearance." Data for scars and wounds are collected from medical records such as autopsy photographs.

Considering the degree to which the childhood memory investigations and the birthmark investigations support a belief in reincarnation, Stevenson has concluded:

� the evidence is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations, and one can only censure those who say there is no evidence whatever. �

Reception to the University of Virginia work has been mixed. In 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases devoted most of one issue to Stevenson's work and the journal's editor described Stevenson as "a methodical, careful, even cautious investigator." Other reviews of this work have been more critical. For example, theologians Jonathan Edelman and William Bernet argue that the investigations of Stevenson and Tucker, while an interesting basis for further research, provide no conclusive evidence for the existence of past lives and that the work suffers from methodological problems...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_research

Not that peer review is always required

... some famous papers have been published without review. These include:

Publication of Watson and Crick's 1951 paper on the structure of DNA in Nature. This paper was not sent out for peer review. John Maddox stated that �the Watson and Crick paper was not peer-reviewed by Nature... the paper could not have been refereed: its correctness is self-evident. No referee working in the field (Linus Pauling?) could have kept his mouth shut once he saw the structure� (Nature 426:119 (2003)). The editors accepted the paper upon receipt of a �Publish� covering letter from influential physicist William Lawrence Bragg.

The 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik, in which Einstein published five extraordinary papers including special relativity and the photoelectric effect. The journal's editor in chief, Max Planck, recognized the virtue of publishing such outlandish ideas and had the papers published; none of Einstein's papers were sent to reviewers. The decision to publish was made exclusively by either the editor in chief, or the co-editor Wilhelm Wien�both certainly �peers� beyond doubt (who were later to win the Nobel Prize in physics). However, at the time there was a policy that allowed authors much latitude after their first publication. In a recent editorial in Nature, it was stated that �in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas.�
www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Peer_review

According to the same article, peer review has also proven to be ineffective in screening out fraud.

[Underwaterbob]

In summary: