• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

The Debunkers Quest

deborah

Director Emerita
Staff member
Super Moderator
I came across an interesting excerpt on Stephen Sakellarios site (among other things): Skepticism and debunking is something we do not talk about often here unless a skeptic brings up issues, and yet it is an interesting exercise to review their POV and ponder the pros and cons. I enjoyed reading Steve's website -some very interesting research....and I found his reflections on the issue to be 'spot on.' :) What do you think?

Here is a new British article about reincarnation, primarily focusing on Dr. Stevenson's work. The skeptics--and journalists always must quote a skeptic--continue to drag out the same tired argument that it would be possible to find matches for the child's statements in any city. This is nonsense. Why? Because, just for starters, the child will name the town where they lived in the past life.

Then without any assistance they will locate the house, give people's names, and describe details, including intimate details. These kinds of specific details--20, or 30, or 40--simply do not exist in any other town with people of those names. But as a fair debunker, you don't get to sift through an entire town, because in many of the best cases I've read this is not a selection process where an entire city is sifted for a matching situation. You only get to choose one house, because in these studies, the child knows exactly where he or she lived.

The odds of a child picking one house in a single town, with 30 or 40 specific memories including people's names at that house being accurate, are astronomical. So this skeptical theory evaporates when you compare it with the actual cases. The thing is, it is not poor science at all. It is excellent science, and these kinds of objections were already anticipated in the investigation design. The problem is that it's poor criticism. What the skeptics do is a version of "straw man"--they set up poor science when they test the theory and then criticize their own bad mockup, claiming they've debunked the method.

If you wanted to try to fairly debunk these findings, you would have to choose one house only (as the child does) at random in a particular town. You would have to create (in some random way which prevented unconscious use of psychic abilities), say, 30 specific imaginary details including names, and some of those details would have to be intimate details not generally known except to one or two people. These are the kinds of details that would apply only to those people, like details of a couple's sex-life, or where money was buried (actual examples from Stevenson's cases).

And then, all or most of those imaginary details including names would have to turn out to be spot-on for that one real household and the people in that household. No debunker I know of has tried this, because of course they know they would be checkmated before they started. You could probably run this fair version of the test for a thousand years and never get a match, but it would still not replicate some aspects of Stevenson's findings, like the child's emotional reactions to the past-life family, xenoglossy and birthmarks.

In order to do that, you'd have to randomly choose a young child who would turn out to be able to speak a language he had never been taught (as a debunker you're dead in the water right there), and would have birthmarks corresponding to the death wounds of a child that the family just happened to have lost in the house that you randomly selected from the one town.

He would also have to display appropriate, sincere behaviors and emotions toward the people in that randomly-selected household (it would not be easy to randomly select a very young child who could convincingly feign great joy at being reunited with total strangers, for example, no less persuade one to insist on staying with the strangers). See additional comments.
 
I have believed in reincarnation my entire life, so I don't understand what it means to be skeptical about it -- I can, however, appreciate the fact that everyone does not share a similar viewpoint. Well...I can understand them not believing -- until they are presented with some of the amazing stories we've all had the opportunity to read.

Even though I am a believer with experiences of my own -- I am still always incredibly amazed and profoundly moved when I hear stories about small children that have led people to their old homes, named relatives and claimed personal items as their own -- all correctly. All without prompting. How could someone hear that evidence and not even consider the possibilities?

The thing is, it is not poor science at all. It is excellent science, and these kinds of objections were already anticipated in the investigation design. The problem is that it's poor criticism. What the skeptics do is a version of "straw man"-- they set up poor science when they test the theory and then criticize their own bad mockup, claiming they've debunked the method.

No kidding! ;)

Thanks for posting this, Deborah. I think Steve did a fabulous job, as per usual.
 
Thanks for bringing this up, Aili! :thumbsup:

I'm not doubting reincarnation at all either - even if I'm sometimes doubting my own memories. But I'm not very bothered if someone chooses not to believe in all this. However, denying the proven facts is just about being scared - or stubborn. ;)

Karoliina
 
Karoliina said:
Thanks for bringing this up, Aili! :thumbsup:

I'm not doubting reincarnation at all either - even if I'm sometimes doubting my own memories. But I'm not very bothered if someone chooses not to believe in all this. However, denying the proven facts is just about being scared - or stubborn. ;)

Karoliina

I would think that they're probably both scared and stubborn, both which I can understand. I've accepted reincarnation as a factual concept most of my life, although as a Catholic, I never heard of it. But I think most people are a bit afraid of anything they don't understand, and no one likes being proven wrong. A friend of mine would never admit that reincarnation was possible simply because that would mean that I was right. Believers don't need proof, skeptics won't accept any proof. Sounds like you had a splendid vacation Deborah.

John
 
Before my own son started talking about his memories, I didn't believe in reincarnation. I also had never heard any of the stories about children remembering, speaking other languages etc. If I had, I think it would have given me pause and I might have explored it a little.
I didn't even know that it was common for young children to remember their past lives.
Also, I don't know if this makes sense or not. At the time that I didn't believe in reincarnation, I had more reason 'not' to believe in it than to believe. (religious junk I was raised with prevented me from even wondering) It wasn't until my son started talking that I was 'forced' so to speak to take a stand in order to help him. It was at this time that my reason to believe overcame my reason not to believe.
Vicky
 
Very few........

It has amazed me - that with all of the debunking that use to happen regarding reincarnation -- over the last five years or so we have had VERY few skeptics visit here. In fact - it has been a while. ;)

It makes me wonder - if the evidence is becoming stronger than the skeptics rebuttle.
 
Count me as a skeptic in general - it's tough to convince me of things unless there's scientific evidence. More than that, I think I have a hard time believing things I don't understand, like reincarnation. I wish this was not the case, but I don't know how to get around it.

I've read most if not all of Ian Stevenson's publishings, I WANT to believe in reincarnation.. And when you read what he's written it should be undeniable. But it seems like there's always something in my mind that just says, "No, that couldn't be..."

I think I always come up with some mental excuse like, Stevenson didn't investigate til after the child met the PL family, so he wasn't a first hand witness, and the actual witnesses may've been exaggerating. Some of his cases are really so strong though.. But it's still difficult for me to accept having never seen these things for myself, never having actually seen the child's emotional reactions and such.

Stevenson really has done some amazing research, and I am really looking forward to Jim Tucker's research, and I hope that others research as well because it's such an interesting and under-explored area.

But, honestly, until someone has some understanding of HOW reincarnation could possibly happen, I think the skeptics have that one big glaring thing on their side- If I told you I was born on Mars, and I had evidence.. pictures of me on Mars, some dirt from Mars, knowledge about Mars, you'd probably ask for a lot more evidence before you believed it. But if it was fairly common for humans to be born on Mars, it would take much less evidence to convince you. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof."

While Stevenson's case studies are great and might be very convincing evidence in other, better understood, fields of science, I think because reincarnation is not understood at this point, that there just needs to be more Stevenson-like research done, more strong cases in more controlled settings, for it to be convincing.. or the actual process of reincarnation needs to be understood better.
 
Awesome post Magnet - thank you :thumbsup: I enjoyed the read - and your perspective on the situation. :) Food for thought.

I think it was also Carl Sagan that asked "Do you love your mother?" or anyone in your life. The person responded "Yes" - he said, "Prove it." :):):) Gotta love a critical thinker.

I know... I know - its' not much -- but I get a kick out of thinking about his point; HOW does a person prove they love another.
 
I'm glad, Magnet, that you pointed out that it is you that needs more evidence and I don't think you are alone in that. In fact, I applaud your honesty.
I used to be like you and I don't know how much 'research type evidence' it would have taken. I only know that the proof came out of the mouth of my then five year old son in about a ten minute conversation about his past life family. We live with comments about past lives and astral projection and many other things that couldn't possibly have been made up.
Skeptics, just be aware, that someday you could be blindsided in much the same way. You never know what exactly it will take to believe or where that proof will come from.
Vicky
 
I was thinking about what Deborah said- How do you prove you love your mother. And I thought, well, love is subjective and by definition unprovable. You can't prove you had a thought or a feeling or any internal experience. The only reason you could have a chance to convince somebody that you love your mother is because love is universal. So even though it's subjective, it's objective in its subjectiveness :) . Everyone experiences love, so because they understand what you mean when you say you love your mother, they're more likely to believe it.

Then Vicky said that she didn't believe in reincarnation til her son started talking about it, and it occurred to me that maybe that's what it takes- that same subjective understanding, to be able to believe it. I don't have any kids or know any kids who've had past life memories, so for me, every single bit of evidence for reincarnation has been second-hand. It's as if you described to me how you love your mother and tried to make me understand what that felt like, etc, but if I didn't know what love was, I would never understand no matter how well you described it.

I really honestly think I'd be much more likely to fully believe in reincarnation if I saw the evidence first-hand- If my own young child who I knew well, knew everything they saw on TV, all people the interacted with, things they normally said, etc, suddenly came out with these memories he couldn't have gotten any other way.. that'd be worth reading about a million Stevenson case studies.
 
Deborah said:
I think it was also Carl Sagan that asked "Do you love your mother?" or anyone in your life. The person responded "Yes" - he said, "Prove it." :):):) Gotta love a critical thinker.

I know... I know - its' not much -- but I get a kick out of thinking about his point; HOW does a person prove they love another.

Years ago during a discussion about friendship and relationships, a friend of mine made what I thought was an excellent point. She said that if someone claimed they hated us, we might wonder why, but we'd believe them. So why is it so hard to accept that someone loves us? I wonder how many people really see friendship as a form of love.

John
 
I don't see why it is so very, very difficult to believe in recinarnation personally. Why is it any more difficult to believe than the idea that we are only our bodies which are born then die and that's 'it', or to believe in heaven and hell or any other number of beliefs which people hold dear about what happens after we die?

I would like a scientific type to prove conclusively, once and for all either of those alternatives rather than just say 'Nonsense!' without any foundation. They would find it a great deal more difficult in my view. There is such a large body of information out there now, from NDEs to Dr Stevenson's work, not to mention all the anecdotal accounts on this site, and throughout history and from psychologists/psychiatrists working in the field you would indeed have to be very stubborn and narrow minded to dismiss it out of hand and assume some kind of mass halucination. I can't think of any way to refute Helen Wambach's work for that matter. In my view reincarnation is the simplest explanation which fits with all this information.

I don't think we really have to know exactly how something works to acknowledge that it exists. We don't know exactly how any number of things work (quantum physics anyone?) but yet their very existence is not questioned. The effect is observable and predictable therefore something obviously exists. It may later come to light what the exact mechanism is, but only if we look into it with an opening and enquiring mind.
 
Deborah said:
I came across an interesting excerpt on Stephen Sakellarios site (among other things): Skepticism and debunking is something we do not talk about often here unless a skeptic brings up issues, and yet it is an interesting exercise to review their POV and ponder the pros and cons. I enjoyed reading Steve's website -some very interesting research....and I found his reflections on the issue to be 'spot on.' :) What do you think?

ok, valid points. What if it is nothing more than psychic abilities?

What if the child simply can "tap in so to speak" to a souls mind and memory? If this were the case, its still a possability that it is not renicarnation and nothing more than psychic ability.

just food for thought and exploring other options like you know I like to do.
 
So to recap, we still have many possabilites

1. reincarnation (this is what everyone hopes for, believers will fit the puzzle in favor of reincarnation and skeptics will do just the opposite) I am neither nor

2. nothing more than psychic abilities

3. insert some paranormal possablitity....here is one, perhaps the child has a ghost living with him/her where he learns details.

4. The last one, you cant deny this possability either, that would be wrong, their is always a possabiltiy for this

the child is coached by the parents. Why would they do this. Because they can benefit in some way. talk shows, books, attention etc....I am not implying this at all, their is always the statistical chance and this needs to be known.
 
one more response for deborah, to kind of put in different words than I have already said.....

Ok, this article, assuming everything is controlled for and their is no fowl play, has strong information in support of "paranormal" activity

in my definition of P.A.- renicarnation can be included. what this article supports, and supports well, is that their is definately some "P.A." going on....

Now with the given information, imo, their is nothing conclusive to suay me either way.......psychc ability, reincarnation, ghosts, the list goes on, are all equally acceptable possabilities......Nothing wrong with believing one way or the other.....But with this territory, biasedness has to be accepted......To say that this is near conclusive evidence of reincarnation is a bit biased imo without exploring other options.

Now I am not accusing anyone of stating that this is conclusive or near it, because I dont think anyone did, but its just a point to make.
 
HI EggWHITES,

To say that this is near conclusive evidence of reincarnation is a bit biased imo without exploring other options

I think perhaps you might enjoy the work of Ian Stevenson and I suggest you look carefully at his studies. The evidence is very strong. Ian even says - "it is not proof" - but each person must make his own assessment of the possibilities. His work is unparalleled. Some of the stories take my breath away. Amazing, heart felt and detailed. His research team receives thousands of cases every year. Far to many for them to even begin to investigate.

So when they say there is "near" conclusive evidence, they are suggesting you look at the individual cases. Making generalizations about the studies as a whole - is difficult and not a good approach.

Also - from my POV, there is a big difference between belief, and experience. People have faith and believe in certain things....it is a choice. Their choice is usually based on personal experience or by way of upbringing.

When a two year old says "my other family, my other mommy"; or when they remember details and own those details in the first person - I do not think they are telling a story by way of a spirit or other PA as you call it. ;) When a child has night terrors or deep seeded fears that can not be explained in this life, or when they have scars that also coincide with the memories - it goes beyond belief.

When the family is not a follower of reincarnation, and their religion forbids it, there would be no reason to make-up a story for publicity. Many are fearful to even post here. Religious beliefs then become the deciding factor. Even if experience dictates otherwise. So IMO, it is the silent thousands that know there are credible cases out there -- and they know it by way of experience-- that will eventually change the status quo.

Thanks for sharing.
 
ps. Deborah


Dont ever take me the wrong way....


uhhhm, If I got a chance to talk to god himself, I would probably find somthing to disagree on and argue with him....


I am basically born to argue, so just, dont ever take my stuff the wrong way....
 
I don't suggest you are Eggwhites. I know you are just curious and enquiring and have had your own experiences as well.


Did you read the thread? It talks about what you are suggesting at some length. To assist I will pull out some key remarks. I understand it is quite long.


Fiziwig, as usual is eloquent and logical....

As for alternative theories, Dr. Steveson enumerated them and elaborated on their applicability in numerous cases in the concluding chapter of 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. All of the alternative explanations require that something extrordinary, quite outside of traditional mainstream physics, is taking place. But of all those alternative theories it seems quite clear that reincarnation is both the simplest and the best fitting alternative. Granted that doesn't make reincarnation true, but it does make it more likely than the alternatives.
Here is what I said - so that I don't have to repeat myself:

There are certainly many millions of people who report past life memories even in our culture which tends to frown upon such things as being superstitious. Sometimes people are accused of making it up, trying to get attention, or similar by those who do not share their experience. However, it would seem to me that there are at least as many who have troubling memories which come unbidden and in many cases unwanted. Many of these people have stumbled into this forum in a state of confusion and anxiety, thinking they might be going insane - not trying to aggrandize themselves in any way.
It would seem to me that reincarnation is the simplest explanation for these widely-reported experiences and attempts to hypothesise some sort of telepathic / universal subconscious / psychosis /what-not are not only more outlandish, but just trying to wiggle out of the simple explanation which is blindingly obvious to most of us who are experiencers. Reincarnation is certainly well and truly accepted by many of the earth's cultures, and indeed was once part of early Christianity until it was deleted about 300 AD (because it would have messed up some other theological orthodoxies). I understand that if you have not experienced it yourself it is more difficult to believe. But it is self-evident for those who have many and detailed memories, as many of us do.
 
Hi Eggwhites,


I actually agree with you that psychic ability is one possible explanation for the child's memories. There is still nothing in Steve's article (although I love the article) that convinces me that the psychic ability theory is not an applicable one.


What does convince me more than anything is the emotion in my son's voice when he spoke of his past life family. For those of you with very young children, you know that 5 year olds cannot/do not feign intense emotions. Nor do they make up unexplainable fears. My son had an extreme fear of mountain lions that surpassed anything I had ever witnessed, including his need for sleep, and that had no explanation from this lifetime.


The other thing that Deborah mentioned is that these children's memories were in the first person. My son remembered himself as a specific person. He remembered the thoughts, emotions, actions of that person. I understand that this could still be psychic ability but it seems to me that if it was psychic ability that he would have known the person's emotions etc but known that he was not actually that person.


Also, why, in most cases with children including my son's, do the children seem to forget much of their memories by age 7? This seems a pivotal point for me. Most people with psychic abilities do not lose them at some specific point in time.


At the end of the day, I believe in reincarnation because I know my son. I knew what he was capable of knowing and I had a fair understanding of the range of his emotions. It scared the crap out of me. I was almost too scared to follow up on this. It was literally out of love for my son that I opened up and explored everything. I think there are a whole lot of parents out there that subscribe to my initial thoughts and just hope their child stops talking about it.


Vicky
 
Heya Everyone :)


Hi Deborah: thanks for starting this topic :)

vicky said:
(...)
What does convince me more than anything is the emotion in my son's voice when he spoke of his past life family. For those of you with very young children, you know that 5 year olds cannot/do not feign intense emotions. Nor do they make up unexplainable fears. My son had an extreme fear of mountain lions that surpassed anything I had ever witnessed, including his need for sleep, and that had no explanation from this lifetime.


The other thing that Deborah mentioned is that these children's memories were in the first person. My son remembered himself as a specific person. He remembered the thoughts, emotions, actions of that person. I understand that this could still be psychic ability but it seems to me that if it was psychic ability that he would have known the person's emotions etc but known that he was not actually that person.


Also, why, in most cases with children including my son's, do the children seem to forget much of their memories by age 7? This seems a pivotal point for me. Most people with psychic abilities do not lose them at some specific point in time.


At the end of the day, I believe in reincarnation because I know my son. I knew what he was capable of knowing and I had a fair understanding of the range of his emotions. It scared the crap out of me. I was almost too scared to follow up on this. It was literally out of love for my son that I opened up and explored everything. I think there are a whole lot of parents out there that subscribe to my initial thoughts and just hope their child stops talking about it.


Vicky
Hi Vicky :)


I really need to write those words for you and your son :)


Thanks to you, I realise that I also forgot most of my PL-memories I had while I was young. I keep on restoring them thanks to my mirroring neutral pictures I find here and there.


So it seems like most of us forget most of those PL-memories that seem so vivid during our youth.


Thanks to this wonderful forum and especially thanks to your words above, dear Vicky, I realise that I actually try to remember some of those memories I had while I was a kid (I am 36 now).


I use pics for such a process: I surf on internet and each time I see a picture with which I deeply resonate, I copy it on my hard-disk and sort it according to what it really is (not according to what it may symbolise).


I have more than 15,000 pics with which I resonate (so far). Only a few dozens of them reflect intense clues about those (transiently lost) PL-memories I had during my youth.


You wrote above that your son had an unexplainable intense fear of mountain lions linked to some of his PL-memories.


I suppose you expect he forgets this all, like many kids do after 7.


But you Vicky do not forget this PL-trigger your young son had: "mountain lions".


When you feel he is serenely ready to, I suggest you show pictures of mountain lions to your son. The purpose is obviously not to scare him but to respectfully resonate with the PL-memories to which that echoing fear was linked.


Or pics of young lions.


Visual neutral landmarks that trigger PL-memories are priceless :)


Kind regards,


Axel :)
 
vicky said:
Hi Eggwhites,
I actually agree with you that psychic ability is one possible explanation for the child's memories. There is still nothing in Steve's article (although I love the article) that convinces me that the psychic ability theory is not an applicable one.


What does convince me more than anything is the emotion in my son's voice when he spoke of his past life family. For those of you with very young children, you know that 5 year olds cannot/do not feign intense emotions. Nor do they make up unexplainable fears. My son had an extreme fear of mountain lions that surpassed anything I had ever witnessed, including his need for sleep, and that had no explanation from this lifetime.


The other thing that Deborah mentioned is that these children's memories were in the first person. My son remembered himself as a specific person. He remembered the thoughts, emotions, actions of that person. I understand that this could still be psychic ability but it seems to me that if it was psychic ability that he would have known the person's emotions etc but known that he was not actually that person.


Also, why, in most cases with children including my son's, do the children seem to forget much of their memories by age 7? This seems a pivotal point for me. Most people with psychic abilities do not lose them at some specific point in time.


At the end of the day, I believe in reincarnation because I know my son. I knew what he was capable of knowing and I had a fair understanding of the range of his emotions. It scared the crap out of me. I was almost too scared to follow up on this. It was literally out of love for my son that I opened up and explored everything. I think there are a whole lot of parents out there that subscribe to my initial thoughts and just hope their child stops talking about it.


Vicky
Thats pretty strong stuff. This I can believe. Reincarnation, huge possability...That is pretty strong, I wont try and fight that


Still as yet, a couple things to consider


1. If children often have memories like this at a young age, then stop having them. Doesnt it stand to reason that a young person can have psychic abilities then lose that also?


2. Your son is afraid of mountain lions. I am deathly deathly afraid of snakes. I myself dont have any memory of anything that could have traumatized me. But my mom does however, I picked up a large snake by the neck in the woods when i was about 2 or 3, and my mom got so frightened when she saw me holding it, that she basically I think unintentionally traumatized me, but for my own good. I have no memory of this, but she does. Its always possible that your son also became traumatized somehow and cant remember why. Because if it wasnt for my mom, I would have never known why I am so afraid of snakes, when in fact their is a very good reason I am. Some incident might have happened when you werent around.


nevertheless, I believe its possible that He may have been born with it......But imo, their is just no way to 100 percent rule that out.
 
The mountain lion or just large cat animal fear was so intense that he could not go to sleep at night. He thought they would get in the house and often insisted they were under his bed. He would finally fall asleep hours after we put him to bed (literally put to bed at 8:00 and lucky if he fell asleep by 10:00 p.m. but often 11:00 or later.)


He began talking about the large cat animal at age 3 or so. I didn't really get that he was talking to me about past life memories until he was 5. One day I was cooking and he was chattering away and he used a word I didn't understand. I asked him what that meant and he told me it was a tool of some kind. Sounded like it was used for harvesting something. I asked him where he learned that word and he said 'don't you remember?' I said 'no, I'm sorry. When did we learn that word?' He said, 'how come you don't remember? You were my mommy then and daddy was my daddy? We lived in Japan." From there he told me that a large cat animal, like a tiger or lion, (he later said he thought it was a snow leopard--again no way he had ever heard of that animal) had scratched him all over and he got sick and died. He asked me several times "Mommy, why did you let the animal in?"


Deborah suggested at that time that I have him draw what he was afraid of. This helped for awhile and every night he would draw the same picture but it got intense again. I finally went to a psychic who was able to provide some other details.


Apparently, we lived in a home where we kept our livestock in a pen that was under our house (specifically under my son's room). We kept them there so they wouldn't get eaten by lions etc. The psychic told us that a snow leopard (yes, she said this after my son had said it with no prior info) had come to attack our livestock and she had a baby. She was killed and we kept her baby and raised him as a pet. Our son went off for awhile we he got older and when he returned, I let the animal in and it attacked him and he died of an infection days later.


To this day, my son still gets unexplained fevers that the psychic says are related to this lifetime. Again, as he has turned 7, the fevers have decreased in their frequency and intensity.


I think he has said that he is afraid of mountain lions in this life because we do have mountain lions where we live but very few and they almost never attack humans. There has been one attack very recently but his fear was already nearly gone before that attack. I am certain he never had an encounter with a mountain lion or any other cat animal that traumatized him in this life. However, it is possible that an older child could have told him something that scared him about the mountain lions. Since he himself told us about the past life connection to his fear of the lions, I assume this is where it came from and this is why it is disappearing.


Whew! Sorry for the length.


Hope this helps someone else. If you are a parent of a child that says such things or has unexplainable, intense fears, please consider looking into a past life explanation.


Vicky
 
Visual neutral landmarks


Hi Axel,


Can you further describe 'visual neutral landmarks' that trigger PL memories?


I had looked at pictures of landmarks in the small US East Coast city I felt my PL lived; without any deja-vu memories being triggered . I've had regression memories that looked like an East-coast community i.e., lots of brick-buildings, trees, yet no specific landmarks. What 'visual neutral landmarks' should I visualize during PL regression?


Thank-you


Marc Ross
 
Skepticism and debunking is something we do not talk about often here unless a skeptic brings up issues, and yet it is an interesting exercise to review their POV and ponder the pros and cons. Any thoughts?
 
Deborah said:
I came across an interesting excerpt on Stephen Sakellarios site (among other things): Skepticism and debunking is something we do not talk about often here unless a skeptic brings up issues, and yet it is an interesting exercise to review their POV and ponder the pros and cons. I enjoyed reading Steve's website -some very interesting research....and I found his reflections on the issue to be 'spot on.' :) What do you think?
Besides parents, were there any other witnesses during the recording of the results?
 
There lies within my soul a very deep resentment toward those who have who have tried, and sometimes managed to mislead us throughout history. Among them have been purveyors of Religion, Politics, Social Activists and Medical Practitioners. I remember, specifically, an old Science textbook of mine from the 60's, which claimed that mountains were caused by heavier elements in the valleys pushing the lighter elements higher into the air. Of course, this was before the "theory" of tectonic plate activity became accepted as fact by mainstream educators. I've had to get rid of many such false ideas over the years as my sons would repeatedly wrinkle their brows at me and say, "Where do you get this c*r*a*p?" I smile now, but it's no fun being made the fool by a much better informed generation.


It's easy to feel resentment for having been misinformed, but I've found it difficult at the same time to realize that one can't expect the whole world to let go of the very foundations upon which people have based their entire lives. From where we are sitting it's easy to condemn cynical debunkers as being ignorant, smug little minds. However, I've had to be reminded that our ideas pose a greater threat to them, than they do to us. Or, is this really the case?


It is true that minds like theirs have caused the torture and painful deaths of countless innocent victims for whom we hold great sympathy. And, to this day, we are still witnessing the ongoing humiliation and loss of stature that many forward thinking people suffer at the hands of reductionist thinking. But, I wonder if it makes any sense to waste our time trying to reason with them? In our effort to appear fair, we so often give their representatives "equal time" to express their doubts in an arena that is already stacked against the truth.


Personally, all that I have ever seen from professional skeptics has been a refusal to examine or available facts, and a stubborn adherence to the belief that the paranormal just isn't...well, "normal". Actually, it is quite normal. And, although most of our lives are not greatly affected by ongoing arguments, there really is an active campaign of censorship going on in which people are still being prevented from investigating anything that is paranormal. The mere mention of such things can cause endless embarrassment and harassment. This is, from the very start, a very uneven playing field in which the professional skeptic holds the better hand. So, my question is, why should we allow our time to be wasted by skeptical inquiry? Isn't it incumbent upon them to do their homework, first – before setting out to attack any belief?
 
Back
Top