In the previous post, I proposed an experiment that could settle the question about reincarnation. However, I think my argument needs some qualifications.
I was assuming a purely scientific approach to the question, not a religious or philosophical one. In this sense, I assumed that the best scientific evidence for reincarnation comes from the empirical studies with children who remember past lives.
Based upon these assumptions, my argument was that, as with any scientific hypothesis, you test it by their consequences. In the case of reincarnation, the reincarnation hypothesis predicts that the same soul was transfered from a dead body to another body. Hence, providing evidence that the soul of "reincarnated cases" is not reincarnated at all (but only apparently so), is evidence that the hypothesis of reincarnation is false in those cases.
In other words, if reincarnation is true, then the same soul of the dead person is now IN the body of the child who remembers past lives. Therefore, his soul is NOT in the afterlife anymore (the implication is that if the soul is found there, then reincarnation regarding that soul cannot get off the ground).
In other words, if reliable mediums could discover that, in these cases, the spirit or soul of the dead person is STILL in the afterlife (and hence NOT in another body in earth), then it refutes the hypothesis of reincarnation on thoses cases.
I think the logic of this argument is correct and impeccable.
Now, it could be argued that at most the experiment shows that in cases of children with past lives experiences the hypothesis of reincarnation doesn't apply, but it doesn't refute the hypothesis of reincarnation in general.
However, the above objection implies actually a major scientific concession against the reincarnation hypothesis, because:
1-The best scientific evidence of reincarnation is the evidence of children with past life memories or birthmarks suggesting a past life wound or cause. Therefore, if the best evidence for reincarnation is actually not evidence for it, then a fortiori the weak evidence for it won't do the job either.
2-Reports and communications from some mediums supportive of reincarnation conflict with reports from mediums who don't support it, or even are hostile to it. And from conflicting reports alone you cannot draw any solid conclusions about the existence or not of reincarnation. In this case, the most reasonable conclusion based on such a conflicting reports is agnosticism.
However, agnosticism about reincarnation based upon spiritualism plus positive evidence that the so-called "best reincarnation cases" are not reincarnation cases at all, push the balance strongly in favor of the non-existence of reincarnation.
3-Reports from people who have had hypnotic regression and have discoveried memories of past lives is a kind of evidence weaker than cases of children who remember past lives, because in general it is purely subjetive and not confirmed by objective evidence (e.g. autopsies, etc.). But even if these reports could be confirmed by objective evidence, point 1 could apply to it too (and experiments as the one proposed by me could be used to test the reincarnation hypothesis in those cases of hypnotic regression too).
This is why I thnk the experiment that I proposed, if produces the result discussed here, would provide excellent evidence against the existence of reincarnation.
Obviously, reincarnation would still be a logical possibility, but empirical science is not interested in purely logical possibilities (which only exist in a skeptic's imagination, who tries to resist a conclusion that he doesn't like through the use of pure speculations and unproven assumptions); science is interested in logical possibilities actually supported by empirical evidence.
As has argued philosopher of science and survivalist Neal Grossman "So there is a big difference between a hypothesis that is merely logically possible (that is, a hypothesis that is not self-contradictory) and a hypothesis that is really possible (that is, a hypothesis for which there are empirical reasons to believe might be true). Of course, any real possibility must also be a logical possibility, but the converse is not true. The fact that a given hypothesis is logically possible, that is, is not self-contradictory, is not a reason to believe that it is a real possibility, that is, that it might be true. Science is concerned with real possibilities only, not with mere logical possibilities"
Grossman's point is a basic principle in the philosophy of science. Science doesn't need to refute all the possible alternative explanations for a given set of data (in fact, the number of such an alternatives is potentially infinite). Science is interested only in the hypotheses which, given our background knowledge, the current evidence available and a few of heuristic principles, are really possible (i.e. likely to be true).
This is why the defender of reincarnation can't appeal to speculations about "group souls" and other purely logical possibilities to which we have not evidence at all (or just extremely weak evidence). Only if he can provide evidence of the existence of "group souls" PLUS evidence that it could account for reincarnation cases, then it would be a living possibility which has to be considered and evaluated.
In conclusion, my experiment is just a modest proposal for evaluating reincarnation empirically. I'm sure my experiment needs to be qualified and perfected in the details, in oder to make it useful in an actual experiment design with mediums and cases suggestive of reincarnation.
I was assuming a purely scientific approach to the question, not a religious or philosophical one. In this sense, I assumed that the best scientific evidence for reincarnation comes from the empirical studies with children who remember past lives.
Based upon these assumptions, my argument was that, as with any scientific hypothesis, you test it by their consequences. In the case of reincarnation, the reincarnation hypothesis predicts that the same soul was transfered from a dead body to another body. Hence, providing evidence that the soul of "reincarnated cases" is not reincarnated at all (but only apparently so), is evidence that the hypothesis of reincarnation is false in those cases.
In other words, if reincarnation is true, then the same soul of the dead person is now IN the body of the child who remembers past lives. Therefore, his soul is NOT in the afterlife anymore (the implication is that if the soul is found there, then reincarnation regarding that soul cannot get off the ground).
In other words, if reliable mediums could discover that, in these cases, the spirit or soul of the dead person is STILL in the afterlife (and hence NOT in another body in earth), then it refutes the hypothesis of reincarnation on thoses cases.
I think the logic of this argument is correct and impeccable.
Now, it could be argued that at most the experiment shows that in cases of children with past lives experiences the hypothesis of reincarnation doesn't apply, but it doesn't refute the hypothesis of reincarnation in general.
However, the above objection implies actually a major scientific concession against the reincarnation hypothesis, because:
1-The best scientific evidence of reincarnation is the evidence of children with past life memories or birthmarks suggesting a past life wound or cause. Therefore, if the best evidence for reincarnation is actually not evidence for it, then a fortiori the weak evidence for it won't do the job either.
2-Reports and communications from some mediums supportive of reincarnation conflict with reports from mediums who don't support it, or even are hostile to it. And from conflicting reports alone you cannot draw any solid conclusions about the existence or not of reincarnation. In this case, the most reasonable conclusion based on such a conflicting reports is agnosticism.
However, agnosticism about reincarnation based upon spiritualism plus positive evidence that the so-called "best reincarnation cases" are not reincarnation cases at all, push the balance strongly in favor of the non-existence of reincarnation.
3-Reports from people who have had hypnotic regression and have discoveried memories of past lives is a kind of evidence weaker than cases of children who remember past lives, because in general it is purely subjetive and not confirmed by objective evidence (e.g. autopsies, etc.). But even if these reports could be confirmed by objective evidence, point 1 could apply to it too (and experiments as the one proposed by me could be used to test the reincarnation hypothesis in those cases of hypnotic regression too).
This is why I thnk the experiment that I proposed, if produces the result discussed here, would provide excellent evidence against the existence of reincarnation.
Obviously, reincarnation would still be a logical possibility, but empirical science is not interested in purely logical possibilities (which only exist in a skeptic's imagination, who tries to resist a conclusion that he doesn't like through the use of pure speculations and unproven assumptions); science is interested in logical possibilities actually supported by empirical evidence.
As has argued philosopher of science and survivalist Neal Grossman "So there is a big difference between a hypothesis that is merely logically possible (that is, a hypothesis that is not self-contradictory) and a hypothesis that is really possible (that is, a hypothesis for which there are empirical reasons to believe might be true). Of course, any real possibility must also be a logical possibility, but the converse is not true. The fact that a given hypothesis is logically possible, that is, is not self-contradictory, is not a reason to believe that it is a real possibility, that is, that it might be true. Science is concerned with real possibilities only, not with mere logical possibilities"
Grossman's point is a basic principle in the philosophy of science. Science doesn't need to refute all the possible alternative explanations for a given set of data (in fact, the number of such an alternatives is potentially infinite). Science is interested only in the hypotheses which, given our background knowledge, the current evidence available and a few of heuristic principles, are really possible (i.e. likely to be true).
This is why the defender of reincarnation can't appeal to speculations about "group souls" and other purely logical possibilities to which we have not evidence at all (or just extremely weak evidence). Only if he can provide evidence of the existence of "group souls" PLUS evidence that it could account for reincarnation cases, then it would be a living possibility which has to be considered and evaluated.
In conclusion, my experiment is just a modest proposal for evaluating reincarnation empirically. I'm sure my experiment needs to be qualified and perfected in the details, in oder to make it useful in an actual experiment design with mediums and cases suggestive of reincarnation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment