Dr, Ian Stevenson’s research into the paranormal at the University of Virginia has always interested me:
“Ian Stevenson is a man extraordinary in his intellectual and scientific accomplishments and even more extraordinary in his possession of a quality of mind which resists and never allows itself to be dominated by assumption. And so, against a powerful scientific ethos, which generally looks askance upon matters such as religions and more specifically the question of the soul, Stevenson has stood firm, recognizing that such issues are highly debatable issues and cannot be dismissed as trivial, irrelevant or devoid of value.
He is one of those remarkable men whose creativity and intelligence enable him to look beyond boundaries, instead of tempting him to contain his gaze within the pale of a single discipline. His early experiences in science, as a student of biochemistry, and as a young doctor, taught him that scientists are not always free of the prejudices and assumptions which as scientists they should be.
Indeed, Stevenson came to understand that the vanities, pride and jealousies, which historically have been the failings of politicians, philosophers, and theologians, can be, and often are, the same failings of scientists. Scientists, no matter how much they are taught to be wary of the personal and the subjective, are men, and as men they cannot be completely free of arrogance, pride, ambitions and other human failings. It is these human flaws which constrict and hinder that primal imagination of science, out of which come new possibilities from old impossibilities, and new considerations from old rejections. Stevenson’s mind is full of these transfiguring impulses of the imagination which are the source of his admirable resistance to those assumptions generated by the past accomplishment of science. Stevenson is remarkable for having been resistant to those vices of self to which science is loathe, vices which make error and shortsightedness among scientists…..
……And so even to this day, Stevenson submits to a vigorous scientific scrutiny an idea which for years has engaged his mind: the notion of survival after death and the possibility of reincarnation.
Stevenson has done more in the lecture than give us a brilliant paradigm of mind; he has returned to us something which has been too long absent from discussion in philosophical, religious and theological groups and in our intellectual life. I am referring to the argument for the immortality of the soul, a central idea in what we call the perennial philosophy. For centuries the possibility of survival after death has engaged the imagination of men; yet in the last hundred and fifty years, this conception has not fared well in a world in which Darwin, Freud and Marx have gained currency in the general culture….”
— from the Preface of Some of My Journeys, Ian Stevenson, 1989
For more on Dr. Stevenson’s research on reincarnation (his most famous research) visit the University of Virginia’s Department of Perceptual Studies.
More research along those lines has been done by another accomplished scientist, Dr. Satwant K. Pasricha, of the Department of Clinical Psychology of the National Institute of Mental Health & Neurosciences in Bangalore, India.
I’m not sure why you keep quoting these crackpot scientists, when there are SO many others that are making very serious and real progress. Here is the type of stuff Ian works one:
* “Dr. Stevenson reports the case of a girl who claims to remember a previous life as a man.” (Fascinating claim :S.)
* “A report of a case of a woman who periodically assumes a second personality, speaking only a language she does not know in her normal state.” (Gripping report :|.)
* “Report of an analysis of 79 cases of American children who claim to remember a previous life.” (Children — how can they be lying.)
The list is almost endless … ALL of them extremely weak hearsay from non-reputable (read: insane) sources.
I don’t think you appreciate the incredible tangible mountain of evidence that supports the idea that we are chemical machines; how irreconcilable the ideas of religion are to these mountains. Sure, to be absolutely 100% technically scientific we can’t discard any unproven theory, but when 99.999999% of evidence and reason points to a particular idea, the rational man should not really have much to debate.
Nevertheless, uhhh… best luck to Ian et al. I for one won’t be holding my breath for any *REAL* reputable evidence or predictions or refutable claims or other useful results, besides the usual comfort of make-belief.
Each to his own.
I prefer to keep an open mind.
A lot of ideas sounded like crack pottery before they turned up something useful.
UVA and NIMH are not crack-pot institutions and the man is well-qualified…
By the way, have you actually read through the cases?
I promise to read those anecdotal case reports (ie. delusional stories from disreputable sources, with no followup or rigorous analysis) if you promise to read Craig Venter’s REAL work on the human genome, Richard Dawkins’ popular genetic perspective on the emergence all known life The Selfish Gene, Stephen Hawking’s work on the creative power of black holes and Richard Feynman’s research into the building blocks of all known matter and energy. Just to start. I can direct you to countless others that provide rational and cohesive explanations or honest attempts at explanations, to any question you might have. You will then quickly realize that there is just no room for any of the childhood fantasies kids still grow up with — nor any need for them. You really do great insult to these honest and apolitical researchers of truth when you casually dismiss them as “one of many competing theories”.
Why keep an open mind about “reincarnation” and not “zeus”? Do you not find it disgustingly suspicious that anecdotal case reports of reincarnation are more prevalent in Hindu cultures? That the virgin Mary exclusively appears to Christian believers? Why haven’t american aboriginals experienced reincarnation, nor seen Mary? Why don’t christians see the spirits that Iroquois see as responsible for the changing of seasons? And why on earth would you believe in season-changing spirits, when climatology and astronomy have a pretty good handle on it already?
The question of “religion vs science” is actually “lazy wishful daydreaming vs rational independent laborious verification”. Besides recording a mind numbing number of stories from kids and disturbed uneducated adults, what actual investigation has Ian done? One would hope that Dr. Ian would have AT LEAST a firm grasp of neuroscience and be well versed with the latest research on memory formation and other cognitive functioning; and that he would at least casually try to reconcile the idea of “past memories” with our real memories stored in particular neural patterns?!?
Actually I follow a neuroscience blog…and I’ve posted stuff from them..
Also, it’s not unusual that each culture will apprehend things in its own language or conventions
For half a century Dr. Stevenson was the ONLY scientist in the world who seriously researched reincarnation. I believe that, quite simply, more research is needed. That will be the best way to determine whether reincarnation should be taken seriously or not. Otherwise, all the name-calling and mud-slinging are useless.
You’re mistaken.
There are at least a couple of Indian scientists who have researched reincarnation seriously.
One is a psychologist/psychiatrist in Bangalore. I forget her name.
I am sure there are others in Asia.
I know astrology and yoga have both been studied scientifically, even in the West, with intriguing results.
Eurocentrism accounts for the great neglect of such studies….and the widespread ignorance about them.