Canadian parapsychologist and psychiatrist at the University of Virginia Ian Stevenson claimed there were a handful of cases that suggested evidence of xenoglossy. These included two where a subject under hypnosis could allegedly converse with people speaking the foreign language, instead of merely being able to recite foreign words. Sarah Thomason, a linguist at the University of Michigan, reanalyzed these cases, concluding that “the linguistic evidence is too weak to provide support for the claims of xenoglossy”.[6]
You can read the rest of the ‘Notable Claims’ section if you like, but you’re citing a quack, and the adherents of a quack.
No, there are not thousands of verified instances of past life memories. There are thousands of dubious claims of that, that have been ‘verified’ with incredibly shoddy methodology.
This ‘perceptual studies division’ at the University of Virginia is about as legitimate as chiropracty, that is to say, completely illegitimate.
The University of Virgina itself also confusingly claims to be the #4 public university in the country.
Anyone who dares to study a non-materialist subject is automatically labeled a quack, and using that to dismiss not only this but everything might conflict with the dogma is exactly what I was talking about.
They are labelled as a quack because the ‘evidence’ that they cite is dubious, but they present it as if it is not.
Its essentially con artistry.
There are actual new discoveries in science that lead to much actually legitimate consternation, see the currently ongoing Hubble Tension crisis in astronomy.
But when you have other people, other experts in the fields you are claiming to use as evidence, tell you that your ‘evidence’ is a nothing burger… that is what makes you a quack.
My ‘dogma’ is that we be honest and not lie about things, that we don’t make false claims, as you literally did, when you said ‘there are thousands of documented veriable past life claims’.
Yeah thats about the same level of evidence as using the vaccine injury complaint register to claim that all vaccines are actually far more likely to cause problems than they actually are.
Anybody can just say shit. A bunch of people saying shit is not evidence of anything, unless you properly evaluate those claims.
When you properly evaluate those claims, and the result is ‘oh these don’t really mean anything, or have many other more likely explanations’…
Unlike you I actually have looked at a few of these cases. You can attack that guy all you want, but some of the kids stories are too detailed to dismiss. 2 year olds should not know the details of an obscure murder case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoglossy
You can read the rest of the ‘Notable Claims’ section if you like, but you’re citing a quack, and the adherents of a quack.
No, there are not thousands of verified instances of past life memories. There are thousands of dubious claims of that, that have been ‘verified’ with incredibly shoddy methodology.
This ‘perceptual studies division’ at the University of Virginia is about as legitimate as chiropracty, that is to say, completely illegitimate.
The University of Virgina itself also confusingly claims to be the #4 public university in the country.
https://admission.virginia.edu/
This is strange, because … that would be UC Berkeley, not UVA. The top universities in the US are:
1: Harvard
2: MIT
3: Stanford
4: UC Berkeley
5: University of Washington
The University of Virgina is the #49 public university in the country, not #4.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
Anyone who dares to study a non-materialist subject is automatically labeled a quack, and using that to dismiss not only this but everything might conflict with the dogma is exactly what I was talking about.
They are labelled as a quack because the ‘evidence’ that they cite is dubious, but they present it as if it is not.
Its essentially con artistry.
There are actual new discoveries in science that lead to much actually legitimate consternation, see the currently ongoing Hubble Tension crisis in astronomy.
But when you have other people, other experts in the fields you are claiming to use as evidence, tell you that your ‘evidence’ is a nothing burger… that is what makes you a quack.
My ‘dogma’ is that we be honest and not lie about things, that we don’t make false claims, as you literally did, when you said ‘there are thousands of documented veriable past life claims’.
Yeah thats about the same level of evidence as using the vaccine injury complaint register to claim that all vaccines are actually far more likely to cause problems than they actually are.
Anybody can just say shit. A bunch of people saying shit is not evidence of anything, unless you properly evaluate those claims.
When you properly evaluate those claims, and the result is ‘oh these don’t really mean anything, or have many other more likely explanations’…
You’re just bullshitting, you’re lying.
Unlike you I actually have looked at a few of these cases. You can attack that guy all you want, but some of the kids stories are too detailed to dismiss. 2 year olds should not know the details of an obscure murder case.