Boxed In: Learning to Think Outside the Box

“Belief in reincarnation tied to memory errors?” Please!


It never fails to amaze me that in order to validate what they believe, debunkers of any given idea or philosophy either parrot what they’ve been told by someone else, or look to (generally) ‘one’ study that claims that some belief is not valid, merely because they do not wish the belief to be valid. (Why they don’t wish it to be valid, is another story.) However, even when there has been more than ‘one’ study conducted on a subject, how are we to know whether or not – in fact – the studies, themselves, are valid?

I’ve tried, but I fail to see how in the world anyone can determine that a ‘belief in reincarnation’ is ‘tied to memory errors.’ Even if one does believe in reincarnation, how is it even remotely possible to claim that any errors that person might make are tied to a belief in reincarnation?

Based on the ‘one study’ which used a control group and an experimental group (as most scientific or ‘empiric’ studies do) to gather the required data, the experimental groups’ “tendency was to wrongly identify as famous the non-famous names they had seen in the first task.”

And this is the basis of the entire claim that those who believe in reincarnation are prone to having memory errors?

Let’s look at this more closely:

It’s not uncommon for publishers of these so-called studies to count on the probability that their readers are not aware of the empirical guidelines which scientists are required to follow. And yet, in a majority of the studies cited, rarely do any of the publishers provide background information, such as how many individuals were in either the control or experimental groups or any other identifying factors, such as exactly why (as in this case) participants who believe in reincarnation might, in fact, have recognized someone as being famous when they allegedly were/are not.

As with so many sensationalist rag-mags, the results of the study could very easily have been taken out of context, or pertinent information left out in order to ‘validate’ the pre-conceived beliefs of those conducting the study. It wouldn’t be the first time fraudulent results were published in order to obtain funding or to debunk currently prevailing beliefs, as is shown in this November 29, 2006 LA Times article, Raising Sciences Bar Against Fraud .

How do the researchers know that the individuals identified as being famous actually weren’t? Remember: at one time it was believed that the cities cited in the Bible were non-existent, that the ‘stories’ were just parables or myths, and that the ‘famous’ people with whom most of us are familiar, such as Abraham, Ramses and Kings David and Solomon (to name a very few) were merely a product of some over-zealous writer's imagination. And yet over the last century archaeologists have unearthed a multitude of proof indicating that the majority of these famous individuals did exist.

And what about the ancient city of Troy? Archaeologist, Heinrich Schliemann, was laughed at when he insisted that the Greek poet, Homer (circa 900/800 BCE - ?), author of the Illiad and The Odyssey, was speaking literally when he wrote of the Trojan War, which Homer claims took place in the early 12th Century BCE. Yet, Schliemann was vindicated when Troy was first unearthed in approximately 1870.

Some, of course, still claim that the Bible is only a myth (and thus, all those whom it cites), and that Heinrich Schliemann was a pathological liar and a sociopath. Which opens up a whole ‘nother line of questions such as whether we’ve been manipulated into believing a world history that is patently false. But, again, that is another story.

The point is, those who don’t believe in reincarnation aren’t likely to recognize someone as famous who isn’t, because chances are, they merely don’t recognize that individual at all. If one doesn’t believe in reincarnation and isn’t prone to meditate or to access their past life memories in some other way, in my opinion, they flat out will not recognize a given name that is not famous, period. This, however, doesn’t mean that they don’t have memory errors just like the rest of us, or that those who do recognize as famous, those names that are not generally accepted as famous, are experiencing memory errors.

And the statement that people who believe in reincarnation are more likely to convince themselves of things that aren’t true because they believe in reincarnation? I’m sorry, this is such a crock it doesn’t even rate an LOL. WE ALL have the tendency to convince ourselves of things that aren’t true. A belief in reincarnation is not the criteria by which to determine that tendency; there are many more out there from which to choose.

False memory syndrome is also referenced. Just as with UFOs and alien abduction, it seems to me that the debunkers are becoming desperate because the memories which many of those same debunkers claim were false (as with individuals who have been sexually abused or abducted by aliens or MILAB) are being validated and corroborated more and more each day.

Then we’re told that the reason we convert these ‘false’ memories into full blown memories is because we “can’t distinguish between things that have really happened and things that have been suggested to” us. Again, I can’t help asking: why is this tendency restricted to those who believe in reincarnation or those who have been sexually abused or abducted, when many who don’t believe in these things do the same on a regular basis?

The most laughable postulation in this article is that “people with implausible memories are also more likely to be depressed and to experience sleep problems, and this could also make them more prone to memory mistakes. While there’s no denying that being depressed and/or unable to sleep can certainly cause various problems, being either could just as easily cause anyone to have memory problems, if that were the case; not just those who believe in reincarnation.

As for the depression and insomnia or sleep problems, if you were sexually abused or abducted – either by aliens or our own government – wouldn’t you tend to be depressed or have trouble sleeping, especially if you knew that something horrific happened and you had memories that you should not otherwise have?

And what about all the studies proving reincarnation? Granted, the majority of these are case studies, which aren’t generally accepted as proof. Yet, what about the numerous children who have been born recounting events of a recently previous life and recounting details and incidents which they could hardly know and that were, subsequently validated, such as that of 6 year old (as of 2004) James Leininger?

The late Dr. Ian Stevenson, one of the leading authorities on reincarnation and author of numerous books on the subject, conducted quite a few studies with some surprising findings. Yet Stevenson isn’t the only scientist to believe in reincarnation.

Finally, we’re told that our ‘imaginative’ minds are the problem. It’s difficult to tell here if they’re implying that we’re liars, or that we’re so creative we tend to just make this stuff up.

The lesson here is: we must think outside the proverbial box. Just because a Harvard professor or someone with a degree or a slue of initials behind their name or who belongs to a mega-corporation or a governmental agency states that something is true, doesn’t necessarily make it so. Even yet, scientists, themselves, are admitting that 'Science cannot provide all the answers'.