Empirical Evidence for Reincarnation? Examining Stevenson's Xmost Impressive' Case
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Empirical Evidence for Reincarnation? Examining Stevenson's xMost Impressive' Case LEONARD ANGEL ne of the most influential sources of empirical evidence for reincarnation is O Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, by Ian Stevenson (1974). In recent years, my students in various philosophy of religion classes have reminded me of just how influential it has been. Their papers on the afterlife routinely quote authors persuaded by this book that reincarnation or some other paranormal hy- pothesis is the only plausible explanation of Stevenson's data. Ian Stevenson's For example, Linda Badham and Paul Badham conduct of the (1987: 262-263) are struck by "the sheer thoroughness of Stevenson's methods Every Imad Elawar witness was subjected to rigorous questioning, investigation, careful notes were taken of what was said, and these were checked against a second inquiry considered some years later. ... It is just not plausible among the to write Stevenson off as being so keen to con- strongest of his vince us of the truth of reincarnation that he misrepresents matters to fit his case. ... He cases, fails on six does not try to make weak cases out to be fundamental stronger than the evidence warrants." The results, according to the Badhams, are signif- grounds. icant. "Stevenson presents a strong case . for saying that at least some claimed 'memories of a former life' appear to be evidential for and suggestive of some theory of reincarnation or possession" (p. 269). Guy Lyon Playfair (1976:165) states that "a study of [the Imad Elawar] case does not seem to lead to any probable explanation other than that of reincarnation." Robert Almeder (1990: 50) concludes that "there is good reason to suppose Fall 1994 that the hypothesis of reincarnation naturalistic and paranormal phenom- is the best explanation of the cases ena is indicated by the strongest data. documented by Stevenson." Sylvia Sarah Thomason (1987) critically Fraser (1992), like Playfair, specifically scrutinizes later work of Stevenson cites the Imad Elawar case, and based on language competences, but endorses Playfair's conclusion. Gun- not the Twenty Cases materials. How apala Dharmasiri (1989:41) states that difficult is it, then, to account for the Stevenson "objectively verified [the] specific content of the best of the claims, and found them true." And Twenty Cases material on purely there are others in a similar vein. naturalistic hypotheses? Oddly enough, despite the length It seems important, however of time since publication of Twenty belated, to undertake a thorough Cases, it is hard to come by detailed critical examination of the Twenty examinations of it. Those who Cases methods and materials. I propose endorse Stevenson's work state that to begin this task. Further, I suggest they have been persuaded, but do not that it is possible in a relatively short say more than that. And skeptics tend space to establish the presumptive to dismiss the work without detailed unreliability of Stevenson's Twenty explanation. For example, Paul Kurtz's Cases work in general, due to gross compendious Transcendental Tempta- failures in his methods of research, tion has a subsection "Reincarnation: write-up of data, and analysis of Past Lives" (Kurtz 1986: 411-414), but hypotheses. there is only the briefest mention of Which case shall we review?The Imad Stevenson's data. Elawar case leaps out at us as especially Paul Edwards (1987) has presented significant. Stevenson (1974: 371) general arguments to support the includes it among his strongest cases. view that the reincarnation hypothe- Further, in this case alone among the sis must be held to be highly improb- 20, Stevenson himself recorded the able. But this seems to sidestep the prior-to-verification memories, was issue of the specific content of the present at the initial meetings evidence. This, in effect, is Almeder's between the boy who had the past- (1990:48) rejoinder to Edwards: life memories and the surviving family "Edwards's charge that all this is just members of the apparent past life, and too incredible for any rational person conducted the verifications of the to believe is simply a blatant bit of memories. "The most impressive in question-begging." John Beloff (1985: this respect is the case of a Lebanese 361) makes a similar point. Ian Wilson boy called Imad, for in this case, (1981, 1987) criticizes Stevenson for Stevenson arrived before anyone had being too light on the fraud issue. But tried to verify any of his alleged most reviewers of these materials hold memories" (Badham and Badham that outright deliberate deception on 1987: 261). And, as we've seen, it is the part of enough of the participants singled out by several for special to warrant dismissing the data is mention as a convincing case. It is highly unlikely. perfect for our review. Edwards quotes Chari's dismissal 111 now try to show that Steven- of many of the cases as cultural son's conduct of the Imad Elawar fabrications. But Chari is not the right investigation fails on six fundamental person to rely on in dismissing the points. Stevenson cases, for Chari (1978: 315) 1. In a proper investigation of is persuaded that a combination of spontaneous past-life memories of a 482 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 18 child, first and foremost is the need of the tabulation makes clear the need to record and report the "original, for a record of just what the parents prior-to-verification memories" in the said, how Stevenson recorded their form in which they were originally data prior to verification, and how it noted. Stevenson presents the original was or was not subsequently reorgan- information he received concerning ized for presentation in tabular form. the boy's memories, according to the Amazingly enough, the boy's memo- parents, as follows: ries are in the end held to be good evidence for reincarnation in spite of They believed that he was claiming the fact that the best past-life candi- to have been one Mahmoud Bou- date Stevenson found was not named hamzy of Khriby who had a wife Mahmoud Bouhamzy, did not have a called Jamilah and who had been fatally injured by a truck after a wife named Jamilah, and did not die quarrel with its driver, (p. 277) as a result of an accident at all, let alone one that followed a quarrel with Stevenson later tabulates 57 items the driver. Yet Stevenson does not as constituting the original prior-to- give sufficient information for the verification memories. But the form reader to know what exactly the in which they were originally recorded parents or the boy himself said that is not given. Inspection of the items entitled Stevenson to discount the Fall 1994 483 original claims as interpreted by the cation for interpretation of the data parents and instead present the very and as "baffling" (p. 280). Thus it is different claims given in the clear that Stevenson's formulation of tabulation. the data to be verified followed the 2. Any attempts on the part of the effort to verify and was not fixed prior investigator to distinguish between to verification. what the boy stated and what the Examples of this sort of problem informant relatives of the boy inter- abound. The reader who wishes to preted him as stating must be done pursue this can consider item 20, before efforts at verification. Now which reads: "A truck ran over a man, consider Stevenson's write-up of the broke both his legs, and crushed his name "Mahmoud" in the tabulation: trunk" (p. 291). The question is, when did Stevenson formulate the wording 2. Mahmoud (name mentioned by "A truck ran over a man" thus leaving Imad). (p. 287) open whether the man run over was the past-life or not? The parents Under Stevenson's "Comments" we certainly took it that Imad thought his find "Mahmoud Bouhamzy was an past-life was killed as a result of an uncle of Ibrahim Bouhamzy." (Ibrahim accident (pp. 303-304). And Stevenson Bouhamzy is the apparent past-life of understood right to the end that the the boy, according to Stevenson.) boy took it that the past-life had died Thus it is taken as verified that a name as a result of the accident (p. 319). the boy mentioned corresponded to a Then by what right did he alter the real person in the past-life's family, claim. Stevenson has seemingly obfus- as though it is clear that the boy had cated the prior claims and distorted been mentioning a name by way of what he understood to be the boy's referring to that uncle. memories. What is not mentioned in the 3. A third requirement is that data tabulation of data is that the original must not be presented in such a way information given by the parents of as to obscure alternative hypotheses. the boy was that they took their son Consider the identification of the to be claiming to have been Mahmoud town of Khriby. In the tabulation we Bouhamzy of Khriby. Presumably find that the boy is presented as Stevenson doesn't mention this in the having remembered: tabulation because he came to the conclusion that the parents had mis- 1. His name was Bouhamzy and understood the boy, or drew unwar- he lived in the village of Khriby. (p. ranted conclusions from what the boy 287) had said. But when did he come to that conclusion, and on what basis? There In the general account of the is clear evidence that Stevenson came events, it is reported that Imad "had to that conclusion only after traveling given the name of the village (Khriby)" to Khriby with the expectation that (p.