Talk:Ian Stevenson

University of Virginia Press

The hell? what is a real U. press doing printing this stuff? Or is dude actually legit? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

He was one of the very few parapsychologists that mainstream science took seriously. He was a psychiatrist with a few scientific publications under his belt, but left that field to study alleged cases of reincarnation. His books were indeed published by a mainstream publishing press. His stuff has been shot down. I will work on the article at some point. David1234 (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Won't get time to work on it. Perhaps someone else will. David1234 (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Overly angry tone

Why does the author of this article sound so pissed off? I feel like this article should go into more depth on both sides of the debate because right now it's kind of a stub and the only refutation here is that Stevenson relies too much on anecdotal evidence. Even if this is pseudoscience, surely a stronger and more detailed argument against his work could be made than just one paragraph saying he uses anecdotes and therefore he is wrong. It seems a bit dismissive of the time and effort these people put into researching the subject. ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.69.7.204 / talk}

But there isn't any "debate" or "research". Those terms imply one side has more than vague speculation and dubious credibility. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And the tone doesn't really seem all that angry to me, to be perfectly honest. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is indeed debate and you can't deny that there is research, if there is still a research department at UVA (even if you dismiss international research, e.g. Satwant Pasricha); from a scientific standpoint, the verdict is still very much out. Even if random internet people come to their own conclusions, the idea that some online community knows better what to deem "research" than UVA SoM is laughable. But still: lol. I think it's somewhat naive to ask why the article sounds "pissed off" and one-sided. This is RW, what were you expecting? Of course it's going to be snide and partisan. Don't let the titular presumption of rationality misguide you, this is sarcastic stand-up comedy primarily. If you were looking for an impartial and thoughtful presentation on any subject, you would have been looking for it on Wikipedia. --Dimmu Borgir (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)