AnShen wrote:Clairvoyance is just as unpalatable as rebirth to hardcore materialists, and would be dismissed by them in the same manner.
Yes, of course. But no-one here is trying to please them.
AnShen wrote:I'm also not sure why it would be considered simpler than rebirth. Clairvoyants generally have the ability to receive information about a variety of people and situations; the children studied by Dr. Stevenson only had memories or impressions related to a single person, often one who had died around the same time that the child was born. If the child is simply clairvoyant, why is the clairvoyance limited in this fashion, and not manifest as a more general ability?
I see no reason to make the assumption that clairvoyance cannot be specific. Also, the child could be picking up on the memories of a living person who knew the deceased.
AnShen wrote:Then there is also the case of physical evidence: Dr. Stevenson documented cases where the deceased had injuries or markings on their body that correlated with birthmarks on the child they were supposedly reborn as. I don't see how clairvoyance would account for this, either.
The observation of birthmarks can be easily misinterpreted. They are like bodily Rorschach tests, are they not?
AnShen wrote:We can of course debate whether or not Stevenson's studies are valid or whether they prove anything (I think they are interesting but inconclusive, myself), but I don't see how clairvoyance would account for his findings. If they point to anything then it is some kind of rebirth or reincarnation.
I agree that they prove nothing. Whether or not they point to rebirth being a real phenomenon is completely open to interpretation. Even if the findings were conclusive, we still only see what we want to see.