Hi guys, late to the party again lol, firstly I would like to state that I am by no means any kind of 'expert' on this branch of the unexplained, and though I have recognised it's gravitas as pertaining to 'the meaning of life' from way-back in my history, I have chosen to dedicate my meagre 'life-studying-time' to other aspects of the 'extraordinary' [i.e. the ETH], but that is not to say that this intriguing aspect of the paranormal world has totally passed me by. I have read several books, many articles and watched my share of T.V shows featuring a goodly array of these tales of 'reincarnation', and found some of them to be pretty compelling.
And as I see it, as in most 'paranormal claims' , whichever field Scientists ask for data to be both consistent and reproducible. So in order for science to accept accounts of reincarnation or life after death, they would have to be able to verify those results - and their doctrine is that it would have to be consistent and reproducible under laboratory conditions. [which anyone knows is not always practicable] In terms of reincarnation, proponents would have to be able to forensically verify the details of the previous life, with corroborated evidence from people who knew that person, or could demonstrate that the child or new individual would be able to verify specific details that no one else could know. [which is entirely antithetical as there by definition must be someone or something to corroborate the proposed information] . In terms of life after death, it would be required to have the person “who is still in existence” to be able verify details about their lifetime, or be able to offer “new information” from that perspective that is verifiable or forensically accurate.
I am not what you would call 'a big fan' of regressive hypnosis as I have previously stated in conjunction with 'Alien-Abduction cases' because of my belief that there is too much wiggle-room for autosuggestion, false-interpretation and suggestibility, and similarly Science does not consider things valid if there’s a possibility of bias (particularly hypnosis) or that the results are not consistent and reproducible. That being said - if the results were consistent and reproducible, then those results would surely be identified as being data If the reincarnation cases had verifiable information that could only be known to the subject and not to the mesmerist. .. Even so, I see the potential for collaboration between the two parties given the possible monetary and prestigious-celebrity rewards.
However, all that said... I am [as some of you may already know] not what you might exactly label "a scientifically-proven sort of guy', inasmuch as I believe that I am more practical and honest than that! … If this sounds inflammatory and unsophisticated , then so-be-it! … For me, science is and always has been a great tool that mankind has been trying to perfect throughout history, as far back as any of the ancients that you might like to mention, and all the way through to the present day. It has been an invaluable tool and it's various discipline's have been utilised to make many great forward-moving advances in humanities progression . All great stuff!, but just as the practicality of science has been used to aid the discardment of religion and the need for god, then in that same vein of practicality science itself should not be substituted in that position of omniscience when being interpreted by entities that posses a very limited, flawed and biased understanding of the whole creation on both a cosmic and local scale. In other words I believe that sometimes we don't have to fully understand just why, how and where things are, for our common sense to know that it just is!... And though i'm not quite prepared to exclaim that "for sure, reincarnation is real", I will say that "I just don't know how abundant it might be... but I am presently of a mind that it is a reality and some cases I have seen are proof enough for me!" no matter the scientific stance.
Cheers.