---
title: "Ian Stevenson"
chunk: 3/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:38:05.034547+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

=== Criticism ===
The Journal of the American Medical Association referred to Stevenson's Cases of the Reincarnation Type (1975) as a "painstaking and unemotional" collection of cases that were "difficult to explain on any assumption other than reincarnation." In September 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Stevenson's research. Writing in the journal, the psychiatrist Harold Lief described Stevenson as a methodical investigator and added, "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known (I have said as much to him) as 'the Galileo of the 20th century'." The issue proved popular: the journal's editor, the psychiatrist Eugene Brody, said he had received 300–400 requests for reprints.
Despite this early interest, most scientists ignored Stevenson's work. According to his New York Times obituary, his detractors saw him as "earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition." Critics suggested that the children or their parents had deceived him, that he was too willing to believe them, and that he had asked them leading questions. Robert Todd Carroll wrote in his Skeptic's Dictionary that Stevenson's results were subject to confirmation bias, in that cases not supportive of the hypothesis were not presented as counting against it. Leonard Angel, a philosopher of religion, told The New York Times that Stevenson did not follow proper standards. "[B]ut you do have to look carefully to see it; that's why he's been very persuasive to many people."
In an article in Skeptical Inquirer Angel examined Stevenson's Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (1974) and concluded that the research was so poorly conducted as to cast doubt on all Stevenson's work. He says that Stevenson failed to clearly and concisely document the claims made before attempting to verify them. Among a number of other faults, Angel says, Stevenson asked leading questions and did not properly tabulate or account for all erroneous statements. Angel writes:

"In sum, Stevenson does not skillfully record, present, or analyze his own data. If a case regarded by Stevenson to be among the strongest of his cases — the only case of 20 that had its purported verifications conducted by Stevenson himself — falls apart under scrutiny as badly as the Imad Elawar case does, it is reasonable to conclude that the other cases, in which data were first gathered by untrained observers, are even less reliable than this one."
Skeptics have written that Stevenson's evidence was anecdotal and by applying Occam's razor there are prosaic explanations for the cases without invoking the paranormal. Psychologist and neurologist Terence Hines has written: