Hello There, Guest! Register

The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
Tewi Offline
Amaranthine Rabbit
Registered

Posts: 421
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,431
#21
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
Pseudoscience implies we claim to be scientific but aren't. It implies we claim facts and truths when we cannot prove them as such. It also tends to imply a lot of other negative stuff people don't like being associated with. This post we've just made was directly preventing Tulpa.info from being considered a pseudoscience.

"Protoscience in this sense is sometimes distinguished from pseudoscience by a genuine willingness to be changed through new evidence, as opposed to having theory that can always find a way to rationalize a predetermined belief."

If you'd like to consider tulpamancy any form of science (which, in retrospect, you really shouldn't), then it is a protoscience, as we sincerely wish to study it further and more in-depth. See the "community" section of the OP on that.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.
All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.
Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016, 03:55 AM by Tewi.)
02-02-2016, 10:54 PM
Find Reply
Anonymous
Unregistered

 
#22
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
Proto-science sounds nice to me. That works. Now Mistgod can be quiet about it for good.

As for the purpose of Tulpa Info, no matter what, it still is meant to be a place to learn how to make tulpas and a place to discuss tulpas and we sure have been doing a lot of that. I think we are doing pretty darn good.
02-02-2016, 11:17 PM
Reply
Yakumo Offline
Mad Scientist
Registered

Posts: 113
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2014
#23
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
I really don't want to stir up an emotional discussion here that leaves people angry and I do not want to appear as someone arrogantly looking down on others but as someone working as a research scientist I can't leave the arguments posted here unchallenged as I find them deeply concerning. But please do not take any of what is written below as a personal insult or insult against this community. My postings regarding research are not more than abstract considerations. This community strives to gain acceptance from academic research. And I believe that with the current understanding of 'science' you will achieve the opposite which would be a shame. In the end it boils down to the right definitions but definitions are extremely important if you want to be taken seriously.

I'll say it again, doing good research is a really hard thing to do. I often fail here myself.
And believe me, doing bad research can and will cause permanent damage to one's reputation. Probably not your reputation but the forum's. Therefore I urge this community to be more careful when throwing around with terms like 'science' and 'research'. It is placing an unnecessary burden of proof on this forum. See Melian's comment at the end.

I have read the initial post very well but I do not think people really understand the gravity of calling something 'Science' and I think this is a quite dangerous development as doing so carelessly undermines essential standards of our society.
Especially claiming that it's soft science or not academic science as an excuse for fundamental shortcomings. Yes, social sciences often need to apply laxer standards to obtain usable results. But this has to be done with great knowledge and caution and even then there are very strict rules and guidelines on how to carry out research. Regardless of that a very large portion results generated in social sciences, especially psychology, have turned out to be irreproducible.
Yes, soft sciences may have serious issues and limitations but they are still on a fundamentally different level than the stuff we do here. It would be an unfair comparison. I have not found a satisfactory definition yet, but I do not understand why we have to deal with the whole issue at all. Can't we just exchange our experiences on a layman's level without all the science fuss? It should be clear that we are trying to avoid metaphysical / esoteric explanations but the absence of such doesn't automatically make it science either. Neither does using common sense to reach conclusions.

And Tewi, as much as I usually appreciate your comments, have you actually taken a look at what you posted? I find that rather scary.
(02-02-2016, 10:02 PM)Tewi Wrote: We didn't really intend to address any problems with the forum, just to make it clear that peoples' expectations for true science were misplaced. This forum has a purpose, and we wanted to make that purpose clear. As for the forum's status as a place of science..

I agree. Although I tend to place the fault more on people that expected "hard science" and were upset at its absence, it's true that technically speaking we don't do actual science. We do layman's science, which is what the general public thinks of as science. It means we ask questions, look for answers, debate our findings and refine them over time to come up with a relatively logical and reliable product. That I will claim we do. And to all the non-scientists (or everyone who doesn't know what science is) that works just fine. But there are people who are misled I suppose. I still think they're the stupid ones for expecting more, though. Ten seconds on this forum and you should realize we aren't conducting lab experiments and writing academic papers. Sticking around for more than a year and then suddenly leaving and throwing a fit because you had persistent unreasonable expectations, I can't respect.
To sum it up, it's not really science but to a layman it looks like science. And if you are mislead to think that it is real science you are an idiot.
Seriously? That's the purpose and nature of this forum?
Kinda reminds me of Scientology.
It tricks those unable to see the difference into thinking they are dealing with relatively solid evidence while simultaneously mocking their ignorance.
Can you understand why I find this tendency disturbing?
It is the path that leads to the cult-like 'alternative' and 'metaphysics' stuff where more or less radical and charismatic people claim that they have achieved X at home and thereby clearly proved that they are right and all the stupid narrow-minded mainstream scientists are wrong. Often gathering a substantial crowd of followers and believers that see themselves at least equal to if not superior to academic research. This is not about this forum or tulpamancy but about how we deal with such issues in our society in general.

But back to earth and our specific situation.
Wikipedia Wrote:Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories.
Take a moment to think about it. I don't like it but I'm afraid except for the lack of openness I'd say that fits our current state pretty well.
But again, do not take this as an insult but as what it is. A limitation which, over time, we could at least partly overcome. Or just ignore it by not claiming to be a scientific community but just a forum on the internet. This is not a shame, just honest.

(02-02-2016, 11:17 PM)Groovy-guru Wrote: As for the purpose of Tulpa Info, no matter what, it still is meant to be a place to learn how to make tulpas and a place to discuss tulpas and we sure have been doing a lot of that. I think we are doing pretty darn good.
My word.
I do not understand why we can't leave it like that.

But if you really want to go the 'layman-science' path, all I can do is offer my help.
Exactly this is why I will continue to criticize anyone claiming to do research here. That's what science is about. Facing criticism and defending your hypotheses in an open and civil discussion.
02-03-2016, 02:15 AM
Find Reply
Tewi Offline
Amaranthine Rabbit
Registered

Posts: 421
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,431
#24
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
(02-03-2016, 02:15 AM)Yakumo Wrote: I do not understand why we have to deal with the whole issue at all. Can't we just exchange our experiences on a layman's level without all the science fuss?

Because the forum seemed intent on associating with the term science. We're just users, not admins or even mods, it's not in our power to change such claims. The post was mostly to help peoples' views on the forum's associations with science, honestly, not to justify them. I noted somewhere that Lumi himself doesn't consider what we do truly scientific as we uphold and encourage subjective beliefs instead of getting to the core of what tulpas really are. That, however, is the best way to accomplish what the forum was made for. I agree that it shouldn't claim itself as science.

(02-03-2016, 02:15 AM)Yakumo Wrote: And Tewi, as much as I usually appreciate your comments, have you actually taken a look at what you posted? I find that rather scary.

I suppose now is a poor time to mention I didn't have anything to do with the writing of the OP. I went over it after Lumi had wrote it and made some small changes to make it sound better and such. I don't personally agree with associating the term science to this forum.

What I said was true, as far as what the public sees as "layman's science" goes. The wording was rough after that though, as I was referring to long-term members who only say a word about the lack of science here in their "Mass Leaving" post. From your perspective I see how bad that looked (mostly because you paraphrased what I said from your view), I absolutely do not want people to think we're doing science when we're not. But you're looking at this as a scientist and not as.. well.. the entirety of who make up this community. I don't agree with calling anything here science, but I do understand the intention. "Science" to the layman means what I said in that quote, and in my eyes that is what we do here, what they think of it as. That's definitely not any reason to call it science though, because of peoples' misperception of it, although I'm not entirely sure how else to convey our preference for critical reasoning here. Anyways, everything regarding the word "science" in this and your post, I will get to in a second.

(02-03-2016, 02:15 AM)Yakumo Wrote: Take a moment to think about it. I don't like it but I'm afraid except for the lack of openness I'd say that fits our current state pretty well.

Funny, I thought "over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation" and the lack of systematic practices + unprovable claims fit the forum. That's why I said it should be called a protoscience if we were to attempt to call it a science at all, as we do have a wish to be scientific but honestly don't have the means. But you're right, we shouldn't be trying to call it science in the first place.

(02-03-2016, 02:15 AM)Yakumo Wrote: Yes, soft sciences may have serious issues and limitations but they are still on a fundamentally different level than the stuff we do here. It would be an unfair comparison.

One last time, I'll say, I agree. Everything to do with soft science in the OP is attempting to excuse the forum's claims of and association with science. Honestly the whole post was excuses, if you want to look at it that way at least.

Then again, we don't really do science here, or claim to, so I don't see too much wrong with that. Lumi wrote a post that fits the current state of the forum.


To that, I say: why don't you make a more productive post in the form of a "forum suggestion" rather than a "forum comment" advocating the disassociation of Tulpa.info from all claims of being "science"? I would fully support you on that. I was going to make some changes to the OP as soon as I read "I have read the initial post very well, but", but now I see a better idea. That post really does represent the forum as it is right now. Since changing it doesn't really change anything about the nature of the forum, why don't we invalidate it?

You seem better qualified to make that suggestion than I, though. Perhaps because this thread's been associated with me as I defended it. If you can sum up the changes Tulpa.info should make to best cease these misconceptions, Lumi and I will support you all the way. And we will change this thread when it seems appropriate to do so.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.
All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.
Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas
02-03-2016, 03:38 AM
Find Reply
Drakaina Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 230
Threads: 8
Joined: Jan 2016
#25
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
(02-03-2016, 02:15 AM)Yakumo Wrote: But back to earth and our specific situation.
Take a moment to think about it. I don't like it but I'm afraid except for the lack of openness I'd say that fits our current state pretty well.
But again, do not take this as an insult but as what it is. A limitation which, over time, we could at least partly overcome. Or just ignore it by not claiming to be a scientific community but just a forum on the internet. This is not a shame, just honest.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't think its right to call what goes on here pseudoscience. In a situation where there is no means to determine fact and debunk fiction, it doesn't make sense that the attempt to gain knowledge should be downgraded to a "pseudoscience".
I think the word Proto-science, that Tewi used a couple posts ago is a more fitting term.

In my time since joining I've seen this community strive to throw out as much bad information as it can, but without a solid way to test things very little can be eestablished as actual fact. Its the same for much of psychology, variant identities, and spirituality. At no fault of the subject, some things are just beyond our current means as humans to study. While this means at this time such things can't be hard science, I think this forums openness to critique, people actively ruling things out in their own tulpa journey, and the constant presence of healthy skepticism here, far removes tulpa.info from being called practitioners of pseudoscience.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Howe's Egg Principle
02-03-2016, 03:48 AM
Website Find Reply
Ido Offline
mfw
Registered

Posts: 69
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2015
#26
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
Thx for clarifying that, Tewi. Sounds a lot better.
Again this criticism wasn't directed against you in person or this community but as something to think about for everyone.

My host may have overreacted a bit but the point is that to us, science is not a joke. And we're quite allergic to people on the internet going all Hey we're doing science too, we're just applying different standards

This enables basically everyone to claim they're scientists, journalists or whatever sort of professionals they'd like to be and spread misleading information to the less-informed. Seen it countless time and it still makes me sick.

Tewi Wrote:Then again, we don't really do science here, or claim to
The forum HP kinda does give the impression. And people do occasionally throw around with the terms 'scientific' and 'research'. You were of course right that everyone should be able to see that this is not a platform for serious research but then why give the impression at all? If we don't do science and there is no research, remove those claims. If we wish to do so, it needs to be done properly. Even within the means of this community, there is plenty of room for improvement. But be prepared for some serious pain if you want to go down that road.

Tewi Wrote:why don't you make a more productive post in the form of a "forum suggestion" rather than a "forum comment" advocating the disassociation of Tulpa.info from all claims of being "science"? I would fully support you on that. [...]
If you can sum up the changes Tulpa.info should make to best cease these misconceptions, Lumi and I will support you all the way.
Well, my host wrote a short proposal on improving the research section which hasn't received a lot of attention.
Coming up with a decent concept is a lot of work and seeing how things work here it would most likely never be implemented.
As my host already spends too much time here, I have decided we will not engage in such activities unless the forum administration has the intention to address this issue asks for our help. Not to sound arrogant but we've got better things to do.
The most simple solution is to remove 'and research' from the front page and rename the research section to something like 'experiments', remove anything in there that isn't an actual experiment. All gud.

Now if you want Ido's opinion, [removed by host because believe me, you do not want to hear Ido's opinion on the forum, we've already been there]

@Drakaina
Let me tell you why this is pseudoscience.
Not because the people here are a bunch of stupid, ignorant cultists, but because this is an internet forum. And as such this is pretty much all you can realistically achieve.
As said doing proper research, regardless of the subject requires the adherence to strict standards. How difficult or elusive the subject is, is irrelevant in this matter. If it is not possible to gather meaningful results under theses circumstances, it is not possible to gather meaningful results. Point. The most honest answer a scientist can give you is we just don't know shit about that. But that does not give you the right to lower the standards just to get to some conclusions. If you do, they will be meaningless. Again, the level we and most other online communities are on is still lightyears below the standards of a soft science like psychology or other social sciences. And at least part of these sciences are on the very border of what can be called science, they are sometimes called protosciences. They may have issues but that doesn't mean this forum can play in the same league because it has the same and much much more shortcomings. This is exactly what I was talking about above. Such excuses enable everyone to push their personal agenda as 'scientific results' without having to defend and validate them.
Let's face it - what's going on here is that we discuss our personal experiences and try to reach some consensus using common sense and refuting completely crazy claims. This is what any sane and mature person would do in everyday life but that does not make it science. It is a normal discussion and as such it should be treated.
It only becomes a pseudoscience when people put a 'science' badge on it. This is partly the case here and the reason for my host's objection. What people do here is not science and it should not be called science. But that doesn't mean it's nonsense. Just as not everyone who isn't a scientist is of idiot.

And no, protoscience surely sounds better but we're far from meeting the necessary criteria for that. My host said, with hard work it might be possible to reach such a state one day but I highly doubt it. That's beyond the capabilities of an internet community. I mean you can always try, but why bother when you could spend the time with your tulpa?

TL;DR
Spend moar time with your tulpa
02-08-2016, 03:45 AM
Find Reply
Tewi Offline
Amaranthine Rabbit
Registered

Posts: 421
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,431
#27
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
Well that idea didn't go anywhere. I edited the OP some to make it clearer that tulpamancy is not true science. But we do aim to be as scientific as possible, so it makes that clear too. We are different from some random people discussing thoughtforms, because we really are using a scientific mindset to process and compile the experiences reported here. There isn't really a term for "Not technically a science, but still really close to being one", which is why we use the term soft science. I understand it doesn't qualify as a soft science either, but I don't have much to work with here. A claim of being science-minded in our endeavors with a disclaimer stating it's not true science or fact seems to be the best we can do.

As for the forum's more official statements on being scientific, that's still outside of my control. I'll leave that up to the Staff, or anyone who feels strongly enough about it to make a complaint.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.
All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.
Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas
02-17-2016, 10:06 AM
Find Reply
Anonymous
Unregistered

 
#28
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
(02-17-2016, 10:06 AM)Tewi Wrote: As for the forum's more official statements on being scientific, that's still outside of my control. I'll leave that up to the Staff, or anyone who feels strongly enough about it to make a complaint.

Mistgod and I have been complaining about it for ten months Tewi. LOL It was the very subject of some of Mistgod's first posts, which brought on some of the first waves of Mistgod hate.
02-17-2016, 02:38 PM
Reply
Tewi Offline
Amaranthine Rabbit
Registered

Posts: 421
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,431
#29
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
Bumping this, for reasons.

As long as Tulpa.info itself says "For science!", people have the right to interpret that as a claim we're doing real science, when we're not. The short answer to that concern is: "For science!" is a figurative term meaning the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake. It doesn't mean we consider ourselves scientists. This is only a community for sharing, teaching, and learning from each others' experiences. Aside from being among the top results for searches on tulpas, there's nothing "official" about us, we're just people.

Also I feel like noting the word "Tulpamancy" was intended to be taken as literally as the term "For science!" IE, not at all. We're not divining spirits, nor are we conducting lab tests. We're just talking about what we've experienced in our own minds, and trying to help other people who want to experience the same thing. Or just being a source of information for the curious.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.
All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.
Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas
03-17-2017, 12:19 AM
Find Reply
KarlYoshimura Offline
Man in the High Castle
Registered

Posts: 184
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2012
#30
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
@Yakumo:

I do not understand why I haven't read your above post before, yet I thank you. If you are indeed a researcher, I will consider you a bright star amidst an other-wise interminable void. I do wish there weren't a paucity of such individuals here - even as part of the laity, the quasi-religious posturing and mob-like rejection of objectivity herein are very apparent. Yet considering how there is a devoted metaphysical segment, as well as dozens of mystically inclined users, I fear the "scientific" element is eroded to the point of being past recognition. Retrospectively, "For Science!" seems more comical and sarcastic a slogan now than it was upon my joining here.

Moreover, there is a modicum of censorship retained by the current regime, what with the removal of posts as well as moderators editing their own and others' words at the drop of a hat. Not to mention, those being silenced by absurd "policies" that usually target one or a handful of users, rather than efficient applications and standards that value the exchange of information as well as the results derived from all user experiences, not just what the staff or majority wish to read.

I think our greatest flaw as a community is our fetishisation of academic or scientific pursuit - we have become insular, jaded, fat and immobile under the weight of our own pretensions and ever-present defects of personality. We have given cessation to the goal of being good-natured mentors, and have relished in becoming no more than bickering wanna-be politicians and acolytes. No good or productive ideas have emitted from our "enlightened" sector of community for years.

Already we dwell in a figurative tomb of meaningless sentiments and equitably pointless decisions. Our posts, of course, are but epitaphs.

Many have I loved - many times been bitten,
many times I've gazed along the open road.

Many times I've lied - many times I've listened,
many times I've wondered how much there is to know.
03-17-2017, 05:43 AM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Tulpa.Info | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication