Guest Anonymous

Can Other People Sense Your Tulpa(s)?

Recommended Posts

Is it so outside of the realm of possibility that our minds can create a mass of energy, and in that energy is enough of our will and intent through forcing that it becomes intelligent?

 

Yes. Energy doesn't care about "intent". Energy is something we can explain quite well with physics. Energy as far as we can tell even directed by our consciousness is still being directed on a biological level. "Intending" energy to do or be something doesn't do anything other than shape things in your mind. Energy does not generally travel outside our skull in any meaningful way because we "intend" it to. At some level it does (I mean, you can feel heat yourself), but I don't think those traces of energy are in any way meaningful or "directed by consciousness".

 

Ugh, I don't like this mixing of metaphysics and science. I don't like telling people what they believe is wrong. But if you are deliberately asking for scientific observations, I guess you'll get them.

 

Keep in mind that humans, experiencing a subjective reality, are not necessarily bound by scientific 'facts' (theories). Not to the human perceiving them at least. Science concerns itself with objective (measurable) reality for the most part though, so there are countless areas of importance to humans that science may conflict with. This does not invalidate those experiences.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physicist here. I'm not one to step on people's toes or tell anyone what to believe, but there are some scientific concepts floating around here (and plenty of other places) that are frequently used as either part of a pseudoscientific "theory" to explain something odd or as evidence of that "science doesn't have all the answers"-flavor mistrust and suspicion of scientific philosophy. I can't in good conscience abide letting these things go, since I'm in a position to give an accurate, educated response to those willing to listen.

 

First of all, the scientific concept of energy is not mysterious or metaphysical. "Energy" has a different meaning in science than it does in everyday life. In science, it's a technical term used to denote something very specific. Energy is a mathematical abstraction that turns out to be a handy tool to describe a system's dynamics because the physical laws of the universe happen to have nice properties and symmetries. (Specifically, conservation of energy emerges because the laws of the universe are invariant under translation in time; wait a while before performing and experiment and, if all other conditions are exactly the same, you'll get the same result as if you hadn't waited. See Noether's theorem for a mathematical formalization.) It has nothing to say about consciousness or the afterlife or life essences or anything like that; it just doesn't have any relevance. If you want to use the word "energy" in the everyday sense, go ahead. But if you want to talk about scientific energy, and wield the concept in an argument that has any weight, you have to actually be talking about the same thing. Put another way: You have to actually know what the word means. If you don't, you're just talking past your audience, about something completely different. If you have something else in mind you want to talk about, then use a term that actually means what you intend, or come up with a new word, or keep calling it "energy" but make it clear you aren't talking about the scientific kind. Borrowing the word "energy" from the sciences makes it seductively easy to conflate the two meanings if you're not careful; one sentence, you're talking about a life force, the next, you're talking about conservation laws, when really those things have no business being lumped together. I consider myself to be quite smart, but I know almost nothing about economics, and I recognize that. If I have an economics question I'd like to know the answer to, I will talk to an economist. I won't string together economics buzzwords I've picked up over the years, because that's just not how you come into accurate beliefs.

 

Yes, dark matter is poorly understood. But we can discuss it seriously and professionally because we have evidence for it. The question didn't spring out of thin air or from personal anecdotes; we took actual data with actual instruments and noticed something off. In fact, the question of dark matter is motivated only by a mathematical anomaly. A similar situation arose in electromagnetism when we realized that our understanding of linear momentum was in some way incomplete (I'm going to simplify the story a lot). It seemed like magnetic fields violated conservation of momentum. What happened next? We figured out that if you add a certain term to the expression of momentum, everything works out perfectly. It turns out magnetic fields store momentum (to put it sort of crudely). A counterintuitive result at first, but one that works out beautifully in the bigger picture. What can we learn from this? Well, momentum, like energy, is a mathematical abstraction. Energy isn't real in the same way the apple lying on your kitchen counter is real. It's math. It's really, really powerful math. And a rough qualitative description like "it's a stored potential for motion" comes after the math, not before; a qualitative understanding in itself carries almost no explanatory power.

 

A lot of scientific terms get abused like this, by getting shoehorned into "theories" where they don't belong. It's because it's much easier to skim google search results or read pop headlines than it is to study in-depth something you don't necessarily have the scientific / mathematical background to understand. Some examples from physics that spring up in all sorts of nonsensical places:

  • Energy & its conservation
  • Entropy & the third law of thermodynamics
  • Dark matter
  • Quantum mechanics as a whole
  • Wavefunction collapse
  • The many-worlds interpretation
  • Relativity
  • Mass/energy equivalence
  • Antimatter & C symmetry

Most of these concepts are often seen as mysterious or poorly understood, but really they're just complicated and mathematical and technical. When professionals talk about these things, their discussions always involve actual math, not just rough qualitative arguments that kinda-sorta sound like they might work. Sure, a qualitative hypothesis typically comes first, but then they set pen to paper and see if they can get the math to work out. When they compare and contrast mathematical models, they're judging them based on how well they fit the actual data taken by actual instruments.

 

I'm definitely not saying that if you haven't taken a university course in something, you're not authorized to have opinions about it! There are plenty of people who are highly skilled in plenty of things who haven't had formal training. But I am saying that forming accurate scientific beliefs is hard, and it's especially hard if you don't make the plunge into actual textbooks and actual math. A core skill for a scientist is an exacting, precise discernment: determining which information sources to trust and how much, evaluating how a new claim fits into what you already know, recognizing when a prior belief needs a reevaluation or refinement when the balance of evidence starts tilting against its favor, and being open to being flat-out wrong. It's hard to develop these skills without being inundated in professional science and seeing how it works from the inside.

 

There's a stereotype of scientists being myopic and close-minded toward new ideas and theories. But really, any professional scientist worth their salt is very, very good at being wrong: they've done it thousands of times before! At mid- or high-level university, majoring in physics is hard! The average student is going to do plenty of problems wrong, miss the point of plenty of lectures, and probably bomb a test or two. Most importantly, they're going to have their existing beliefs about how the universe works challenged and upturned over and over and over and over. One of the most important skills a college science curriculum teaches you is how to be wrong, when to throw whatever you thought was true out the window and listen to the evidence. Truly gifted scientists are some of the most open-minded people out there. But there's reasoning and discernment behind their open-mindedness, not gullibility or naivety. The reason most ideas and hypotheses get tossed into the garbage is not because science is close-minded. It's because most hypotheses are wrong. Hypothesis space is huge: there are a lot of ways to be wrong, but only one way to be right. A good scientist still comes up with plenty of bad theories, it's just that they dispose of them on their own, as they come up. A good scientist not only knows what they know, but knows what they don't know; they keep tabs on where the gaps in their knowledge are and they're always on the lookout for something that fits. But they don't snap something into the puzzle just because it's the least terrible among poor options. That doesn't get you anywhere, and is just a quick way to start believing wrong things. Don't settle.

 

So, again, I'm not saying only professional scientists have the right to talk about science. I'm just saying that scientific terms already have meanings, and if you don't build up your own understanding of them, carefully, then you have no reason to expect you'll end up believing something that even makes sense. You're not even playing the same game.

 

I'm sorry I ended up rambling so much, but this is something I'm really passionate about. If this is too off-topic, it's totally fine if a mod chooses to move it somewhere else, I'd just prefer it weren't deleted altogether. Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to believe. I just wanted to give an inside perspective.

 

Lotus says:

I've been waiting to actually answer the question for like two hours while Anti rambles, hah. Anyway, no, I've never noticed anything that suggests someone else has caught on to me from scratch. However, I can make Anti look like kind of a doof by saying something really distracting and making her space out for a second. And if we're with someone who already knows about me, sometimes they'll ask whether she was talking to me. Sometimes they even ask what I was saying (validation!), and that's especially nice.


Physicist, mathematician, philosopher.

Vessel of uncountably many passions.

 

Tulpa: Lotus Ponens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice post. An important thing many who criticize science as a whole don't realize is that science is not in the business of "proving" things. Science is a system for learning about the reality we live in. But the simple fact that theoretically a higher power could have control over our universe and the ability to change any of its workings at will - because we can't disprove that (it's not "falsifiable"), we can't say anything for absolute sure. However, we will always work with the currently best-supported theory as a basis to function on when facts aren't available.

 

True facts only exist in closed systems, aka where we decide how everything works. For example, facts exist in math, because we said so. 2=2 because that's how we designed the system and its rules. Luckily despite the fact that mathematics don't "exist" naturally we're still able to apply them to make real progress in the world. What we see as progress anyways. That honestly makes me feel like there's some deeper mechanics to how reality works, for a reason that's hard to explain. The fact that we can use an idea that we made up to actually affect the world in ways otherwise unavailable to us, that's gotta mean something.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats fine, I dont expect anyone to just understand and accept, but i figured a group of people who have created separate beings just from intent would be more open to the idea of doing the same thing as other groups with just different terms. I feel masses of eletromagnetic energy moving around me, and when i was a skeptic, I tested the person by asking them where there spirit was, and every time it was exactly where I currently felt that magnetic-like repulsion. When I focus on my tulpa, i get the exact same feeling. Its proof enough to me, but obviously and unfortunately I cant prove it to anyone else without meeting in person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need is a solid framework of testable hypotheses and empirical evidence to back or refute them.

Unfortunately anecdotal evidence like the one you provided makes up almost everything we have regarding tulpas. That's fine for giving advice on tulpa creation but it is not a valid source for making serious claims about the nature of this phenomenon in a broader sense.

 

Yes, I'd like to get together 'sensitives' or those who have trained in this stuff and test all sorts of things like telepathy, and if they can see/hear my tulpa, but I don't have the resources.

 

People have already been studying supernatural phenomena scientifically for decades and from where I stand the only reason it isn't discussed widely as at the very least possible is a plain stubborn belief about how the world works. Per my link in my first reply.

 

I'm not the one to ask for evidence. When you have someone who's interested enough to put funding behind it (another hobbling supernatural inquiries face- we can fund stuff like this http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/curtis-kalin/top-20-worst-ways-government-wasted-your-tax-dollars http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/6223831/Pointless-research-top-10-Ig-Nobel-award-winners-for-silly-science.html but apparently can't legitimately continue explore claims humans have been making . . . for forever. And not be doubted as 'serious scientists.')

 

 

Yes. Energy doesn't care about "intent".

 

Um, yes it does.

 

https://youtu.be/4kwSO0NmtoM

 

https://www.amazon.com/Squared-Do-Yourself-Experiments-Thoughts/dp/1401938906/191-7663533-7627302?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

 

It also cares about whether it's being observed or not. Basic double split experiment.

 

"care" is the wrong word of course. More like "responds to."

 

Quantum physics keeps running up against consciousness. (directly counter to Antikythera's claim that it says nothing about consciousness)

 

https://endgametime.wordpress.com/the-awakening-quantum-mechanics-of-the-human-brain-and-consciousness/

 

"But if we must decide which produces which, modern physics is pushing us in precisely the opposite direction, suggesting that it is consciousness that is primary and matter secondary.” – Eben Alexander

 

https://www.libertariannews.org/2013/07/12/what-quantum-mechanics-says-about-conciousness/

 

Metaphysics IS a vast and varied new field of science. As people like to say, that's the great thing about science- it's true whether you accept it or not.

 

Noetics is another interesting one . . .

 

These are not pseudoscience, nor trying to 'shoehorn' a theory, Antikythera, they're just people gathering data. Like all the rest of people who work in scientific fields and produce theories that are subject to revision. But, because it involves things that aren't explainable through a purely materialistic worldview, they get you accusing them of such, they get handwaved and don't get much media or academic coverage.


Woodwindwhistler on www.asexuality.org

 

The hardest arithmetic to master is that which enables us to count our blessings. -Eric Hoffer

 

"We can never achieve perfection, but maybe we can approach it asymptotically. Never give up on plugging in those numbers!" ~Me

 

You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note. –Doug Floyd

 

My poetry: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5qMnL2tDkJYOGNhLW4tRHFHa0E&usp=sharing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I'd like to get together 'sensitives' or those who have trained in this stuff and test all sorts of things like telepathy, and if they can see/hear my tulpa, but I don't have the resources.

 

Go here. Even if just for a weekend, but ideally you should work there a few months or a few seasons, like I did. You will meet so many people training some sort of physic ability, you wouldn't believe it.

 

I actually went there to learn about tulpas, back before there was an online community. I was introduced to a lot of interesting subjects there, and I meet a girl with imposed wings. I highly recommend it.

 

Metaphysics IS a vast and varied new field of science. As people like to say, that's the great thing about science- it's true whether you accept it or not.

 

Noetics is another interesting one . . .

 

These are not pseudoscience, nor trying to 'shoehorn' a theory, Antikythera, they're just people gathering data. Like all the rest of people who work in scientific fields and produce theories that are subject to revision. But, because it involves things that aren't explainable through a purely materialistic worldview, they get you accusing them of such, they get handwaved and don't get much media or academic coverage.

 

I have to disagree with this.

 

1. Metaphysics is far from "new", unless you're going by the geological use of the word "new".

2. Metaphysics is not science, because science is more than collecting data.

 

This is important to me, even though I've always had a great interest in metaphysics, and I do believe that it has great value.

 

The reason this is important to me is that my mother's parents are Christian Scientists. That doesn't mean that they're Christians and scientists. That means that they belong to a religion called "Christian Science" (even though many people would say that it's neither Christian nor science). If you've heard of this religion, it's probably because Christian Scientists are in the news every few years when a Christian Scientist child dies because his parents refused him medical attention.

 

Christian Science is a faith healing religion. They believe in the healing power of prayer. The problem is, they haven't scientifically tested the healing power of prayer.

 

My grandparents nearly died last year of a very minor illness. Eventually, they both agreed to be hospitalized. Next time we might not be so lucky.

 

The fact is, Christian Scientists die ten years on average earlier than the rest of the population, and usually from illnesses that modern medical science has a nearly 100% success rate at curing. But Christian Scientists don't understand statistics, double-blind experiments, control groups, or confirmation bias. And it kills them.

 

Christian Scientists collect stories of healing through prayer -- they collect data -- but they have no idea how such data should be analyzed. And no matter how much I try to show them, they refuse to believe it.

 

Someday, probably someday soon, I will watch metaphysics kill my grandparents when science could have saved them.


"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, seeing as my tulpa followed a guy around while I wasn't there, without my knowledge, I don't see how that's relevant.

 

Also, the second guy was at the far end of the country on the phone and sensed something. But, I did talk about it beforehand, asking to introduce them. Unless I'm some sort of hypnotist master that can influence someone's perception through just my voice. That would be cool.

 

I'll give you that the third guy could just be impressionable because I was so excited about this possibility and explaining it to him.

 

 

I'm going to go with that.

 

 

Sigh. If only the world worked as prettily as that. Thing is, information doesn't disseminate itself very well. (on any subject, really) It gets stuck in pockets, sits around, or warped by money and bias.

 

There is *much, much* more evidence than mainstream, atheist-fashioned science likes to admit. https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/home#believer

 

 

I did this test too, with two cats and a dog. Same results.

 

For some reason, I think that wild and/or feral, or at least more in tune to the outdoors animals would be more sensitive. Also, pets are probably the same as people- some are sensitive to the supernatural, some aren't. If we could get hold of, say, the people who go on TV to insist that their pets forewarned them of a haunting in their house, I suspect we might have better outcomes.

 

Of course, I'd hate to traumatize the poor people all over again, since their only experience with the supernatural was a bad one.

 

Hello! I've just been randomly perusing the forum and I must coment on this phenomenon. Whenever I have women over, my cat (who is a very jealous familiar) will almost always attempt to sandwich herself in between us, fight for my attention and generally be more of an obnoxious pest than usual, haha. Now recently, there have been a few occasions where Lucy and I have been on the couch in each other's arms, and my cat has jumped up and gotten in between us, and again exhibited the behavior that she was jealous of me and another person. Could be coincidence, but my cat is highly sensitive to spirits and noncorporeal critters...so, who knows? I might begin documenting and exploring this further after reading your posts! Cheers!


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... Tbh I don't know if this counts, but one day my best friend told me that she and her tulpa wanted to visit us, but she's at the other side of the continent, so she just sent her tulpa, Brown, who somehow came to my Wonderland. I felt like I had a needle on my brain for a while, and then I could sense him in the Wonderland, and my tulpae had no problem in touching and seeing him, it was like he had no problem in coming from her mind to mine, and then he returned with her in the night, while we were all sleeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go here. Even if just for a weekend, but ideally you should work there a few months or a few seasons, like I did. You will meet so many people training some sort of physic ability, you wouldn't believe it.

 

I actually went there to learn about tulpas, back before there was an online community. I was introduced to a lot of interesting subjects there, and I meet a girl with imposed wings. I highly recommend it.

 

Ah, I'll have to put that in my important bookmarks. However, no way am I going to frosty New York City. I couldn't even do that for college, and the college I did go to (mid US) was too cold for me. NY barely cracks 70 in the summer. I don't have the means for plane tickets, either . . .

 

Supposedly the body has 'wing chakras.' https://towardchakra8.com/2010/10/26/angelic-growth/

 

I have to disagree with this.

 

1. Metaphysics is far from "new", unless you're going by the geological use of the word "new".

2. Metaphysics is not science, because science is more than collecting data.

 

The fact is, Christian Scientists die ten years on average earlier than the rest of the population, and usually from illnesses that modern medical science has a nearly 100% success rate at curing.

 

I don't know why you insist on conflating a misuse of the word 'science' with anything I presented. Aside from the fact that these are university-backed in some cases, these people are not advocating anything so foolhardy. To tar them with the same brush is, I think, just borne of your ongoing personal emotional battle with CS.

 

Also, please point out to the Christian Scientists that even Jesus told people he had healed to essentially get a second opinion and make sure for themselves.

 

Matthew 8:1-4; Leviticus 14

 

There is an account in the gospels that puzzled me for a couple of decades—it is just that it didn't seem to make sense. Jesus cleanses a leper, then tells the former leper not to tell anyone what Jesus did but to go show himself to the priest who would offer the sacrifices Moses prescribed.

 

. . .

 

Part of the problem is that I thought of the priests, as it relates to lepers, more in line with doctors. The priests, however, had no ability to cleanse a leper. He could not make a leper well nor clean. He could not make him a leper either. He only did diagnoses and then informed everyone whether the person in question was clean or unclean.

 

. . .

 

I understood that when the cleansed leper went to the priest, the priest would unwittingly confirm the power of Christ to cleanse a leper. The leper knew Jesus could cleanse him if He was willing, but the priest would not have thought so. However, the priest was a professional diagnoser of leprosy. If he declared the man clean, rest assured, he was clean.

 

Remember that religious figures in those days were the most well-educated, in theological as well as medical matters. It's not like today, where we have a division of labor (and knowledge) between doctors and priests. That's probably what these CS chuckleheads are getting confused.

 

I wonder what Pentecostals think of Christian Scientists. Seems like the former is much more in touch with the actual Holy Spirit.


Woodwindwhistler on www.asexuality.org

 

The hardest arithmetic to master is that which enables us to count our blessings. -Eric Hoffer

 

"We can never achieve perfection, but maybe we can approach it asymptotically. Never give up on plugging in those numbers!" ~Me

 

You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note. –Doug Floyd

 

My poetry: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5qMnL2tDkJYOGNhLW4tRHFHa0E&usp=sharing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I'll have to put that in my important bookmarks. However, no way am I going to frosty New York City. I couldn't even do that for college, and the college I did go to (mid US) was too cold for me. NY barely cracks 70 in the summer. I don't have the means for plane tickets, either . . .

Yeah, it was pretty cold in spring and autumn, but I remember sweating like crazy during summer. It's not quite NYC, so perhaps the weather is a bit different.

 

Another thing I discovered there that I think you'll find interesting is the yawning contagion. You know how when you see someone yawning, you yawn too? I noticed that many people there would yawn when I asked them to just imagine someone yawning. Or they'd yawn just from reading something I wrote about people yawning, something like this paragraph you're reading. And this would happen no matter how much they tried to resist yawning. Are you yawning right now?

 

I don't know why you insist on conflating a misuse of the word 'science' with anything I presented.

 

Let's go back over what I said...

 

Christian Scientists don't understand statistics' date=' double-blind experiments, control groups, or confirmation bias.[/quote']

 

And compare to what you said...

 

Well, seeing as my tulpa followed a guy around while I wasn't there, without my knowledge, I don't see how that's relevant.

There are two explanations I can see here, depending on how you found out about this.

 

1. Your tulpa told you that he followed the guy.

 

2. The guy told you that he felt something following him, and your tulpa confirmed it.

 

Either way, via confirmation bias and the power of suggestion, you matched what your tulpa told you to what the guy told you about his day. He probably had a pretty typical experience, like going to work and such, so your tulpa's report matched pretty well with it.

 

This is a technique commonly used by cold readers: say things that apply to everyone, or at least to the group of people you've identified your target to be a part of. As an example, did you yawn when you read what I wrote about yawning? I'm guessing you did. I've noticed that people who are interested in metaphysics tend to have a lot of sensitivity, imagination, and empathy, and that combination of traits means that they'll yawn in sympathy with someone they've imagined yawning.

 

So my little yawning paragraph is a demonstration both of how cold reading can work, and how suggestion can work. If I can suggest to you via text from other side of the world that you will do something, and you do it, is it so hard to imagine a being inside your own head being even better at influencing you with suggestions?

 

Also, the second guy was at the far end of the country on the phone and sensed something. But, I did talk about it beforehand, asking to introduce them. Unless I'm some sort of hypnotist master that can influence someone's perception through just my voice. That would be cool.

Actually, you are. Most of my experience with hypnotism is via text, but it's even easier over the phone. People tend to think that you need to go into a deep trance for hypnosis to affect you -- you don't.

 

Milton Erickson was a very influential hypnotist who worked entirely through conversation and storytelling. He wouldn't use any pendulums or pocket watches or spirals or even talk about sleep. He'd just talk about growing tomatoes or playing baseball, and his subject would be healed.

 

There was even once incident where Erickson's secretary had horrible migraines and refused to be hypnotized, and he made her take dictation of nonsense jumbles of words he'd heard from schizophrenic patients. He mixed in some words of his own, and just nonsense jumbles of phrases was sufficient to cure her of her migraines. If you'd like to see how incredibly easy it is to suggest things like this, I recommend

.

 

I'll give you that the third guy could just be impressionable because I was so excited about this possibility and explaining it to him.

 

Not just the third guy, but also the first and the second and you and your tulpas. This is why it's absolutely essential to do double-blind experiments.

 

There was a famous experiment where a Russian woman said that she could see what was happening inside someone's body with her psychic powers, and she could diagnose diseases with it. The Russians tested this by doing brain scans and comparing the brain scans to what the woman said -- a lot of the time the brain scans actually matched what she was saying.

 

Then James Randi got involved. He insisted on a double-blind experiment. The Russian scientists were divided into two teams: Team A showed the woman the people who were being scanned and recorded what she said. Team A never saw the brain scans themselves. Team B saw the brain scans, and recorded the correct answer the woman could give, but they never saw the woman's answers. Afterward, the results of Team A and Team B were compared, and they showed random chance.

 

Basically, before Randi showed up, the scientists were looking for what they wanted to see, even if they were doing it unconsciously. That's the power of suggestion and confirmation bias. James Randi introduced the double-blind experiment, which removed the power of suggestion and confirmation bias from the results, and they could be analyzed scientifically.

 

Unfortunately, not every experiment that comes out of a university is very scientific -- lots of people think they're doing science, but they don't understand double-blind experiments, so their results will always be contaminated by their own minds. To identify such contamination, the scientific community has peer review -- basically, if someone comes up with some amazing results to an experiment, several other groups around the country will do the same experiment, but trying to be more objective and scientific than the first group -- if they get the same results, it means something, but if they don't, the scientific community dismisses it. This is why things like telepathy, in spite of being experimented on many times, are considered metaphysics and not science.

 

Also, please point out to the Christian Scientists that even Jesus told people he had healed to essentially get a second opinion and make sure for themselves.

You're right, and I wish they would do this, but they don't. Christian Scientists will often say they've been cured of major diseases like Ebola (70% of the people infected die), when they've probably really been infected with diseases with similar symptoms like the flu (3% of the people infected die). Because they never got a proper diagnosis, their story sounds far more remarkable than it really is. Also, the Christian Scientists who actually die of Ebola aren't around to tell the story of their failure.


"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.