Thoughts on "If meta were legit, there'd be overwhelming evidence"

[Yori]

There are some people that say this, and some people that contradict themselves by saying "If I ever see proof, I'll believe it." (Because, of course they said something that meant that it must not exist, because there is no overwhelming evidence).

 

I think this thought in general is flawed, mainly because there -is- 'evidence', but unless it's completely conclusive (meaning no one can come up with any little alternatives), it won't be used as "HEY OMG EVIDENCE!" by the mass scientific community.

 

They're saying this among people who say things like, "there will always be some kind of alternative explanation, even if we can't think of one yet, for metaphysical things." Just like everyday people, scientists may think that as well, so it's not suspicious at all that there's nothing declared conclusive -by the mass scientific community- yet. (Some things have been by some people, I'm sure. I don't know why they assume otherwise. Is it supposed to be on the news every time some one-guy person in the science fields says something?).

 

Even if a scientist didn't personally think like that, they'd be hesistant to just up and declare it. Even if they wanted to go on the news or something, it would probably be discouraged. It might be a job threat too.

 

The studies are treated much more strictly than others. If they were treated like some others you can find on Google scholar, there'd already be loudly declared evidence. (Many studies involving evidence of other things probably aren't absolute and empirical, at least not to the point that studies on meta things would need to be.)

 

So that's another flaw, acting as if meta would be treated the same as anything else; that the standards for evidence wouldn't be higher.

 

Sure, there's things on records, if you actually try to look. But nothing no one has passed down globally to declare it "Legit" to the entire scientific community.

 

Then there's other things to account for too, like everyone claiming to have meta abilities don't have super power strength ones, and not everyone claiming to wants to be publicized. I, for example, wouldn't want to be. I'd half expect the FBI or CIA (or whatever) to intervene after a study and threaten me.

 

D: D: D: maybe that's what's been happning ALL ALONG!~~ kidding.Z

 

Basically, all I mean is that, no, if meta were real, it would not mean that there'd be solid evidence already (or, more like, evidence that's been globally declared solid, regardless of if the best evidence is just as solid as anything else that's used to declare something as scientific fact.)

[Linkzelda]

When it comes to metaphysics in general, all it is in general is the attempt to have some understanding of the probability of the rudimentary nature of being and whatever space (world, star, etc.) that would involves it.

 

Science is obviously predictive measures that can be consistently created in some way, and its strive isn’t to deny anything. It’s either a militant scientist that’s intolerable towards the probability of those “super powers” or whatever would be deemed as abnormal, supernatural, etc., but it’s not something people should say Science supports.

 

It’s merely an attempt to slowly find ways to find representations and such to accurately explain reality. If there’s any evidence that may challenge a certain theory, concept, explanation, and such, if it has a better grip than the former, Science merely takes it in and moves on and learns from its mistake.

 

There are obviously cases with anecdotes of people with certain abilities that would theoretically have higher ups or any scientific authority coming after them for further question, but like you stated, it’s not something everyone would want to do. It’s merely that Science hasn’t found a way to find those predictive measures to consistently produce something. It’s more of seeing things that’s probable vs. improbable, and clearly it’s a scavenger hunt to find new connections that can actually make sense.

 

That’s the whole beauty of Science. Sure, some people may apply Science for their own agenda and just be restrictive of trying to go beyond accepted information and knowledge of things, but people can easily use some scientific observations towards something metaphysical.

 

And presuming you’re posting in this section of the forum, it’s clear that this tulpa phenomenon would just something that’s considered Meta. The conflict between what’s Meta and what elitist here may think is actually credible evidence, or overwhelming evidence of tulpas is pretty ironic and hilarious. At best, the ad hoc claims can be deemed as pseudoscience, but that’s just putting things in perspective if the concept of tulpa was actually shifted into more expansive scientific observation (i.e. not a bunch of individuals that spew theories without some kind of application to create predictive results that are reproducible).

 

Obviously with something like this, especially when it’s mostly catered to perception, mindset, belief, and some connection with the wonders and mysteries of the mind, there may be connections that may make the concept of tulpas more probable. However, even if it does reach that path, there will still be cases of anecdotes where the “evidence” or “truth” is for those who really find out that “seeing is believing.”

 

I’m guessing you were planning to create a hypothetical scenario, though I’m curious with what you really mean by “some people.” It’s probably just something in guise to prevent others from bashing out at you or something like that, seeing how several communities have mixed views on those that post on meta.

 

There are cases of reputable scientist finding things way beyond their level of comprehension, but like for anyone, their reputation would be at stake.

 

 

 

TL;DR: I'm not sure what I was planning to get out with here. All I'm really seeing is you creating a hypothetical situation over whatever conjured up or few people you've managed to communicate with that may state "if meta were legit, there'd be overwhelming evidence."

 

It sounded like a Captain Obvious phrase, though I hardly think by that point that it (Meta) would be considered Meta, Paranormal, Parapsychology, or anything pertaining to the Supernatural if it were "legit."

 

So it's just a contradictory statement to have some false sense of hope with a "what if" scenario on the nature and being of the world, universe, and all that fun stuff. Maybe you wanted insight from others on to expound on this contradiction, or maybe you just wanted a general discussion about something else entirely.

 

Care to expound on this? :P

[Yori]

Ok Linkzelda, let me phrase, by "metaphysical" I mean supernatural.

---

Feel kinda bad you wrote a response about what all metaphysical means xD

---

It's not a hypothetical. That is what people say, and this is my response to it.

[Guest Anonymous]

If metaphysics were legitimate it wouldn't be a branch of philosophy but of science.

 

The term supernatural means it cannot be proved by science. So, no, there wouldn't be evidence. Those two terms do not mix.

[Yori]

Derp, sometimes supernatural things are called "metaphysical," especially here. When we say "don't discuss meta, take it to #tulpamagick" we're talking about anything supernatural. I already cleared up what I meant by that. I didn't have to do it again. (And no, all things supernatural aren't about philosophy in case that'd be the next response).

 

I suspect everything I said above was known; please only answers to my actual point.

[Enoch327]

If metaphysics were legitimate it wouldn't be a branch of philosophy but of science.

 

The term supernatural means it cannot be proved by science. So, no, there wouldn't be evidence. Those two terms do not mix.

 

The word "science" wasn't coined until 1834. Sir Isaac Newton referred to himself as a "Natural Philosopher". So science is a branch of philosophy, just like metaphysics. And structured, creative thinking is legitimate. So again I repeat, there would be no science without philosophy.

[Guest Anonymous]

Yori, I am well aware of what you mean by metaphysics. The term supernatural contradicts the term reality because a supernatural thing is defined as being beyond reality. Linkzelda has already said this. It transcends natural laws and science, therefore asking for examination and scrutiny for such a thing is ridiculous.

 

Basically, all I mean is that, no, if meta were real, it would not mean that there'd be solid evidence already (or, more like, evidence that's been globally declared solid, regardless of if the best evidence is just as solid as anything else that's used to declare something as scientific fact.)

 

Evidence is just verifiability. Again, the issue for it is that it is a paradox. You are trying to explain something that by definition cannot be explained. If you are going to argue that ghosts, spirits, and what not are not supernatural and find replicable evidence for such, you could get somewhere. However, arguing that supernatural things are explainable cannot and will not ever happen as doing such contradicts just what a supernatural thing is.

[Yori]

Derp, it's pretty clear I wasn't -asking for- evidence or scrutiny. I think you need to direct that at people saying there should be overwhelming evidence if it exists.

 

And, this is just a words correction. Good job. I already heard about the clever ole, "actually, if something is natural and simply undiscovered, it's not supernatural," which is simply a variant of what you're saying. But it's rather cruel to make someone go [Oh by the way I get that if supernatural things play a part in our reality then it's not actually supernatural] every time one uses the term supernatural. ;-;

 

" Again, the issue for it is that it is a paradox. You are trying to explain something that by definition cannot be explained. "

 

This is just semantics. All this says is that people shouldn't call it supernatural, but it's a word that's become associated with what's meant, "paranormal" things. I'm not trying to explain anything, actually. This is about evidence, not explanations, not that I'm even trying to prove anything exists. I think you missed the entire point of what I was saying, and lost track getting into semantics. I can easily flounce your entire argument by abandoning the term "supernatural" altogether and using another term.

 

Enough of this ridiculousness.

[Guest Anonymous]

Derp, it's pretty clear I wasn't -asking for- evidence or scrutiny. I think you need to direct that at people saying there should be overwhelming evidence if it exists.

 

I had a feeling you'd get tangled up there. Correct, you aren't. Those proposing evidence are.

 

This is just semantics. All this says is that people shouldn't call it supernatural, but it's a word that's become associated with what's meant, "paranormal" things.

 

That's the point. If you're talking evidence, don't use that term. I hope I've drilled that in enough.

 

I can easily flounce your entire argument by abandoning the term "supernatural" altogether and using another term.

 

Then please do.

 

Enough of this ridiculousness.

 

Frankly you haven't made an unambitious statement as to what your point is. Thoughts on "If meta were legit, there'd be overwhelming evidence" I can't tell from what you're posting if you want to discuss your musings or have me post my own personal thoughts on it. I will address both because you're getting a bit tight with me. For the future, sharpen your points.

 

There are some people that say this, and some people that contradict themselves by saying "If I ever see proof, I'll believe it." (Because, of course they said something that meant that it must not exist, because there is no overwhelming evidence).

 

A vast majority of such proof is anecdotal. For any sort of proof to be worthwhile it has to be replicable and observable under a controlled environment. You'd think if this were to be achievable at least one of these prizes would be collected. Parapsychology is at times referenced as a pseudoscience, even though it has a large amount of evidence. From what I understand this is from it being unreliable at best.

 

I think this thought in general is flawed, mainly because there -is- 'evidence', but unless it's completely conclusive (meaning no one can come up with any little alternatives), it won't be used as "HEY OMG EVIDENCE!" by the mass scientific community.

 

Again, a big point of science is testing and scrutinizing something until we understand how it works and can predict the outcome. Were parapsychology to become much more reliable then perhaps bounds could be made.

 

They're saying this among people who say things like, "there will always be some kind of alternative explanation, even if we can't think of one yet, for metaphysical things." Just like everyday people, scientists may think that as well, so it's not suspicious at all that there's nothing declared conclusive -by the mass scientific community- yet. (Some things have been by some people, I'm sure. I don't know why they assume otherwise. Is it supposed to be on the news every time some one-guy person in the science fields says something?).

 

Ay, the parapsychologists that still roam report their findings and the skeptics are very good at tearing them apart.

 

Even if a scientist didn't personally think like that, they'd be hesistant to just up and declare it. Even if they wanted to go on the news or something, it would probably be discouraged. It might be a job threat too.

 

On the contrary, those that study it as their job happily expound upon their findings.

 

The studies are treated much more strictly than others.

 

I tend to agree.

 

So that's another flaw, acting as if meta would be treated the same as anything else; that the standards for evidence wouldn't be higher.

 

I wouldn't say the standards for evidence being higher but evidence being more difficult to come by.

 

Then there's other things to account for too, like everyone claiming to have meta abilities don't have super power strength ones, and not everyone claiming to wants to be publicized. I, for example, wouldn't want to be. I'd half expect the FBI or CIA (or whatever) to intervene after a study and threaten me.

 

Personally, I would happily collect my million dollars on the road to fame.

 

Thoughts on "If meta were legit, there'd be overwhelming evidence"

 

I've been on psipog, from what I understand to be a more popular paranormal site, and their argument as to why they didn't go for the million is that it's given to you in bonds or something similar. It missed the entire point of proving their claims and after that I've viewed all they've produced as fake. Not to mention their videos are focused on their hands which gets me to question authenticity and the pictures of psiballs were hilarious photoshops.

 

Videos like below are, in my opinion, what evidence should be like: demonstrated in front of a scientific crowd for scientific purpose and not at-home anecdotes.

 

 

Overwhelming evidence, beyond what I've said, the evidence is restricted to those that truly delve into it or are part of the intellectual elite. In America at least, philosophy is not a mandatory class. Metaphysics isn't a well known subject. Subdivisions of it, sure, but metaphysics itself, no. The sheer lingo of it is overwhelming, especially on forums. I see things like Chaos Magick, Geotia, Gnosticism and am bewildered by what they mean.

 

The idea of seeing is believing plays into this. Even more so, really. I see all the time people presenting magic tricks and paranormal concepts but rarely present a "how to". The evidence is rarely presented in a friendly, easily managed manner. I go back to psipog and there wasn't an overall guide, a step-by-step do this first, or better yet, "What would you like to do? This is how you should go about this." It was messy. The evidence is hard to swallow and is easy to get sick of the taste.

[Nobillis]

Kevin says: "Weird stuff happens. We have no idea why. We don't believe in paranormal, and yet things that appear to be [paranormal] still happen. Earth is a very strange place. Possibly, we will understand what is going on. Just as alchemy was replaced by chemistry, so too may our understanding [or lack] one day be replaced with something that we can call a science.

 

Really, even for tulpas, the only evidence I have that I can't discount is my personal one - the Watchdogs drive the car reliably when I am too exhausted to drive. It is evidence only to me though. It is of no value to anyone else.

 

I can't be sure Nobillis exists, or really that anything does. And yet, I think I'll chose to act as though she and the Earth do exist, because my life is richer that way."