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

[left blank]

...science is a branch of philosophy, just like metaphysics [...] So again I repeat, there would be no science without philosophy.

 

Agreed.

 

Now, my thoughts?

 

Subjective experience (ultimately, all perception) is notoriously difficult to qualify, let alone quantify. To me, claims of telepathy are no more absurd than reports of sentient imaginary companions. Just as Kevin said...

 

Really, even for tulpas, the only evidence I have that I can't discount is my personal one. [...] 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.

 

...there is no overwhelming evidence for our tulpas either, only pages of anecdotal progress reports.

 

In my experience, with myself and others, genuine telepathy and psychokinesis is subtle, transient, spontaneous, and unreliable by definition. Trying to apply our current expectations, outdated ideologies and rudimentary equipment to a fundamentally obscure reality seems as fruitless to me as relentlessly driving a hammer into a mountain to understand magmatic convection, or clacking two marbles together in the hopes of glimpsing the Higgs-Boson particle.

 

That's not to say skepticism isn't useful. On the contrary, I think it's vitally important to remain suspicious of any report, 'metaphysical' or otherwise. Our perception is limited at best, and we're vulnerable to our emotions. Plus, keeping every variable in mind is exhausting.

 

But when I see offers for monetary reward, I cringe. I can't think of a better way to distort a scientific challenge than reducing it to what's effectively a circus act for monkeys. Cryptæsthesia (for want of a better holistic term) and those sensitive to it need to be approached with respect, dignity and an open perspective before we can even hope to find consistency in the chaos.

 

There is evidence for so-called 'psi,' however underwhelming it may seem to some people. Like so many other parapsychological enthusiasts, I believe continued research in several fields of study, such as physics and neuropsychology, will help refine existing methods and technology, elucidate specifics, and yield more reliable results.

 

That's what I think.

[waffles]

I agree with what Linkzelda said; if it were scientifically acceptable then it would stop being magic. But that's really just semantics.

 

because there -is- 'evidence'

For things such as telepathy, psychokinesis and so on there is, as far as I am aware, no reliable study conducted that gives evidence for it. I mean in a properly controlled environment, not some arctic diary or TV magician. There isn't just no overwhelming evidence, there's more or less no reliable evidence whatsoever.

 

 

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.

Well, not completely, but unless it's good evidence then no, people won't use it as evidence. That's kind of, like, a good thing.

 

 

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.

That's just a misunderstanding on your part. People will not take "all science is wrong" lightly. But that doesn't mean that people will ignore evidence. Paradigm shifts do happen. The fact is that 'standards of evidence' refers more to not looking at a video on YouTube and thinking "evidence", or just taking someone's word for it. Actually, disreputable institutions and journals are ignored, but that's the same thing. Examining them reveals questionable methods and often outright fraud. Simply put, if you can't come up with 'good' evidence then you just don't have any evidence.

 

And here's the other thing. This argument for 'reputation' might, might pass nowadays but the idea of magic has been around for basically as long as human history. It is not a new idea. If it were real then you can be damn sure that at some point in the Middle Ages, when scientists were executed for heresy, someone would have had the guts to point out this thing that's actually very very important to the foundation of natural sciences. But no, no-one ever did. So either over the course of history people have managed to take on board everything that's really key to understanding the natural world except magic for some reason, or magic just didn't stand up.

 

 

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.

You for some reason think that everyone who claims to have magic powers doesn't want attention?

 

 

 

In my experience, with myself and others, genuine telepathy and psychokinesis is subtle, transient, spontaneous, and unreliable by definition.

Unless you're claiming that these effects simply disappear without a trace when exposed to study - which in 'current ideologies' amounts to shameless evasion or denial - then that's simply not an excuse. Reproduce something above standard error margins? You've got evidence.

 

 

Trying to apply our current expectations, outdated ideologies and rudimentary equipment to a fundamentally obscure reality seems as fruitless to me as relentlessly driving a hammer into a mountain to understand magmatic convection, or clacking two marbles together in the hopes of glimpsing the Higgs-Boson particle.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. We like to think we have a decent understanding of mantle convection and CERN did actually glimpse the Higgs boson. So yeah, those two things aren't really fruitless at all, unless you're really claiming that current science is pointless.

[Kiahdaj]

I guess I'll give my opinion.

 

The way I see it, "metaphysics"--that is, principles and so forth that extend beyond our "understood", and "mathematically explainable" concept of physics--is not a subset of physics, but rather that physics is a subset of metaphysics. By this I mean there are driving factors behind all of our "understood" physics-based phenomena--factors that we do not currently understand.

This would mean that physics is the part of the larger whole; the part we think we can explain--leaving people to refer to metaphysics as "the part we can't explain". So due to the way people consider metaphysics at the moment, to say that there would be overwhelming evidence for something that has been chiefly characterized as "that which we can't explain" would be silly. So no. No, there does not need to be overwhelming evidence for it to exist.

[left blank]

See, here's the thing. Unless you're claiming that these effects simply disappear without a trace when exposed to study - which in 'current ideologies' amounts to shameless evasion or denial - then that's simply not an excuse. Reproduce something above standard error margins? You've got evidence.

 

Except that doesn't appear to be the case necessarily. There's reported evidence, which means the effect has been recorded, albeit controversially to some. But as far as I know, 'psi' hasn't been outright rejected or disproved yet.

 

The problem I see is that -- to use another terrible analogy -- a lot of of people seem to be anticipating scheduled fireworks, and end up dis/missing the distant, erratic lightning that occurred two hours later, or/and deemed it undesirable because it didn't conform to their expectations. As I said, subjects like telepathy are inherently ambiguous events that don't readily cooperate with our current modalities. Anyone claiming otherwise is either totally misled, or almost assuredly bullshitting.

 

I'm not really willing to go spelunking for citations while I'm mobile and saddled with a mountain of work, but there have been quite a few studies conducted by major universities (you might already be privy) that, depending on the subjects and methods used, produced results that sometimes exceeded chance. There're the (in)famous Maimonides dream telepathy studies, with a small example here, which are more-or-less summarily dismissed by Skepdic.

 

Again, as has been stated many times before me, this is a phenomenon of peception, and as such does not lend itself easily (or at all) to the concretization of hard proof. We can't even be sure how to approach it. Technology like fMRI doesn't even provide reliably solid evidence for our established subjective experience, let alone a slippery and fleeting episode of remote sensation. Most of psychology is just fumbling with hypotheses until a pattern emerges long enough to be useful, but even then there are always outliers.

 

But, ultimately, I figured the point of this thread was just to voice opinions rather than defend them. I don't care to persuade everyone to believe in an anomaly that I'm not entirely convinced of myself--I'm not getting paid enough for that. I don't even expect, or ask, that anyone have faith in the most rigorous laboratory setups, but I do encourage them to formulate and conduct their own personal investigations with a moderately skeptical, but open-ended perspective. Not only could they potentially help to expand on existing/invent new methods, but the proof of the pudding is all too often in the tasting.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. We like to think we have a decent understanding of mantle convection and CERN did actually glimpse the Higgs boson. So yeah, those two things aren't really fruitless at all, unless you're really claiming that current science is pointless.

 

No, I was trying to use the analogy of widely accepted discoveries to illustrate that our tools and approach may not be sufficient to expose subliminal mind-to-mind interfacing, prescience, and mind-matter interaction.

 

Like the Higgs-Boson, these phenomena could exist outside fanciful conjecture, but our current principles may impede disclosure, and our equipment (or its operation/implementation) might be ineffectual on the order of using a hammer to detect magmatic currents.

 

Bottom line: This is a hotly, perpetually, but understandably contested topic. If anything's fruitless, it's arguing about it outside of a research project.

[waffles]

Except that doesn't appear to be the case necessarily. There's reported evidence, which means the effect has been recorded, albeit controversially to some. But as far as I know, 'psi' hasn't been outright rejected or disproved yet.

You can't disprove it, and I'd say that it is pretty much outright rejected.

 

Still, it is true that there are some studies that do report statistically significant findings. Maimonides is some weird stuff, but honestly it's hard to be sure about them. Things like flawed methodology (that is replicated in subsequent experiments), flawed statistical analysis, bias or just fraud, I really don't know. I don't have the raw data. I wish I could read the critiques to the studies without the paywalls, but all I have are the parapsychologists' side.

 

So I guess that's what I mean by 'reliable', and the same is said for a lot of the other studies. Like, a while back I was looking for apparently well-documented studies on teleportation by the Chinese Journal of Somatic Sciences. That material is only available translated by the CIA, and if I were a US citizen then I'd use the FOIA to get it out. Man, I know you don't want to go looking for good evidence for everyone else and this may well sound like just excuses but it adds another layer of "no good evidence" to the pile.

 

 

No, I was trying to use the analogy of widely accepted discoveries to illustrate that our tools and approach may not be sufficient to expose subliminal mind-to-mind interfacing, prescience, and mind-matter interaction.

Yeah, reading you now. Sorry, I just misinterpreted what you said completely.

 

Well, I really don't know about that. What that seems to say is that any ES effect is really too subtle to be measured now. The thing is, the Higgs particle was theorised to exist back in the sixties. I think the comparison is a bit tenuous but if anything then it's that ESP itself should be obvious, but its mechanism too subtle to be detected.

 

Like, it's not just a phenomenon of perception. It shouldn't be untestable. Just as a hypothetical, imagine that someone could - legitimately - see through walls. So you put him on one side of a wall and see if he can tell you what's on the other. As far as I'm concerned, a lot of ES/magic should fall under this.

 

And sure, maybe we should be doing research instead. But crikey, I don't have EEG-EOG equipment and I'm not planning on buying any. If that's what it takes to get results then what am I supposed to do about that?

[Yori]

**Hey waffles, read it to the bottom before replying because I made mistakes in who you were referencing -somewhere- in here, didn't fix them all**

 

. I mean in a properly controlled environment, not some arctic diary or TV magician. There isn't just no overwhelming evidence, there's more or less no reliable evidence whatsoever.

 

People say this, but I doubt all the people saying it actually looked. They seem to be copying off of other people. When I ask some about their research, they can't really give me details on what it is that they researched, when they decided, etc.

 

I thought it was clear I definitely wasn't talking about any individual's diary or a TV magician, or any informal study like that. Not just by anyone.

 

There have been actual degree holding scientists that have tried some, but they were considered inconclusive.

If you're only mentioning those types of things because you think there areen't many (or any?) attempts at scientific studies, that supports one of my points as to why "no overwhelming evidence."

 

Well, not completely, but unless it's good evidence then no, people won't use it as evidence. That's kind of, like, a good thing.

 

Thing is, what's "good" for everything else is lower than what's "good" evidence for the metaphysical (basically meaning very high standards. And no, all studies aren't passed with the very same standards... the more 'big' it is the more they need to feel comfortable)... already tired myself out saying why. If you didn't see it, see past posts.

 

That's just a misunderstanding on your part. People will not take "all science is wrong" lightly. But that doesn't mean that people will ignore evidence. Paradigm shifts do happen. The fact is that 'standards of evidence' refers more to not looking at a video on YouTube and thinking "evidence", or just taking someone's word for it.

 

Again, you keep talking about things outside of actual studies. Don't even mention those, since no one even had those in mind. "Youtube videos" aren't studies, neither are someone's word. Not sure why you thought I could be talking about these things but delays the discussion a lot since I have to reply to this.

 

Actually, disreputable institutions and journals are ignored, but that's the same thing. Examining them reveals questionable methods and often outright fraud. Simply put, if you can't come up with 'good' evidence then you just don't have any evidence.

..Why do you keep purposely bringing up things that clearly don't qualify? This is really stunting the discussion. I feel like throughout most of your reply, I'll reply going "Yes, of course, I never had that in mind as 'evidence!"

 

And here's the other thing. This argument for 'reputation' might, might pass nowadays but the idea of magic has been around for basically as long as human history. It is not a new idea. If it were real then you can be damn sure that at some point in the Middle Ages, when scientists were executed for heresy, someone would have had the guts to point out this thing that's actually very very important to the foundation of natural sciences.

I'm not sure why you think no scientists ever pointed out "magic." I know that some historically at least believed paranormal things. (the term seems to imply something that is completely unknown... I don't like it, like I don't like the term "powers.")

 

But no, no-one ever did. So either over the course of history people have managed to take on board everything that's really key to understanding the natural world except magic for some reason, or magic just didn't stand up.

 

Such a convenient dichotomy. Basically, you're saying, the only choices are that throughout history, people somehow only took up everything else that's key to understanding the natural world except magic, or that magic didn't stand up. I assume the former isn't much of a choice at all, and that you're saying "no one ever did" is a piece of proof that paranormal things don't exist.

 

I'm really interested in what people who say the same would say if they were to witness something. What would they say? Would they really be in utter disbelief that "wow, somehow magic was never pointed out by scientists or scientifically recorded, but it exists!!!"? I don't think they'd keep pretending to be sure of that in the first place, full-heartedly.

 

You for some reason think that everyone who claims to have magic powers doesn't want attention?

 

I know for a fact that some people don't want attention, assuming you mean to say that everyone who claims to have abilities (not magic powers. Sigh. Some scientists probably use terms like this too. Some people who also call it that say they personally wouldn't bother investigating. This is an example of a good chunk who wouldn't bother with time or resources to fully investigate.)

If you're doing the less likely alternative... claiming I said that no one who claims to have abilities wants attention, that's obviously bullshit, since there are records of people trying things out.

 

 

Unless you're claiming that these effects simply disappear without a trace when exposed to study - which in 'current ideologies' amounts to shameless evasion or denial - then that's simply not an excuse. Reproduce something above standard error margins? You've got evidence

 

With the last sentence, it shows you know good and well that it is not a dichotomy between probable signs and "effects disappearing without a trace." Just because something wasn't 'secure' enough for scientists to be comfortable going "Okay, it's official!" ---(again, it would be very high! look at common people that are skeptical. they say they'd need the utmost evidence - where there is not a chance that anything could be explained by something else [for some people this is literally not possible. I've had people blatantly say that even if they saw something and there was no actual explanation today, they'd skip it because we would find one later. just as some common people like this, some in lab coats would and do too], and where it couldn't be explained by something else, something that can't possibly have been fluked.)---

doesn't mean effects "disappeared" or there weren't any when it was time for testing.

 

Update: I got some of the things that were to me and to others confused...but still, if you read my original posts, you shouldn't say some of these things in reply to -others-, it seems to indicate you didn't read mine, unless the other person specifically indicated they were talking about "informal" things as proof.

[reguile]

The issue with metaphysics is that it claims to do actual "things", unlike other religions which work through random events or things like prayer and other subjects where a random light can be said to be a sign from god by one person, and a randomly blinking light by another.

 

This is why proof is such a big thing in metaphysics. You claim to be able to do all this stuff, you want to say you can talk to others across distances or do X, let's test it.

 

People have, and the best result you can get is "inconclusive" (which, so far as I understand, means that they saw no difference in results between meta and random people).

 

Science works in the way it does for good reason. People are incredibly untrustworthy, incredibly easy to fool, and incredibly biased as any sort of source. That's why things have to run through peer review, and why results have to be tested and tested again in controlled environments. Things are almost never as they seem and science is designed to test and make sure that A thing actually is what we say it is.

 

That's why people ask for proof, and why it's not a flawed thing to ask for definite proof, because any other type of proof just cannot be trusted. And any meta subject still has yet to offer any real proof outside of random personal anecdotes and saying things that just can't be tested at all.

[left blank]

When, or if, I get the time, I will come back to this thread to provide a list of references and studies conducted by reputable academic institutes.

 

Until then, I encourage everyone to perform their own experiments and pursue existing research, even if it takes unlawful evasion of paywalls. You'll find everything I'm alluding to, and you won't just have to take me at my word.

 

I want to point out that the scientific community is not immune to politics and distortion. That may seem like an obvious statement, but I feel like it's especially relevant to a subject that has repeatedly produced compelling evidence, but remains the butt of many an intellectual's jokes.

 

I honestly think there will be more conclusive answers once the methodology is adjusted. In the meantime, the warring factions will continue their disputes. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since adversity can be a motivating force for developing more effective techniques.

 

Either way, we don't have "overwhelming" evidence at present, just a growing collection of intriguing, and strangely consistent, leads.

[waffles]

I thought it was clear I definitely wasn't talking about any individual's diary or a TV magician, or any informal study like that. Not just by anyone.

Well great, just getting that out of the way.

 

 

There have been actual degree holding scientists that have tried some, but they were considered inconclusive.

Yes. So they aren't good evidence if they're inconclusive.

 

 

Thing is, what's "good" for everything else is lower than what's "good" evidence for the metaphysical (basically meaning very high standards. And no, all studies aren't passed with the very same standards... the more 'big' it is the more they need to feel comfortable)... already tired myself out saying why. If you didn't see it, see past posts.

I know. But it shouldn't matter. If there is an effect then it is only scientific rigour that comes up with good evidence. Of course people need to be very comfortable to believe something ground-breaking, but that's true for any such discovery in any field. It is something that is time and time again overcome for legitimate ideas.

 

 

I'm not sure why you think no scientists ever pointed out "magic." I know that some historically at least believed paranormal things. (the term seems to imply something that is completely unknown... I don't like it, like I don't like the term "powers.")

Well, because it never made it into science as it were. It wasn't significantly scientifically recorded or recognised, contrasted to other facets of nature.

 

 

Such a convenient dichotomy. Basically, you're saying, the only choices are that throughout history, people somehow only took up everything else that's key to understanding the natural world except magic, or that magic didn't stand up. I assume the former isn't much of a choice at all, and that you're saying "no one ever did" is a piece of proof that paranormal things don't exist.

Yes.

 

 

I'm really interested in what people who say the same would say if they were to witness something. What would they say? Would they really be in utter disbelief that "wow, somehow magic was never pointed out by scientists or scientifically recorded, but it exists!!!"? I don't think they'd keep pretending to be sure of that in the first place, full-heartedly.

Sure, but that's not the case here. I clearly haven't witnessed magic, and since I don't think it is possible to, I don't know what you're trying to say here.

 

 

I know for a fact that some people don't want attention, assuming you mean to say that everyone who claims to have abilities (not magic powers. Sigh. Some scientists probably use terms like this too. Some people who also call it that say they personally wouldn't bother investigating. This is an example of a good chunk who wouldn't bother with time or resources to fully investigate.)

If you're doing the less likely alternative... claiming I said that no one who claims to have abilities wants attention, that's obviously bullshit, since there are records of people trying things out.

So what's with the suggestion that magic isn't publicised because its practitioners don't want attention?

 

 

 

When, or if, I get the time, I will come back to this thread to provide a list of references and studies conducted by reputable academic institutes.

That would be super.

[reguile]

I want to point out that the scientific community is not immune to politics and distortion. That may seem like an obvious statement, but I feel like it's especially relevant to a subject that has repeatedly produced compelling evidence, but remains the butt of many an intellectual's jokes.

 

I honestly think there will be more conclusive answers once the methodology is adjusted. In the meantime, the warring factions will continue their disputes. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since adversity can be a motivating force for developing more effective techniques.

 

Either way, we don't have "overwhelming" evidence at present, just a growing collection of intriguing, and strangely consistent, leads.

 

The scientific community is not immune to politics and distortion, that is true.

 

However, I am pretty sure that a scientist who can find proof in metaphysics will have tons of incentive to reveal the information. So long as an experiment is repeatable and can be tested again to find proof. to say that "oh, they will be shunned" is a conspiracy theory at best, because it's obvious science doesn't give a crap about others opinions if you look at things like global warming, which has a large amount of support from people who want it disprove, the fact is that no (or too little) evidence exists against it.

 

There are no "warring factions" outside of shitty forum arguments like this. There are few to no real scientists who actually take metaphysics seriously, and for good reason. There is a reason you can't easily find any papers on metaphysics that aren't made my people trying to sell books. Real scientists do not waste time or funding on things that are proven to not exist.

 

How would science have to adjust it's methodology? And what the heck are these leads you are talking about?