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

[left blank]

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

 

As I said above, I have no time to debate. I insist that people look for themselves. Eventually I'll compile a list of citations and studies to post here.

 

For now, daily struggles, appointments, playing host to couch-surfers (instead of tulpas), and a new, totally crazy job opportunity are going to have to take precedence.

 

Agree to disagree. If you're sure you know better than I, that's fine. I'm done for now.

[Yori]

"

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."

 

You're oversimplifying and brushing aside. It's not a conspiracy theory... it's simple. You can't say "science doesn't give a crap about others opinions" so easily and then try to compare global warming, which at first was not even an issue (the reactions came later), with claiming metaphysical stuff is real.. it's been something that is viewed as against science for a while. This is something that is referred to as "magic." And it's not all of science that'd be giving a crap. It'd be more like one team of scientist(s) at least having probable evidence but not being so quick to publish because other scientists may not accept it, or even tell them not to bother from the get go or that it would be ridiculous -from the get go.- As there are PEOPLE that say scientists wouldn't/shouldn't even bother with meta things, scientists do as well. Scientists are only people, after all. All these blanket statements about how scientists are [a certain way that would prevent every single thing you point out as happening] don't work. It's not so pretty and simple IRL.

 

I've also tried to explain to you, Reguile, and in this thread, that the standards for proving meta things would be much higher than for other studies on 'regular' things (and don't say it's all standardized, cos it's not. the very existence of conflicting studies that were all published confidently proves that, and you can just look at "small matters" that were accepted before studies (less standards) vs "huge matters" that weren't to see this). And don't forget that some people (and since scientists are people too, not super cool unbiased in all situations superhumans, some scientists) say that even when something currently "unexplainable" happens, that we just haven't found an explanation for it, or they say there's always something going on.

 

Basically if there's even a possibility for there to be a "hole" anywhere it won't be globally trumpeted. And some solid studies may already exist, but because it's not on some news channel every day, perhaps people claiming to have looked simply assumed there was none? Some people expect there to be some huge announcement as soon as some team or scientist publishes -something- in meta that doesn't say it was inconclusive, but rather conclusive. But they're usually only thinking about certain meta things and have some fantasy involving big hats being eager to read it and put it out rather than "hmm"ing at it. all these things that they say surely wouldn't happen or are "conspiracy theories", that are only convenient to skeptics.

"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."

Exactly!!! THIS was one of my points. This attitude is why there's not many people even doing things. They have other things to do, and even if they want to, other fellow colleagues wouldn't support it or take it seriously. And no, are you seriously claiming metaphysics has been "proven to not exist"? I'd love to see that. If you "know" this, why'd you ever bother?

 

I'm saving this quote for when people act like scientists would totally be jumping on everything, as if they'd be different from -people- who are skeptics. It's bull.

 

In the end, I don't care, because it's not so bad for meta circles to not be recognized as being "legit", as long as they can have their practices together, but I constantly see these arguments that sum up to "omg if there were any evidence at all itd be all over the news and etc etc scientists would be on board bla bla", because it's unfounded BS. There's probably plenty of other things, just studies, apart from meta, that aren't all ver the news. And when "big things" are on the news, it may have been finished for months or a year by then.

[reguile]

"that the standards for proving meta things would be much higher than for other studies on 'regular' things"

 

Every single thing has a different test. In order to prove the sun is mostly hydrogen you have to find proof, such as in the spectrograph. In order to prove that meta actually does something you need a test that actually shows that meta DOES something. Anything that can't be explained by other means.

 

All you need is two people who can consistently share information while in a controlled environment where they should not be able to do so at all, and have a method that anyone can use to re-create this experiment so it can be done anywhere.

 

That's not exactly much harder than anything else is.

 

"And don't forget that some people (and since scientists are people too, not super cool unbiased in all situations superhumans, some scientists) say that even when something currently "unexplainable" happens, that we just haven't found an explanation for it, or they say there's always something going on. "

 

Yeah, in cases like the big bang or other theories, which meta does not need to be involved with to prove itself at least partially true.

--

"Basically if there's even a possibility for there to be a "hole" anywhere it won't be globally trumpeted."

 

God of the gaps.

 

"And some solid studies may already exist, but because it's not on some news channel every day"

 

Or anywhere aside sites that are selling books on metaphysics?

 

"Some people expect there to be some huge announcement as soon as some team or scientist publishes -something- in meta that doesn't say it was inconclusive, but rather conclusive."

 

Find one. Find one decent peer reviewed study that says this.

--

"This attitude is why there's not many people even doing things."

 

Yes, because once something has been disproven there is no reason to continue disproving it.

--

"They have other things to do, and even if they want to, other fellow colleagues wouldn't support it or take it seriously."

 

They will if you get conclusive results.

 

"And no, are you seriously claiming metaphysics has been "proven to not exist""

 

"proven" in the soft sort of proven in that there is no evidence at all for it and no tests ever seem to find anything new.

--

"n the end, I don't care, because it's not so bad for meta circles to not be recognized as being "legit", as long as they can have their practices together"

 

Echo chambers do best in isolation.

--

"but I constantly see these arguments that sum up to "omg if there were any evidence at all itd be all over the news and etc etc scientists would be on board bla bla", because it's unfounded BS."

 

Are you telling me that proof behind a theory that revolutionizes the way we look at the world, a theory that provides that humans are more important than random arrangement of particles, and a theory that basically gives people magic powers is going not NOT be all over the news if it's proven and known to work?!?

 

"There's probably plenty of other things, just studies, apart from meta, that aren't all ver the news."

 

Yeah, because they are studies about reports of business efficiency and new ways of making slightly faster processors. They are boring.

 

--

"And when "big things" are on the news, it may have been finished for months or a year by then."

 

If scientists are doing it properly, it probably has been years before they have even heard of it.

[GrillNinja]

I read parts of the thread, and it looks like the classic meta vs science debate. Not getting caught up in it is like dancing with spiders and trying not to hit the webs. Shenanigans!

 

I am posting though because I have something to say, and it is this:

Metaphysics is legit. So it Science. They are both philosophies and ways people can think about things. They are operating systems of the mind. Which is more legit? Macs? Windows? Linux? Star Trek? Star Wars? So the meta vs science debate is just about as meaningful.

 

Now, the main question:

If meta were legit, there'd be overwhelming evidence?

The easy answer is "No." Anomalous events are hard to come by and their origin is usually mysterious so recreating it is touchy at best. In all the world meaningful coincidences and and strange things happen every day... but they almost never happen the same way or in the same context and that is even if we notice them. In fact, it's more like studying meta stuff is all about probability and statistics... maybe?

 

I am having a hard time defining what would be "supernatural" that isn't "scientific" anyway. Both aspects are talking about the same reality. Just like all religions and philosophies do. Metaphysics and philosophy are just ways we use to define the world around us to create a "scaffolding" of understanding. Even the words we use are rungs of a junglegym to grab on to so we can even communicate and "get on top" of an idea.

 

In this regard meta stuff and science are both imaginary, and I am pretty sure none of us can prove imaginary things exist... except we are all talking about it, so it must be real? Hell if I know.

 

You have just been given two cents.

[reguile]

I am having a hard time defining what would be "supernatural" that isn't "scientific" anyway. Both aspects are talking about the same reality. Just like all religions and philosophies do. Metaphysics and philosophy are just ways we use to define the world around us to create a "scaffolding" of understanding. Even the words we use are rungs of a junglegym to grab on to so we can even communicate and "get on top" of an idea.

 

In this regard meta stuff and science are both imaginary, and I am pretty sure none of us can prove imaginary things exist... except we are all talking about it, so it must be real? Hell if I know.

 

You have just been given two cents.

 

How do I say this in a nice way...

 

Yes, both science and metaphysics are(can be considered to be) ways of explaining/discovering how the world works and how the world exists, however you immediately fall flat on your face after that.

 

The thing about a mental construct is that it is the results that matter, not the construct/set of instructions itself.

 

Yeah, science is no more "real" than metaphysics is, but there is a definite difference between the two.

 

Science is a construct that relies on the physical world and things observed about it to create conclusions that change and adapt based on what is seen and learned over time. These conclusions are very real, and very definite.

 

Metaphysics is a set of rules that are applied to things, and the only time they seem to work is when there are variables which are unknown or unshown. It fails to testing and does not exist in the real world.

[GrillNinja]

 

How do I say this in a nice way...

 

Yes, both science and metaphysics are(can be considered to be) ways of explaining/discovering how the world works and how the world exists, however you immediately fall flat on your face after that.

 

The thing about a mental construct is that it is the results that matter, not the construct/set of instructions itself.

 

Yeah, science is no more "real" than metaphysics is, but there is a definite difference between the two.

 

Science is a construct that relies on the physical world and things observed about it to create conclusions that change and adapt based on what is seen and learned over time. These conclusions are very real, and very definite.

 

Metaphysics is a set of rules that are applied to things, and the only time they seem to work is when there are variables which are unknown or unshown. It fails to testing and does not exist in the real world.

 

Alright, first before I say anything - I am not a scientist. I am a science fanboy. I am not a Holy Man who dedicated his life to the study of the spheres and the mysteries of life and death. I am an artist. I have a lightsaber on my bookshelf between two masterpiece Transformers. I abuse the comma, and I love to make things up. I wield a spatula as if I were a martial arts practitioner. I don't so much fall flat as stumble dramatically.

 

If I am correct, we are about to go into the subtleties of the mental construct of science vs the construct of metaphysics and their apparent validity.

 

I will say this in a nice way and keep this as short as I can for everyone.

 

This is how I understand these two sides of what I consider the same coin.

 

The mental thought process of science is awesome if people already know something and you want to know how they got there. If you can observe and measure a phenomenon, this is a clear logical way to cut through the BS of human thought and define it objectively for all to see assuming other people can validate it. It is factual until something comes along and disproves it.

Like when medical practitioners in the middle ages thought gnomes caused sickness, and with the advent of the microscope we learned different.

The construct of scientific thought and the facts it bears are a work in progress, very much like my (or other people's?) understanding of life.

 

The mental construct of Metaphysics - which include religion, magick, mythology, ideas, and most importantly stories, I feel deals more with how the human mind actually works. It is my understanding that the world we interact with is filtered through our senses and then our consciousness and what are expectations are. This is a physical process that yields subjective results.

Humans think in symbols and how symbols relate to each other based upon experience. Even if all the stories, gods, and myths were never literally true, there would still be validity to their telling because at their core they are large in-depth symbols of consciousness.

 

Think about it like this: What can you do with a computer, and what is the best way to use it? What are the best programs for a given rig?

 

Computers work because of the hardware, but you can't interact with them meaningfully unless you have a good operating system.

 

The construct of Science attempts to understand the computer from studying it's hardware first and then sees that it thinks in binary code, and tries to understand a given operating system from that end. Welcome to DOS.

 

The construct of Metaphysics comes in from the individual using a given operating system and programs based upon their needs and then goes into details that way. A gaming rig is different from an architect's rig, but they are still using the computer and some of their knowledge will overlap. Some of this stuff will make sense to an engineer who makes computers.

 

All three people in the same room will be able to talk to each other about computers, but they will not be using the same terms or even have the same knowledge of what they are used for or how they should function... unless the engineer is a gamer, or the gamer is an architect, or the architect also an engineer.

 

I believe that both methods of thought are not just valid, but necessary to be a functioning human being. The stories (religion, myths, culture) that sway me or move me have power, they define who I am and what my desires are. The facts that I learn from logic and objective reasoning define what I work with to impose challenges or how to make my desires happen.

 

PS: We are on a website dedicated to making masterpiece imaginary friends and to explore this phenomenon. I am posting information in the metaphysical forum dedication to my crackpot theories. Why are we talking about science vs metaphysics here?

[GrillNinja]

 

How do I say this in a nice way...

 

Yes, both science and metaphysics are(can be considered to be) ways of explaining/discovering how the world works and how the world exists, however you immediately fall flat on your face after that.

 

The thing about a mental construct is that it is the results that matter, not the construct/set of instructions itself.

 

Yeah, science is no more "real" than metaphysics is, but there is a definite difference between the two.

 

Science is a construct that relies on the physical world and things observed about it to create conclusions that change and adapt based on what is seen and learned over time. These conclusions are very real, and very definite.

 

Metaphysics is a set of rules that are applied to things, and the only time they seem to work is when there are variables which are unknown or unshown. It fails to testing and does not exist in the real world.

 

Alright, first before I say anything - I am not a scientist. I am a science fanboy. I am not a Holy Man who dedicated his life to the study of the spheres and the mysteries of life and death. I am an artist. I have a lightsaber on my bookshelf between two masterpiece Transformers. I abuse the comma, and I love to make things up. I wield a spatula as if I were a martial arts practitioner. I don't so much fall flat as stumble dramatically.

 

If I am correct, we are about to go into the subtleties of the mental construct of science vs the construct of metaphysics and their apparent validity.

 

I will say this in a nice way and keep this as short as I can for everyone.

 

I have attempted to write this twice and it keeps getting huge and complex. That is not a short way to say it. So all I can think to do to keep it simple is this:

 

Science is the study of the external and objective.

Metaphysics is the study of the personal and subjective.

 

They are both valid and attempt to describe the same reality.

 

Science is covered. We already know. The mind is a messy sticky wicket and science pins things down in order to get an objective truth. It has brought us much knowledge by killing a lot of weird bugs in reality through pinning them down. It also sucks at poetry and doesn't dance very well.

 

Metaphysics is the ultimately the study of symbols and their meaning regardless of the literal truth of those symbols. If myths and religions are not real, they are still relevant because they tell us about ourselves and what we are. It informs us where our individual hearts live. While Metaphysics can dance - especially to drums while naked in the moon light; it really does suck at being somewhere on time, or using an arc welder safely.

 

Food for thought:

Reality = The best Computer Possible

Science = Hardware Engineers

Metaphysics = Software Engineers

 

Who is right and who is wrong? When are each of them right or wrong? What if you had a guy who was great at Hardware and iffy at software? What is best for the people who use the computer for their own needs vs the software engineers or the hardware engineers?

 

For me, if I want to build the best computer I have to know both, and also have to account for other people when it is designed. I love to learn about arc welders and how to build things with them, but I ain't against naked moonlit prancing about either.