Psychometry

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Zenchi wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: The difference in those things spinner is that two of them have been proven to exist and one has not. We can prove gravity exists and we can show that dark matter exists.

Scientists can't even agree on what Dark Matter is atm, right now their theories regarding dark matter is very much like grasping at straws. Not exactly a good model to use in this instance..

No it's the perfect model to use in this instance. Even better than gravity because we dont know what it is exactly. There is a difference between exploring something that has been proven to exist to learn more about it like dark matter and pretending something exists there is no proof of because every test ever done has shown it to be imaginary like psychometry.

The problem with your "explanation" here, and above, is that "it" has yet to be verified to be simply one thing, just as there are multiple theories about what Dark matter really is, there are also theories that suggest "it" is not one source, but instead multiple factors with the "Dark Matter" label thrown at each instance in attempts to explain what we know so little about. Meaning "it" has yet to solidly been proven to exist, as it could be multiple things that have been grouped for convenience sake, which happens quite a lot and is one thing that actually can be proven...

As technical as you have been over "details" in the past, your explanation here, as well as the one provided above originally in attempts at tieing in the existence of Black Matter as an example towards what can, and has been proven, vs what has not, is sloppy at best. Surely you can do better in your attempts at discrediting the existance of Psychometry....

Dark matter is a blanket term for one of several yet proven hypothesis formed around several observed and reproducable hard facts. Those facts include certain gravitational effects, lensing, galaxy behaviour, and effects of background radiation.

Psychometry has no observable reproducable facts to even form a hypothesis around. That is the difference.

It is one thing to not know what accounts for a given set of observations that are perfectly consistent with the models one has of the unknown thing.

It is a different thing to have no observations at all and to just pretend like one has any in spite of that, and that they are best accounted for by literal magic - a model that warrants no testable predictions at all.


Do not pretend like this woo is in any way at all analogous to the operation or findings of science. That's kind of an insult to both. In fact, the entire enterprise of asserting spirits ghosts and sorcery would be so much better off if it stuck with the Campbellian "metaphorical truth" rhetoric an interpretation this place apparently forgot everything about. It would not even necessarily be less than scientific accuracy, if I may remind, so why it is so important to some that these things are real in any place other than their emotions is rather odd anyway. They aren't. And that's fine. That's fair enough. There is no graceful way to defend a claim this strong and no reason one actually has to.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Dark matter is a blanket term for one of several yet proven hypothesis formed around several observed and reproducable hard facts. Those facts include certain gravitational effects, lensing, galaxy behaviour, and effects of background radiation.

Psychometry has no observable reproducable facts to even form a hypothesis around. That is the difference.

"Galaxy behaviour"...... Ok, lol!

It's cool, you get a participation ribbon for effort...

Zenchi wrote:
"Galaxy behaviour"...... Ok, lol!

It's cool, you get a participation ribbon for effort...

Lmao and there it is, typical uninformed response to an answer way over your head. Hey zenchi i dont want to shock your delicate superstitious system to much in one day but the earth is not flat either!!! True!

Gisteron wrote: It is one thing to not know what accounts for a given set of observations that are perfectly consistent with the models one has of the unknown thing.

It is a different thing to have no observations at all and to just pretend like one has any in spite of that, and that they are best accounted for by literal magic - a model that warrants no testable predictions at all.


Do not pretend like this woo is in any way at all analogous to the operation or findings of science. That's kind of an insult to both. In fact, the entire enterprise of asserting spirits ghosts and sorcery would be so much better off if it stuck with the Campbellian "metaphorical truth" rhetoric an interpretation this place apparently forgot everything about. It would not even necessarily be less than scientific accuracy, if I may remind, so why it is so important to some that these things are real in any place other than their emotions is rather odd anyway. They aren't. And that's fine. That's fair enough. There is no graceful way to defend a claim this strong and no reason one actually has to.

It's probably important for some to consider these real, like others consider the holy spirit actively working in the world real, or karma being real. Again, I'm not supporting this. I do agree that our myths keep getting tied with "scientific" terms in order to be repackaged as more believable. I'm still open minded enough, though, to admit that there may eventually be some truth found to some of these claims. Just as we may be able to officially say there is zero truth to it. We just aren't capable of laying that blanket statement down, yet.

JLSpinner wrote: It's probably important for some to consider these real, like others consider the holy spirit actively working in the world real, or karma being real. Again, I'm not supporting this. I do agree that our myths keep getting tied with "scientific" terms in order to be repackaged as more believable. I'm still open minded enough, though, to admit that there may eventually be some truth found to some of these claims. Just as we may be able to officially say there is zero truth to it. We just aren't capable of laying that blanket statement down, yet.

No one here is laying down any blanket statements. The position of the skeptic is reject until proven viable. Not that it can never be proven true. Its never been proven to have a shred of viability so far. That's the point.

Why do you consider it "important" for some to consider these real? If your not supporting it why is it important?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Why do you consider it "important" for some to consider these real? If your not supporting it why is it important?

Why do you consider it important for everyone to consider this fake? If you're not supporting it, why is this thread so important to you?

Like many things that come down to a foundation of faith or science, this has reached a point where it has become "the poles apart". I think its pretty interesting that a thread which was not designed to be a debate became a debate and is still a debate 17 pages in. I think we can go ahead and keep this particular thread going for as long as you guys think its necessary to circle one another, but as a favor to JK Berger who began this thread, I think it might be good to put the relevant posts into a separete thread in the faiths corner of the forum.

Arisaig wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Why do you consider it "important" for some to consider these real? If your not supporting it why is it important?

Why do you consider it important for everyone to consider this fake? If you're not supporting it, why is this thread so important to you?

Once again, I have never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.