Psychometry

Rosalyn J wrote: Is it possible that research or work with fancy letters behind their name would be discounted in favor of other research disproving the phenomenons?

Im not sure what your asking? Are you suggesting some sort of academic conspiracy?

There are rumors about what extent do the Himalayan Orders use the subtle planes to direct incarnation. A look at what methods they use to even know where the incarnations will be would give us a better idea those rumors might be..

@Kyrin,

For the purpose of this conversation I am asking "here at the temple whether or not studies without degres would be considered valid

Not sure what Kyrin's take on it would be, but I find that, relevancy being equal, it is the transparency, honesty, and (in part self-critical) rigor that makes a study worth citing. There tends to be a bias to take people with academic degrees in the field they publish about more seriously than those without, but that bias is borne of the understanding of the kind of continued effort it took to get the degree, where we cannot generally or a priori assume the same dedication of those who have none. But fancy letters don't in and of themselves contribute to the quality of a study. At most they are an indication of the skills that the persons involved may have under their belt, and ideally that would be reflected in the quality of the study also, though, as I said, said quality may well be achieved by those who don't have any, too.

Agreed. The issue is not the number of letters after a name. The issue is the level of rigor used in the testing or the study. Many a highly degreed scientist has been fooled just as easily as the common layman by these sorts of parlor tricks. So called famous psychics like Uri Geller have fooled teams of scientists in their "controlled environments". It finally took a high school dropout turned magician, James Randy, to successfully expose his fakery. So the letters don't mean nearly as much as the methods used.

And one of the kewl things about science is some of the useful discoveries were accidents or unintended!

That's actually very arguable. Like what even is a discovery? I mean, the oddity first hast to occur, then someone has to correctly identify it as neither expected under the current modeling, be it their own or anyone else's (so already there is a bias for it to happen to those well read in their field and any pertaining to the work they are doing), nor as a fluke that came in either with detection noise or with interference from forces that were thought to be controlled against. At the end of all that all you'll have is a measurement out of the order though. Is that a discovery? Well no, you'd still not understand whence it came, so until you hypothesize some mechanism that produced the odd measurement, noone will have learned anything. And then of course once you do, one has to test whether one can reproduce the oddity under controlles appropriate for the hypothesis. And only after all of that effort will you have actually discovered something: A new relationship between things, that can potentially be exploited to our needs in the future.
Now the question is, was the initial odd measurement enough of an accidental occurrence to call the entire discovery unintended or accidental? Well... perhaps that's a discussion for another thread.
Suffice it to say that almost nothing of this happened to any of the magic that people say now shall be dubbed psychometry, presumably because it superficially sounds more respectable than it'd otherwise be.

Ok, so, let’s assume that psychometry is real.

The fact that there is no evidence for it would imply it is an incredibly rare skill, or those who possess it keep it a secret.

My question now is: so what? It is highly unlikely YOU will ever have this skill. And IF you were to develop it, it would probably take years of focused effort. Wouldn’t that time and effort be better put to use elsewhere?

I understand the fascination with “magic” and whatnot, but it seems overkill to want to spend ages pursuing a skill that you have no way of knowing how to develop, or if it will actually develop, rather than using that energy elsewhere.

This is similar to telekenesis. Spend years and potentially die not getting it done, or get the fuck off your ass and open the door using the “magic” of your muscular and nervous system directing the energies of the universe into closing the grip of you hand and twisting the knob.

Manu wrote: Ok, so, let’s assume that psychometry is real.

The fact that there is no evidence for it would imply it is an incredibly rare skill, or those who possess it keep it a secret.

My question now is: so what? It is highly unlikely YOU will ever have this skill. And IF you were to develop it, it would probably take years of focused effort. Wouldn’t that time and effort be better put to use elsewhere?

I understand the fascination with “magic” and whatnot, but it seems overkill to want to spend ages pursuing a skill that you have no way of knowing how to develop, or if it will actually develop, rather than using that energy elsewhere.

This is similar to telekenesis. Spend years and potentially die not getting it done, or get the fuck off your ass and open the door using the “magic” of your muscular and nervous system directing the energies of the universe into closing the grip of you hand and twisting the knob.

I may be wrong but I think that was the question on the original post - any one know anything or practice it ? There are tons of people who claim to know and even more who claim to know how to teach it. There is a actual following. Wether I believe in the spaghetti monster or not it exist to some - in a serious light. Count me in on this conection- some day we are a make believe thing - I know of a congressman who posted Somtjimg about us as we were created because of a ceartain faiths lack of effort or their failed our teach to their people or something along that line. So , if you believ it or don’t - that doesn’t mean there don’t have a foot or a faith in it. Can I exist in a world that is totally -NOT you? That’s the million dolla’ Question for each of us or / do we fight all the time ? To be an individual is just that - some claim individuality and can never stand alone . Something to think about .

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: I may be wrong but I think that was the question on the original post - any one know anything or practice it ? There are tons of people who claim to know and even more who claim to know how to teach it. There is a actual following.

Links? That might be helpful for the OP.