Psychometry

If it works, the way I think as in the case of Quin Los Vos, Jedi would use it at places like crime scenes to get readings from things the criminal touched. Now given it's all fantasy, but I could see that as being one area. Right now DNA is being used, but for the sake of argument, say the person left a reading of their energy on a bank counter, or a doorknob. If each energy pattern was unique like DNA then a person able to read those energy residues might be able to match them to the person, much like a scientist matches DNA to the criminal now.

I appreciate Arisaig's request to return this to matters pertaining more closely to the original question and to our Jedi paths more broadly. It is not my intent to distract once again, and I hope that I won't, and apologize in advance if that's what comes of it, but since now is the most recent time since yesterday that I had a chance to review this thread, allow me, please, to respond once more to something addressed at me directly...

Uzima Moto wrote: ... the reason why science and spirituality seem connected in ancient times is because they both extend from the same source. It's not just by happenstance. It's not a coincidence. They both come from a tradition of deep thought, an understanding that there are subtleties to the world, and a drive to investigate everything possible.. science is just the exoteric form of this tradition..

I suppose one can find a common denominator in science and spirituality being of course humans. I would however contest that they are... cut from the same cloth, metaphorically speaking. While both arguably stem from a dissatisfaction with non-understanding, superficially, only one of them makes any attempt to improve that situation. If the pseudo-sciences, the religions, or spiritual traditions were concerned about "subtleties in the world", they would encourage looking into them. The reliance on evidence and falsifiability were maybe not always formally stated as cornerstones of science, but they provide a very sharp criterion, that allows a very clear distinction between science and non-science, both past and present. That many natural philosophers found fascination in scientific as much as magical matters may be a testimony to how both require a certain desire for answers and creativity, but I do not believe that that renders them related on any level more than a strictly superficial one, nor does it give any credence to the latter.

One without the other creates an imbalance. Thus you get "flat earth" when it was those of the ancient mystery schools that knew the world was round and theorized the Big Bang..

Again, I disagree. For one, if the flat earth argument revolved around it being a useful approximation for short distance and low altitude mechanics, there would be no controversy to speak of. The sort of flat earth arguments we laugh at insist that it applies in areas we know it doesn't, and they stem exclusively from extremists in either their reading of religious or otherwise spiritual texts, or in their distrust of the mainstream. Creationists are in principle a very similar kind of mostly religious extremist. While most spiritual people are not reality deniers of quite so extreme proportions, and while most scientifically literate people are nominally religious, this sort of extremism, let alone on such a scale, doesn't quite come about from "the other side", as it were. Someone who strikes any balance between the rigorously rational and the (religiously) faithful is in principle always at risk of not only accepting too readily a picture of the world or people around them that is either not demonstrably accurate or demonstrably inaccurate, but also of solidifying that picture as a conviction they couldn't be reasoned with about. If there was a hypothetical person who only ever believed things on faith, then luck alone would decide how dangerous they are and no reason could ever sway them. And if there was a hypothetical person who only ever believed things on reason and evidence, while they would be quite an annoyingly frustrating fellow to be around indeed, they would be open to change their mind about everything, as new information reaches them.

There are modern examples of this intersection as well. People are looking deep into this kind of stuff. [i.e. consciousness etc.] Mainstream science however, approaches this subject with a primitive mindset. Mainly that only what they see and can touch is what exists. Which is ironic to me lol.

Whether this is ironic I'm happy to leave to your judgement. However, this is just not the case. The assumption of philosophical naturalism, while no doubt shared by some scientists and scientifically literate people, is neither a prerequisite for the purposes and methods of science, nor an implication of them. Mainstream science makes no statement of this sort.

They can't reject these ideas like they normally would. You can prove that lightning isn't thrown down by some old man in a toga. However, you cannot prove that an astral plane doesn't exist. Nor that the belief in such things is an indication of disease or a harbinger of disorder..

Science is not about proofs. I'm surprised you find it possible to prove that lightning is not thrown down by an old man in a toga, and would be delighted to see a formal proof of that. As far as I know, no proof of that can be constructed any better than a proof of the non-existence of an astral plane. But that is not at all relevant. Rather than assert with any confidence, that Zeus is not throwing bolts of lightning, we refrain from assuming that he does, because we have a full description of how lightning is produced, that is so sufficient for us, that we can construct technologies that allow us to generate lightning with very high precision and reliablity based on that description. If the astral plane were part of a model that allowed us to make such reliable predictions, and that wouldn't do so, were the plane omitted from the model, then we would with good reason treat it as either useful fiction only, or as a real thing, and we wouldn't be here needing to even debate it.

Yet their denial and certainty of its nonexistence is as strong as unfounded, almost cultic, like blind faith.

"They" did not elect me to speak on their behalf, so I can't comment on what their denial is based on and how strongly they voice it. I, for one, will call such things "nonsense" and mean by that only, that there is at best anecdotal, and by no means sufficient indication of their existence to warrant belief in them, and that under many an explanation, we would expect to observe phenomena in conflict with our models of nature at a much, much higher rate than we do, i.e. tried and tested descriptions of the world around us would have to have been so successful over so many so strict tests only by coincidence. And unlikely though that is, maybe they are. But for now, the overall body of evidence at our avail simply does not indicate so.

The scientific community can continue in denial if it wishes. However, without concrete proof of it's position. Research in "woo" will continue.. without the accolades of people who like to pat themselves on the back.. They don't have the patent on science..

Philosophical naturalism is not a position rooted in science. Someone holding it, scientist or not, does not do so on scientific grounds and is welcome to present their proof of it, or be stuck believing it on insufficient grounds if they have none. Woo, at any rate, is not a general area of topics, but rather the label we put on disciplines that deliberately evade the methods of science in protection of conclusions assumed in advance. Woo, by definition, is the result of unscientific investigation (if any). This is not to say that woo claims cannot be investigated scientifically, but they will be woo until they are, or (a more likely case, given just how much woo already went through such tests) if they are insisted upon after failing the test that would have falsified them. The ones that withstand scrutiny, do, at least temporarily, cease to fall under "woo".

rrhodes67 wrote: If it works, the way I think as in the case of Quin Los Vos, Jedi would use it at places like crime scenes to get readings from things the criminal touched. Now given it's all fantasy, but I could see that as being one area. Right now DNA is being used, but for the sake of argument, say the person left a reading of their energy on a bank counter, or a doorknob. If each energy pattern was unique like DNA then a person able to read those energy residues might be able to match them to the person, much like a scientist matches DNA to the criminal now.

If it were to be applicable to actual cases though, there would need to be some kind of measurement beyond subjective cases. DNA matches can be observed, and measured and that is why they work in court cases to convict, or in some cases, free people. This is also why lie detectors, which are far more measurably accurate than psychometry are not allowed as hard evidence, because even though they are indicators, they are not reliable enough to base someones life on.

Psychometry would have to be much more of a hard science, rather than the ambiguous ( at best) product and practice it is now. If it were to be used as a method of detection, and conviction, it would need to have a much higher standard of practice, and result. Peoples lives cannot be left up to anything less. No amount of debate on how religion and science are this and that is going to matter. Its so much smoke.

So then, on the basis of why a Jedi would put in the time, it would be better to go into field with much more reliable methods, that take just as much work( if not more) and are much more readily reliable in crime analysis. Forensics for example. Same job really, just less woo.

Or is it more Jedi because it comes from some vague energy source?

Which if that is in fact the case, please dont help me when it comes to a court case.

I agree. I was just throwing out one idea where it could be used. I just threw the DNA in, because it's a great interest of mine, especially with how it's being used now in Cold cases. Since it was a "fantasy" scenario, I was basing it off what I already knew was being done in criminal cases, going along with the fantasy aspect if you will. But I agree, there are much more reliable methods than this would be, actual criminal methods and actual science. However, there are also methods in fiction such as those of Sherlock Holmes. If we were going from the criminal investigation perspective, than as Jedi we'd probably be wise to study all these different methods. Never mind that they couldn't hurt just in the everyday understanding of people.

If we were going from the criminal investigation perspective, than as Jedi we'd probably be wise to study all these different methods.

Impossible, there is only so much time on ones day, life, etc. Such study for any science is intense and will take years, then there is work in the field. On top of that there is family, and all the variety that life offers. A Jedi would presumably need to understand how to prioritize, and get the most out of there time and that would factor into what methods one would engage in to be of the maximal amount of service with the skills they intend to acquire.

That would be wisdom.

Chase two rabbits and you wont even catch one.

As far as "mainstream" science is concerned there are no scientific examinations into some of the metaphysical ideals. That is still not enough to warrant disbelief.. and I would disagree with calling them non-science based on mainstream academia's limited pool of information.

However, they don't have the monopoly on "Intelligent Observation and Testing"(Science). Which is my overall point on this subject. The same methods the "experts" use can be used by anyone. As they should, especially in matters like this.. as far as my testing has gone. I am convinced of things like leaving an impression of yourself behind during a high-stress situation being a possibility. Especially given some of the workings of quantum physics. If subatomic particles can exist in two places at once so could parts of your consciousness, your energetic body, etc.., theoretically..

Asking for proof isn't the denial. Rejecting the idea on the face of it without proof of it's nonexistence is.. it seems to be a collective attitude toward things of this nature.. but proof is crucial.. You might say that they don't prove Zeus doesn't throw lightning. However, in proving where it does come from you make a strong case against that theory with ample reproof..

Khaos wrote:

rrhodes67 wrote: If it works, the way I think as in the case of Quin Los Vos, Jedi would use it at places like crime scenes to get readings from things the criminal touched. Now given it's all fantasy, but I could see that as being one area. Right now DNA is being used, but for the sake of argument, say the person left a reading of their energy on a bank counter, or a doorknob. If each energy pattern was unique like DNA then a person able to read those energy residues might be able to match them to the person, much like a scientist matches DNA to the criminal now.

If it were to be applicable to actual cases though, there would need to be some kind of measurement beyond subjective cases. DNA matches can be observed, and measured and that is why they work in court cases to convict, or in some cases, free people. This is also why lie detectors, which are far more measurably accurate than psychometry are not allowed as hard evidence, because even though they are indicators, they are not reliable enough to base someones life on.

Psychometry would have to be much more of a hard science, rather than the ambiguous ( at best) product and practice it is now. If it were to be used as a method of detection, and conviction, it would need to have a much higher standard of practice, and result. Peoples lives cannot be left up to anything less. No amount of debate on how religion and science are this and that is going to matter. Its so much smoke.

So then, on the basis of why a Jedi would put in the time, it would be better to go into field with much more reliable methods, that take just as much work( if not more) and are much more readily reliable in crime analysis. Forensics for example. Same job really, just less woo.

Or is it more Jedi because it comes from some vague energy source?

Which if that is in fact the case, please dont help me when it comes to a court case.

With that attitude it would never get investigated.. but there's nothing that would cause any real complication for somebody who studied esoteric matters to apply exoterically. As well as study known and established practices. In fact, to be versed in as many crafts as possible is strategically wise.. I don't mean a mastery of all. Just a working knowledge or understanding..

Science just means Intelligent Observation and study.. whether it's on the material or trying to discover the immaterial. Materialists cannot claim science any more than the naturalist or the theosophist.. though their crafts are all sciences..

For materialists to take such an ownership of "science" as they do is arrogant and misinformed..

Frankly, I don't think anyone on this forum has claimed that experts had exclusive rights or privilege to the scientific method, at least not in any threads I read through in the past soon-to-be-seven years. As for scientific investigation into metaphysical ideals... well, that depends entirely on what we are talking about. Sure, if something makes no testable predictions, then no science can be done to it, neither by "experts" nor by lay people. What ever can be done at that point just by definition wouldn't be science. And if a test can be conducted... Well, I suppose that many somewhat respectable insitutions at this point just cannot be bothered anymore. There used to be a time when perpetual motion machines were tested, too, and at some point the returns just start diminishing. Same with homoeopathy, and astrology. At some point, so many tests have been conducted, that if your claim sounds similar to what has already been tested so many times, the institution just doesn't find the vanishingly faint possibility of there being anything to it this time to be sufficient justification to expend the resources it takes to find out. And then of course it becomes a matter of searching for an enthusiastic sponsor. This can work, too, of course: just look at any of those water-from-thin-air bottles in recent years, raking in ridiculous amounts of private (at times even public) resources on a project any half decent high school science student can show to be doomed to fail. But yes, in principle anyone can do science, anyone can try and publish their work, and if your reasoning and methods hold up, what ever other hurdles will surely be neligible in comparison.
As for the lightning thrower, again, science does not deal in proofs or even disproofs. The case for Maxwell's equations is not a case against Zeus, mostly because the two do not even conflict (one might then say, Zeus is not so much 'wrong' as it is 'not even wrong'). The only reason we don't assume Zeus is because doing so would raise additional questions without solving any we have. Occam's Razor isn't so much an argument for the falsehood of unnecessary assumptions, but rather a guideline how to keep things simple, because computing things comes at a cost and accuracy being equal, the simpler model is preferable by default. Not more true, mind you, just more preferable.
As for quantum physics... Do be careful about that. It works well enough in an environment where noone knows any, but it can get very embarassing if someone does, because it really does nothing to help the case for magical realms or powers... at all. I shan't drag it down that route in this thread, because that'll derail it even more than I already have, but we can talk about this in another one, or in public someplace else, or in private, if you wish.

Uzima Moto wrote: Science just means Intelligent Observation and study..

Ehh, I tend to define it more strictly than that. Science to me is any discipline operating with the scientific method. A scientific study or research is any study or research using said method. I actually get into some debates about that, because by that definition, mathematics isn't a science. But history is. Some find that offensive or unintuitive. But that definition is more succinct, I find, more simple, as it were, than most. Many others are either so broad as to allow too many things, so narrow as to not allow enough, or they miss the domain and then have to list numerous exceptions so as to get everything included that whoever made the definition feels should qualify, or exclude things that they think shouldn't.

For materialists to take such an ownership of "science" as they do is arrogant and misinformed..

Agreed. But since they aren't here, what matters it for this discussion?