A question of The Force.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Which makes me kind of sad for Kyrin.. skepticism is good in moderation. However, she's outright dismissive.. and belligerently so.. but her approach, rebuttal, and general presumption of the intellectual high ground makes me think she's done more ego building than self-mastery.. but, like a mule at a millstone. When she finally stops and look at herself she'll see just how far she's come..

Do not feel sad for me. Skepticism only works not in moderation but when applied universally. Dismission is a hallmark of skepticism. Show me something impressive based on evidence and I will pay attention. Fail to do this and i will dismiss you. You say well you dont know how this works... nice assertion... so either prove a process in which it does work or GTFO. Cuz claims need foundation or they are baseless

Using the wrong tool for a job is never a good idea. It explains why there is no scientific evidence. The Force is understood by many (most?) Jedi to be experienced through the mind/body complex which creates our perception of awareness, perhaps even being a state of perception itself, and so as something which seemingly cannot be measured by other means we just have to wait for science to catch up. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. So, as has been explained many times to you at this Temple, that it lacks any scientific evidence is not a valid or relevant criticism in this case. This is not an excuse, but rather an invitation to develop the tools and techniques to further the scientific field. Just because you don't experience something does not mean others don't. In the interests of speeding up the mouse wheel that is this old conversation you seem to like to have; in the past from this point you usually go to classifying it as hallucination or delusion and querying the utility of such a thing in practical reality and calling it a waste of time. And in the past my answer was always that is what Jediism is to many, developing tools and techniques specifically so they do provide advantage and utility. You usually drop it at that point, but I thought I'd save a few pages of the same old stuff by skipping to there to see if you have any new replies or perspectives that might actually be relevant to what others are saying?

Adder wrote: ... as something which seemingly cannot be measured by other means we just have to wait for science to catch up. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. So, as has been explained many times to you at this Temple, that it lacks any scientific evidence is not a valid or relevant criticism in this case. This is not an excuse, but rather an invitation to develop the tools and techniques to further the scientific field.

Right, and what do we do in the meantime, then? Just speculate about it and believe blindly what ever wild ideas we can make up about it? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is absence of a justification to believe. Of course we can believe anyway, but it is then not the skeptic's fault if they point out that the belief is unfounded and/or unreasonable.
But of course it is worse than that, because we do have evidence of absence. You see, the absence of evidence is only neutral if the statement proposed does not imply evidence within the observable range. If the thing claimed is to have any power sufficient to generate evidene of its presence within any range of observation we can investigate, then the absence of any trace of that power is extremely strong disconfirmation of the claimed thing's presence. It's like with the soul or the untapped power of the mind more recently. If it is out there, it matters almost as little as not at all, and if it actually is to have any kind of noteworthy impact, then we would have detected it by now.

Just because you don't experience something does not mean others don't.

You are right, it doesn't. What would, though? For that matter, what sort of confirmation would it take to say that others do experience the claimed thing? If someone experiences a blimp in the sky, I can stand beside them and look the same direction. Maybe I'd even be content with reviewing a photo they make of it. That wouldn't confirm that they are seeing it, but at least I could have some kind of reasonable expectation that they might, assuming some commonalities between us. If they are blind, of course, then the chances of them seeing the blimp are rather slim, even if I can confirm its presence to within as much as I trust my own senses. If I am blind and they can see, then my inability to spot the blimp is of course no proof that they cannot. Would I however have any reason to believe that they can? Well, sure, if others have confirmed the fortitude of their eyesight and if they have been honest about such trivial things with me in the past, maybe I do. So what happens if both of us are blind, and they claim to be experiencing a blimp in the sky? Just because I cannot experience doesn't mean that they cannot. That they are blind also doesn't, they say, for it is a spiritual blimp, one that signals them personally about its location. What makes it reasonable for me to believe that they are experiencing the blimp? I don't want to call them a liar. Maybe they are actually having some experience, I wouldn't know. But they are claiming that there is a blimp there and they have no means of demonstrating that what they are experiencing is it, nor a way to transfer their experience to me like the seeing friend did with the photo. I don't have to (though I may well) doubt their sincerity, but I have every reason to doubt their correctness, and it is not the skeptic's fault that the claim is so spurious.

Also - please remember that this is in the Abrahamic faith section. As discussions happens often in many places here - it is not our practice here to tell others to Shut the anything up and it is against our rules ...

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/47-help/679-termsofuseandrules#RulesOffensiveLanguage
——TotJO is a place for spiritual enlightenment, self discovery and discussion of many varied and wide ranging topics. Here at TotJO we debate arguments not personalities and ideas instead of people.
It demonstrates negative traits in an individual namely disrespect for fellow users and lack of control of oneself. 'Heat of the moment' is not a viable excuse, for as Jedi one must possess more control.

So, please think about what you have typed before sending. Show your respect and consideration for your fellow Temple members by simply maintaining the self-restraint to not swear. As it is much easier to control this behaviour when typing than it is in verbal conversation, there really is no acceptable excuse.

Post what you think is acceptable for an 8 year old to read (be it your own child or another) as this is in fact a family, and public, forum after all. If in doubt, leave it out.

Please note also that swearing is not the only way to offend. One can be just as demeaning and derogatory without resorting to swear words. These cases are as equally inappropriate and are covered under the same regulation on the forum.

Please
And
Thanks you

Gisteron wrote:

Adder wrote: ... as something which seemingly cannot be measured by other means we just have to wait for science to catch up. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. So, as has been explained many times to you at this Temple, that it lacks any scientific evidence is not a valid or relevant criticism in this case. This is not an excuse, but rather an invitation to develop the tools and techniques to further the scientific field.

Right, and what do we do in the meantime, then? Just speculate about it and believe blindly what ever wild ideas we can make up about it? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is absence of a justification to believe. Of course we can believe anyway, but it is then not the skeptic's fault if they point out that the belief is unfounded and/or unreasonable.
But of course it is worse than that, because we do have evidence of absence. You see, the absence of evidence is only neutral if the statement proposed does not imply evidence within the observable range. If the thing claimed is to have any power sufficient to generate evidene of its presence within any range of observation we can investigate, then the absence of any trace of that power is extremely strong disconfirmation of the claimed thing's presence. It's like with the soul or the untapped power of the mind more recently. If it is out there, it matters almost as little as not at all, and if it actually is to have any kind of noteworthy impact, then we would have detected it by now..

Incorrect, the study of the mind is in dire need of tools to bridge subjective knowledge into objective knowledge and so in the meantime we wok with what we can, albeit mostly mental it seemingly has immense power. You seem not to have understood my first 3 sentences, and so missed my point entirely. The toys called scientific instrumentation dont yet touch the one we each are. Simply put, its a different field of study.

You are right, Adder, I do not understand what you are saying. We seem to agree that there is no evidence for the thing claimed. I think that makes it unreasonable to believe it. Are you saying that it is unreasonable to ask for any? Because that's what this sounds like. It sounds like you are saying that there is this category of claims about how the natural world works that should - at least for the time being - be excempt from critical analysis or skeptical inquiry. I have not the silghtest idea why anyone would say such a thing but it keeps happening, and for some obscure reason, only for claims that would fail any such scrutiny.

Gisteron wrote: You are right, Adder, I do not understand what you are saying. We seem to agree that there is no evidence for the thing claimed. I think that makes it unreasonable to believe it. Are you saying that it is unreasonable to ask for any? Because that's what this sounds like. It sounds like you are saying that there is this category of claims about how the natural world works that should - at least for the time being - be excempt from critical analysis or skeptical inquiry. I have not the silghtest idea why anyone would say such a thing but it keeps happening, and for some obscure reason, only for claims that would fail any such scrutiny.

Nobody I know is saying that. What I usually hear is people not wanting to examine the proof there is and find ways to expand our working knowledge of it. There are plenty of people who have experienced obe's, clairvoyance, precognition, and other "psychic" phenomena. Enough that it's unconscionable to me that the broader "scientific community" avoids it all together.. What I hear is that if we can't detect these phenomena through natural methods, then it doesn't exist.. but that's like trying to catch air in a net..

I've had personal experiences with telekinesis. I did a simple experiment.. but besides having things that could pick up the effects of my aura on my body. The main point of the experiment was to see the minds ability to control and project these effects..