Clairsentience

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote: Normally, yes, I would want pro and con views on such things. But, for now, I am searching for resources that would explain these things, much like how I sought out resources for astral projection rather than resources to prove astral projection wrong, despite me thinking, initially, it to be nothing but malarkey. Because, sometimes, to understand something we have to view it as fact and pursue it as fact until one can come to the conclusion themselves of its validity or not. I'm sure you can appreciate that reasoning.

Actually it is not something I can appreciate because your reasoning is a logical fallacy, a form of circular reasoning called begging the question. By assuming the conclusion to be true and then seeking out only facts to support that conclusion you are not being honest in your research. Instead of doing this, the better course of action would be to form several hypothesis about the phenomena and then try to prove each one false. The one you cannot prove to be false becomes the working one that new predictions can be formed from and then you set out to prove those predictions. By doing this you are not committing a fallacy in assuming your reasoning is either true or false but keeping a sceptical mindset at all times and letting the evidence alone show the validity of the claim or not.

Literally could not care less if I'm committing a logical fallacy. I'm not debating anything, nor attempting to prove anything to anyone. I am simply trying to learn, and this thread was simply a call for resources. If you cannot appreciate that, or allow that, cease commenting in this thread. I'm sure there are more important things you could be working on.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Actually it is not something I can appreciate because your reasoning is a logical fallacy, a form of circular reasoning called begging the question. By assuming the conclusion to be true and then seeking out only facts to support that conclusion you are not being honest in your research. Instead of doing this, the better course of action would be to form several hypothesis about the phenomena and then try to prove each one false. The one you cannot prove to be false becomes the working one that new predictions can be formed from and then you set out to prove those predictions. By doing this you are not committing a fallacy in assuming your reasoning is either true or false but keeping a sceptical mindset at all times and letting the evidence alone show the validity of the claim or not.

Except that this isn't a science experiment. It might be, certainly would be if I were looking into it, a thought experiment: What does he learn from treating this as true? What other things does he learn from treating it as false? And, conveniently enough, those are only things that Arisaig can answer for himself. No one else can say if his thought experiment is useful or valid to his personal experience.

Also, your use of "begging the question" in this case is problematic. We have to make certain base assumptions in order to engage in any form of discourse. The discourse in which Arisaig wants to engage at the moment begins with the base assumption that looking into clairsentience is a worthwhile endeavor. He's stated that clearly. You can disagree with that base assumption, but it's not begging the question. Begging the question would be "X must be true and therefore this evidence points to X." No evidence has been put forward in any direction so far, so it literally can't be begging the question. In fact, I'd suggest your response is setting up a strawman, which is itself a fallacious activity.

Additionally, he hasn't even actually said it needs to be a metaphysical ability (though you aren't leaping to assumptions there), so any other explanation for the phenomena - of which there are many - is still valid for the discussion he wants to have. Hence my perfectly rationalist awareness exercise falls within his stated parameters. There are plenty of ways in which one might engage with this discussion that don't require taking any stance whatsoever on the psychic nature of clairsentience.

I shan't respond to anything else here that isn't actually about the topic at hand. Have a good day and may the Force be with you all.

I am discussing the subject at hand. The OPer has made it clear they are engaging in fallacy by stating they are assuming it's TRUE. That's fine. Because of that, issue has been taken with the resources and information I have provided and that is fine as well. But this is an open discussion and so I will continue to provide reasonable input as I see fit. I dont post for people that are not interested in pursuing truth but in those others that may read this thread that are interested in an honest pursuit of truth.

mhmm...

Beyond me never stating that it was true, or assuming that it is true, and that I am simply viewing the principle as true in order to see it in a different light in order to better grasp the full picture...

beyond me stating multiple times that this was simply a call for resources, not a debate or truly any form of open discussion (honestly, should have just put this in the Jediism forum where less disruptive forces dwell)...

and beyond me being civil about it, we see open refusal to play nice and do something more productive with their time... we see another thread derailed by "GIVE ME PROOF! you can't! You're crazy and dangerous to the Jedi Way!".

Admins, lock this thread, or please move it to the Jediism subforum. I'm done with non members getting this chance to derail honest and open conversation for little to no reason. I hate locking out those non members that have been helpful, but c'est la vie, eh?

Arisaig wrote: sometimes, to understand something we have to view it as fact and pursue it as fact

Facts are true, are they not?
There is really no need for the drama. You asked for resources, I provided some. If you truly dont want open input it would be best for you to move this subject to a different board.

It was once "fact" that spontaneous generation (ie. Flies being borne of rotting meat, eels spawning from riverbed mud) was real. Yes, it turned out to be wrong, but only when someone decided to study it in a different light... And, fittingly, people believing they knew better belittling them for their efforts the entire time.

Actually those things were never facts. Those things were correlations mistakenly concluded to be causations. And when reproducable evidence was provided that disparity went away and the actual facts were revealed.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Actually those things were never facts. Those things were correlations mistakenly concluded to be causations. And when reproducable evidence was provided that disparity went away and the actual facts were revealed.

And yet was believed to be fact from the 5th-6th century BCE until Louis Pasteur proved it wrong... in the 19th century CE.

But, alas, off topic again. Thank you.

Arisaig wrote:
And yet was believed to be fact from the 5th-6th century BCE until Louis Pasteur proved it wrong... in the 19th century CE.

But, alas, off topic again. Thank you.

Yes absolutely. So you can clearly see how faith and conclusions arrived at with a lack of evidence are irrational and never give valid paths to truth. This is the reason I continue to post here. To expose these errors in thinking.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
And yet was believed to be fact from the 5th-6th century BCE until Louis Pasteur proved it wrong... in the 19th century CE.

But, alas, off topic again. Thank you.

Yes absolutely. So you can clearly see how faith and conclusions arrived at with a lack of evidence are irrational and never give valid paths to truth. This is the reason I continue to post here. To expose these errors in thinking.

Oh, but they had evidence to point towards their correctness. By our standards, it was wrong. And that is why, sometimes, we should pursue things currently thought to be wrong, even mocked, in order to find out the source of its truth, if any. That is how we, as a species, learn. By taking ideas that were previously considered impossible, laughable by many, and making it reality if possible.

We are, after all, Jedi. People who profess to believe in an all encompassing energy field that binds the universe together. Is it really so much a stretch to say that that energy cannot be felt emanating from others, and in turn bring about a deeper understanding and love for that connection to every living thing? Stop discouraging learning because it triggers yours sensibilities, silence your ego, and open your eyes to the possibilities. 200 years ago, flight, cars, electricity, cell phones, space travel... all considered impossible and all changed because of small groups that believed in the impossible. That fought the ridicule.

People fight which they don't understand, and love to bring down others when they realise they themselves could not do such things themselves. I find this quote encompasses this ideal.