i mean there is a fundamentals issue there but whatever

Also probably because "telepathy" is bunk, @Mallic

@Mallic Really, if you want to fight Nihilism, if you want to give your life a purpose, just consider family members and friends that you remember fondly that aren't here anymore. Think about the effect that they had on your life. Quit worrying over the destination, and focus on the journey. Even if the future were to not matter in the grand scheme of the universe, even if we're unimportant specks, we don't live on a Universal scale, We live on an insignificant blue spec. And everything here matters to us. Any chance we have of figuring it all out comes in pushing the human race forward. Our impact goes beyond our lives.

Now I think I'm done trying to be inspirational for the day, I've got work to do.

No, science works everywhere like this,

The whole point of science is that anyone can test it using the same parameters and limits, in the same physical universe, will get the same result,
It can be peer-reviewed

insignificant blue spec: <:VeRiFiEd:463064374236413962>

There has been, for years, a bounty on any supernatural phenomena, wherein proof of psychic powers will net you a monetary prize. Nobody has ever won

the same resultS

plural

on average

The.problem is assuming that peep aren't biased in peer reviewa

you cant just test a thing once and be done with it

gotta test it a thousand times may not be enough

you can test it as often as you like, the point is the result will be the same

imagine if one result was enough, you could make a theory of a result of a cointoss

thats teh scientifc method

Bias doesn't mean "let's believe anything" though

as soon as you make 2 results, it does not become statistics lmao

the point of the scientific method, is that a person can recreate it if they don't believe you,

And every time they do it they'll get the same result

there are tools to seperate yourself from your bias

resultS

Ok ok what i told you guys that panpsychism is becoming more and more academically credible?

even if to only make that bias apparant

so that others may recognise

plural results

You need resultS for the initial testing to confirm it

But anyone who doesn't believe you can run the same test once to see that the original hypothesis is true again

its the whole point, that anyone can recreate the test

I'd ask you for your sources

yes, but just testing it once is not going to prove or disprove anything

if medicine is only 80% accurate

1 out of every 5 tests will yield a different result

So if 50 scientists test it, 10 will have a different result (statistically)

That means that they wont get the same results 20% of the time

and testing things 2 or more times does not make it any less of a science

you can test it to confirm it

thats the whole point of it

If you don't believe it, you can retest it

a billion trilliong gazillion times

Idk if Thomas nagal.is any indication there are plenty who don't want anything other then nautealism to be true

but if the hypothesis is accurate it will yield the same results

only restesting when you dont get the results you want is bad form

in the cointoss experiment you can believe you will get heads, get heads once and not restest

So you're saying we have to test gravity every time we wake up?

im saying we test gravity a bunch of times in different scenarios every day

its predictable how it will behave

aka its science