When do you call bullshit?

People like to act like something is bullshit if science hasnt found it yet. Well, isnt science finding new shit every day?

Also, science can't get a grasp of everything. It's not like something can't be "real" if there is no scientific evidence of it. Science is a very harsh evaluation system and not even the most reasonable theories we daily use to explain the world are taken for granted in science.

I'm not saying everything scientifically unprovable could be "real", I'm saying science doesn't really reach all the parts of life's diversity. Can science explain consciousness in its full wideness? But we still have tons of empirical knowledge about consciousness that is hard to deny just because science can't get a grasp of it. Everything just can't (at least, yet) be explained in the scientific terms.

As for the original question, I think how the new-agey whatever thing fits my earlier knowledge base. If I can explain the thing to myself, I do semi-believe it can be a real thing. If it's not fitting my earlier knowledge base and I can't see how it could ever fit in it, I dismiss it.

Usually I can find "parallels" between the new-agey things and basic sciences, mostly psychology but also overlapping with other sciences. The new-agey thing is explaining the same, more familiar psychological thing with different terms. In other words I reduce the new agey thing to psychology. Usually that's the case with all the new agey things I believe in..

I don't think any new agey thing can "invent" a totally new field of "reality": their ideas can be reduced to basic sciences. They just think they've found something "new" because no one else hasn't spoken about it with the terms they're speaking about it or within the same context etc.. so they can't find the similarity with the basic sciences, and they don't know their ideas can actually be reduced to basic psychology or something similar if we take off all the contextual or semantical things.

For example: the indigo kids. Their description is similar to people with ADD/ADHD. Or "star kids" (I don't know if that's the english term for them, I only know the term in my native language), they sound exactly like HSP -people (high sensitivity people) and ADD people as well, only with few anomalies. Why should we believe in more vague explanation when there is more "fitting" explanation as well? What makes the indigo kids/star kids explanations more weighted than the psychological/biological explanation?

I harshly dismiss everything that isn't even slightly fitting in my knowledge base. If I can't understand a shit how the new agey idea could work, I can't just take a leap of faith and think mmmh okaay that could be true. It could but I guess I'm not that adventurous of a person that I'd straightly believe everything that could be true without any linkage to anything I've ever learnt or observed before. I know I can be wrong but I think I'd lose the last pieces of my sense if there was something "new" in the world that hasn't got any bonds to anything I've observed in life earlier. It's not like there can be some secret alchemy that hasn't showed even a glimpse of itself ever before, in any form. Things that would be so separated from the rest of the world. But it can change if I find new information that could make the new agey thing "fitting". It's not "settled" forever.

/r/Psychonaut Thread