You don't get to drop things on the table and then pretend they are irrelevant when they get responded to. If you had stuck to the interpretation of the bell curve and the relevance of margins, there we would have stayed. YOU decided to expand into posting about how not agreeing with what you were saying was a sign of how close-minded they were. Don't expect to define other people incorrectly and have them stay quiet about it.
Then stop repeating the irrelevant and incorrect conclusions you have decided on regarding physical evidence.
What did he call the claim that the other person is not listening by pointing out an example of the person coming to a conclusion that did not follow from what was written? Kind of like when Sinewave concluded that you had stated evidence for plasma was evidence for ghosts? Or when you concluded that:
Just because you like going to extremes doesn't mean that is what I am arguing. I am arguing, as I have since the very beginning, that there is a reason why margins are margins, and pretending they do not represent an increasingly low probability of an occurrence will get you in just as much trouble as assuming that they do not exist at all.
That is where the argument is. That is where it started, and that is where it should have stayed. You began painting anyone who didn't acknowledge science ignores margins as people who believed in fundamentalist materialism, an accusation which is both unsupported and does not follow from the discussion. If you did not want to discuss the accusation, you should not have made it to begin with, and you cannot refer to it as "arguing for the sake of arguing" if you keep bringing it up time and time again. As I have said a few times now, you do not get to define how other people think and expect it to go unchallenged.
Well, since you are so adamant about not talking about things which are irrelevant and about arguing for the sake of arguing, I will ignore the rather blatant baiting which has leveled up from material fundamentalism to religious fundamentalism (good gravy, what next?)
In regards to actual scientific methodology, there are a series of pre-requisites that must be met by every single concept prior to being considered scientific. And that means every single one, from the latest M-theory of physics, all the way down to the most basic Pythagorean Theorum. These pre-requisites apply universally, and no concept is given a free pass or a grandfather, no matter how wooly some of them are ("dark matter", looking at you now).
Is there room for a new pre-requisite, on which allows for the existence of the supernatural or the paranormal as a scientific subject? Certainly, there is. It must, however, just like every other pre-requisite, satisfy not just the reality it moderates, but also the reality that currently exists. In the same way that science does not reject the reality of something there is no rule demanding the rejection of, neither does science allow the rejection of the reality there are actually rules addressing.
Scientific methodology addresses the known universe, including forces that we can barely dream of, let alone actually define, let alone phenomena that occurred before we had even evolved as a proto-species, let alone phenomena that occurred before we even evolved as a planet, let alone before our galaxy even properly coalesced. And the claim is that science refuses and rejects the notion of a few paltry human spirits wandering around? Nonsense. Science merely expects that proposal to meet the same standards that everything from the most basic junior high math formula to the formation of reality itself, in the most literal terms, the Big Bang, must meet. Or at least, show why an exception should be made.
No, it isn't an assumption. It is an answer to a question. The assumption is that you asked the proper question to begin with. Don't blame the tool for the user's mistake.
Except, of course, that the probability you calculate (just how would you go about calculating that, anyway?) is greater than that of the heat death of the universe. Does this mean science ignores that some particles of reality manage to do this? Of course not. They do, however, acknowledge that it is extremely tricky stuff, and go out of their way to verify the validity and credibility of their research, knowing that they will have no grounds to complain if someone points out a variable they missed even a smidgen closer (a "smidgen" being a relative measure, but in this case resulting in a dramatic change in probability) to the bell of the curve. Their entire careers are spent working in the margins; yet your conclusion is that science ignores what they work on all their lives.
Except of course, that no one assumes that all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve, and I would ask you to either stop repeating this fallacy, or stop complaining when you are corrected on it.
No, I am perfectly happy with the dog not barking as evidence as well. Not all evidence has to be material, as I have said time and time again.
Because we make assumptions about the world (and people) around us? I agree with you there.
And again, you don't have to produce something physical in order to be scientifically valid. You just have to produce something measurable. The entire field of electrical engineering is nothing more than math and logic, with nothing in the way of a physical result till time comes for construction of an energy device.
Do you acknowledge that absolutely no one on this thread has claimed physical evidence is the only measure of scientific credibility (except for you making the accusation)?
And furthermore, that science is not, in fact, built on a physical philosophy, considering the myriad of non-physical branches and fields within it?
I have not defined anyone incorrectly, I have made a valid comparison. I shave explained why I made it but you seem to think its simply because people disagree with me. I have explained that as well. I think it is you who do not like being disagree with.
Ugggg, again, I compare anyone who SEEMS to only accept physical evidences as a fundamentals. I swear I must have said this like three times.
The problem here is that you are viewing fundamentalism as some sort of insult. It seems That it caries a lot of emotionally energy tied to the word for you. For me it's simply a description.
A simple history of science book or course will show you otherwise.
I think I have already explained for some of these very reasons why he subject matter does not fall within science, good grief... And you can't tell why I use the word "fundamentalism"?
Oh hell I'm no physicists but for fun, I'm sure it would start with be chance of each subatomic particle in your body tunneling through the wall, then they would a have to do this in perfect synchronization which would require a horrendous calculation. Machio Kaku has his new physics students do it as their first assignment . Yes longer than the heat death of the universe. I think i mentioned that. But how long is irrelevant to the argument. It CAN happen. In fact it becomes important when theorists start thinking about the quantum fluctuations that might have initiated the Big Bang. Cool stuff actually.
Your kidding right? You said yourself if a spirit was slapping across the face proclaiming its existence, you probably would not believe it to be real. Your assumption would be to lump it in with psychological phenomenon unless by chance you had some way of verifying it with another body of people. How is this not "no one assumes that all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve". Certainly you PROBABLY would assume that one did. Your own none the less. I will not stop repeating it, any you can't make me more "professors huffing" I see.
Then you very well miss the interesting dog that barks in a completely different way only because you refuse to call it a bark.
I'd say you are completely wrong. No theories are taken as serious scientific truths until they have been physically verified. Theoretical branches of science rely on their testability to be valid. Testable means they make predictions that can be physically verified.
As I am saying once again, and its getting close to the last time. I have never claimed that spirits fall within the range of current scientific inquiry. I have merely pointed out that like BL. Other kinds of evidence can make something more probable. To only allow for the existence of something that falls within a specific premise is sort of like...... Are you ready..... Fundamentalism.