Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
lestatdelioncourt

Response to "no scientific evidence" of ghost

357 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

sinewave

Are you actually reading the posts? Nobody is linking the two phenomena just using examples of how not everything fits in with the scientific template. Neither is proof of the other!

Yes, guilty as charged. That is exactly what happened. :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Yes it's been a dozen years or so myself.

The entire point is that science is based on statistics that necessarily throw out the margins. Most people that have an experience with spirits are misinterpreting something. This is the bulk of the curve for sure. The there is a portion of the curve of people who are probably mentally ill. Then there are the tips. Neither miss interpreting something nor mentally ill. If spirits exist, these are where the true experiences lye in the distribution of people just like the case with ball lightning. However, ball lightning does not have the emotional attachment to it nor the movement against its reality. I did find online some very good skepticism about it though. I was relieved actually. At least some people are sticking to the way they evaluate information rather than simply following the tide.

Yes, cynicism in the market as well. I'm not surprised actually. The emotional response is pretty typical especially when it comes to making money. Ironically it is exactly emotional responses why people screw up. With a little math, one does not need to spend an exorbitant amount of time learning about the markets. A week should do it. But one should spend some very productive time learning about ones self. If you can conquer your emotions all you need is entrepreneurship.

How is this related. The cynicism, scienceism, and empirical fundamentalism against the existence of spirits is an emotional and unscientific movement.

Is there scientific evidence that spirits exist? No... I don't think so. Accepted scientific truth requirements are far to stringent to allow for something that would exist in the margins. But the flaw is not in the existence of the thing. The flaw ( a necessary flaw) is in scientific methodology itself. By its nature it must marginalize the fringes. This says nothing about the reality of the thing, only like my stock market strategy it must remain unemotional and results driven. That's not to say that fundamental or market analysis does not work. Science does a phenomenal job. But it's success comes with the sacrifice of leaving out some things that cannot be understood with empiricism. In these cases, if we are going to learn about the things that exist but cannot be investigated scientifically.. We are going to have to investigate with all the data that science simply can't accept. Lets look.

Ball lightning: accepted. Spirits: not accepted at least by some.

Ball lightning: sightings and documentation dating back to ancient Greece.

Spirits: sightings, documentation, and interactions going back well into human pre history.

Ball lightning: cannot be reproduced

Spirits: cannot be reproduced

Ball lightning: unsubstantiated theories to explain it

Spirits: unsubstantiated theories to explain them

Ball lightning: seen by credible witnesses and about 5% of the population ( including yourself)

Spirits: seen by about 18-40 % of adults ( the statistics were all over the place on googke so I just gave a range) many of which are scientists and credible witnesses ( including myself).

BL: often misinterpreted from something more mundane

S: often misinterpreted from something more mundane

I can go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Yet as Frank graciously and correctly stated BL is unscientific. The crazy thing is that it is unscientific but yet accepted by scientists. Where as there is a mountain of more and the same kind of evidence for spirits, yet it is not. Its only because of a fallacious emotional attachment done skeptics have against the existence of a spiritual framework of reality.

In tired catch everyone latter.

Of course there is an assumption that a thing exists in the first place to consider. There are other types of atmospheric plasmas so it is not totally out of the question that ball lightning could exist. Ghosts, on the other hand are still for better or worse very much relegated to the realm of belief. Your assertion is not entirely correct, science accepts all data but does not necessarily value it the same. Yes, that does mean some things may go unnoticed. That is an unfortunate reality but there is nothing stopping anyone from trying to find the truth.

Edited by sinewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

You hallucinate spirits frank?

I hallucinate pretty much whatever I want to hallucinate if I work at it. Normally I just hear voices loudly saying my name; damn nuisance -- makes me jump.

I think most of the things of this sort people report, if they are not just misinterpretations of real things in the world, are generated by these little flaws in the ways our mind interprets incoming signals and mistaking internal mental signals as incoming sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I don't see that you've addressed my view about the difference in the level of proof needed because of the difference in metaphysical consequences. Did you understand the point or should I elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Of course there is an assumption that a thing exists in the first place to consider. There are other types of atmospheric plasmas so it is not totally out of the question that ball lightning could exist. Ghosts, on the other hand are still for better or worse very much relegated to the realm of belief. Your assertion is not entirely correct, science accepts all data but does not necessarily value it the same. Yes, that does mean some things may go unnoticed. That is an unfortunate reality but there is nothing stopping anyone from trying to find the truth.

Indeed.. I'm glad you recognize that last part.. Most don't.

It's not totally "out of the question" that spirits might exist either... This is the whole point. When you simply "relegate" it to belief and turn your head to the mountains of evidence your are participating in extreme bias. There are people that no more believe in spirits than you believe in a ham sandwich. Why? Because they interact with that reality on regular basis. It's not anecdotal to a great base of humanity. As I have mentioned before science has nothing to say on the matter, and I have also mentioned before science is only capable of uncovering a certain bit of reality. Some people like what science has accomplished soooo much, they want to base their entire world view in its philosophical premis. Ok, good for them, but the success of science does not invalidate other world views or even phenomenon outside of its premies.

People like aquates and frank think they know so much about how their minds and inner worlds work, a transparent spirit of one of their own relatives could stand right in front of them, slap them across the face, wave and scream that their are real, and they still would think they are suffering from something that's not real. This is born from a kind of fundamentalism built on a physical premis, and the marginalization of human experience. The illogic being that just because people can go crazy or do hallucinate things that all things falling outside of the accepted premis must fall into those category's.

Look its not my argument. As I have mentioned Carl Jung wrote about the marginalization of Human experience and its fallacious and even dangerous nature.

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

I don't see that you've addressed my view about the difference in the level of proof needed because of the difference in metaphysical consequences. Did you understand the point or should I elaborate?

What consequences? There are a vast amount of strange and fantastic consequences associated with physicalism as well. Including duplicate lives in other universes. The likely hood of Borg like super entities, awakened galaxies etc etc. metaphysical consequences are no more fantastic..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
People like aquates and frank think they know so much about how their minds and inner worlds work, a transparent spirit of one of their own relatives could stand right in front of them, slap them across the face, wave and scream that their are real, and they still would think they are suffering from something that's not real.

Probably. Which, of course, means absolutely nothing in regards as to whether it is real. Much like your claim that people like me wouldn't acknowledge its existence does not mean it is actually real.

Although I do find it amusing that you believe having a transparent spirit having a hissy fit somehow lends it more reality than simply seeing a ghostly outline in a dark house. It does fit in well, though, with your basic premise that science somehow doesn't recognize emotional content, and therefore a spirit engaged in an emotional reaction should be more detectable than one which doesn't, even if it doesn't actually make any logical sense.

Whether I believe the spirit is real or not depends less on whether it is trying to slap me and more on whether it can identify itself in such a manner that a spirit created by my mind could not.

This is born from a kind of fundamentalism built on a physical premis, and the marginalization of human experience.

Most of us like to call it "experience".

The illogic being that just because people can go crazy or do hallucinate things that all things falling outside of the accepted premis must fall into those category's.

See, thing of it is that just because you refer to someone as a "fundamentalist", and claim that they only believe that that there is one single explanation for anything...

It doesn't actually make it so.

If anything, that sort of assumption, that anyone who doesn't agree with what you are saying must be part of another, pre-defined, group which is automatically assumed to believe X and to be closed off to anything else...well, wouldn't that be a rather blatant case of bias, right there? That mindset where if you don't believe what I believe, then you must be wrong/bias/close-minded?

It hasn't occurred to you that people could simply disagree with you and still be intelligent, open-minded, individuals? Or are the only people allowed in that category the ones who agree 100% with what you believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Probably. Which, of course, means absolutely nothing in regards as to whether it is real. Much like your claim that people like me wouldn't acknowledge its existence does not mean it is actually real.

Although I do find it amusing that you believe having a transparent spirit having a hissy fit somehow lends it more reality than simply seeing a ghostly outline in a dark house. It does fit in well, though, with your basic premise that science somehow doesn't recognize emotional content, and therefore a spirit engaged in an emotional reaction should be more detectable than one which doesn't, even if it doesn't actually make any logical sense.

Whether I believe the spirit is real or not depends less on whether it is trying to slap me and more on whether it can identify itself in such a manner that a spirit created by my mind could not.

Most of us like to call it "experience".

See, thing of it is that just because you refer to someone as a "fundamentalist", and claim that they only believe that that there is one single explanation for anything...

It doesn't actually make it so.

If anything, that sort of assumption, that anyone who doesn't agree with what you are saying must be part of another, pre-defined, group which is automatically assumed to believe X and to be closed off to anything else...well, wouldn't that be a rather blatant case of bias, right there? That mindset where if you don't believe what I believe, then you must be wrong/bias/close-minded?

It hasn't occurred to you that people could simply disagree with you and still be intelligent, open-minded, individuals? Or are the only people allowed in that category the ones who agree 100% with what you believe?

Of course it dosnt, but It defiantly makes it more probable.

It has nothing to do with the emotional content :( it has to do with the clarity of the interaction. That was the point. A dark figure down the hallway opens itself up much more to misinterpretation. You know this. That's why I created that example. But I'm glad you agreed that you probably would still cling to your bias. That's ok ... Forgive my lak of passive voice when writing. I actually think it takes a strong thoughtful person to cling to their principles in the face of such evidence.

The truth of course is the everything you experience is created by your mind. But if we shred our respective bias, 'experience' is perfectly capable of showing you that something like a spirit slapping you, dragging you out of bed, or cuddling with you on your sofa, is just as real as these words you are reading on your computer screen. Cant you see that denying your experiences and verifications is the true delusion?

If it acts like a duck and looks like a duck, then I have no other framework but to call it a duck. there are various kinds of ducks, there or 28 kinds living in North America alone. There are also various levels of duckness. Some birds like geese have a lot of similar traits as ducks. So I'd have to say duck like or I might say ducks or goose like.

For me, people mired in physical philosophy are fundamentalists because it seems that in their minds there can be nothing other. Despite the evidence. Much like other kinds of fundamentalists. I only have words to go on to express the grouping and likeness of such thought processes.

It occurs to me all the time, my friend. And you mistake my assertiveness for aggressiveness. You know that old cognitive problem of misinterpretation ;) I was taught in school to write in active voice. It puts people off sometimes. In fact I consider yourself and others that I debate quit open and intelligent, real fundis I barely bother with anymore. just don't expect me to not hammer my points. Infact the reason I even engage people like yourself is because I believe fundamentally you will accept reason even if you disagree with it. Or at least I hope you will. If course being the person on the fringe it's an uphill battle. But trust me its fun for me. I'm surrounded by children 95% of my life, and this may be the only adult interaction I get in a day. Arguing with my wife is not so fun:(

And for the record, I have never met people that agree 100% with me.... Not even myself ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Indeed.. I'm glad you recognize that last part.. Most don't.

It's not totally "out of the question" that spirits might exist either... This is the whole point. When you simply "relegate" it to belief and turn your head to the mountains of evidence your are participating in extreme bias. There are people that no more believe in spirits than you believe in a ham sandwich. Why? Because they interact with that reality on regular basis. It's not anecdotal to a great base of humanity. As I have mentioned before science has nothing to say on the matter, and I have also mentioned before science is only capable of uncovering a certain bit of reality. Some people like what science has accomplished soooo much, they want to base their entire world view in its philosophical premis. Ok, good for them, but the success of science does not invalidate other world views or even phenomenon outside of its premies.

People like aquates and frank think they know so much about how their minds and inner worlds work, a transparent spirit of one of their own relatives could stand right in front of them, slap them across the face, wave and scream that their are real, and they still would think they are suffering from something that's not real. This is born from a kind of fundamentalism built on a physical premis, and the marginalization of human experience. The illogic being that just because people can go crazy or do hallucinate things that all things falling outside of the accepted premis must fall into those category's.

Look its not my argument. As I have mentioned Carl Jung wrote about the marginalization of Human experience and its fallacious and even dangerous nature.

I wouldn't really want my doctor using the "accept all evidence approach" and deliver a shaman instead of antibiotics. Just saying. :)

I am not saying ghosts are not possible just that no one has shown otherwise and the methods employed so far to expose them are very poorly designed and executed but some call it science.

Edited by sinewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Of course it dosnt, but It defiantly makes it more probable.

Wait...calling me a fundamentalist and saying I only believe in one explanation makes what more probable? They existence of an hysterical spirit?

It has nothing to do with the emotional content :( it has to do with the clarity of the interaction. That was the point. A dark figure down the hallway opens itself up much more to misinterpretation. You know this. That's why I created that example.

Well, that's you. To me, a cool breeze as an immaterial hand brushes across my face or a dark figure in a spooky corridor are pretty much in the same category of clarity, ranging from a pleasantly scary thrill to a "WTH are we doing in this spooky house, Scoob?". A voice screaming at me would cause me much greater alarm, and I suspect my first reaction would be to frantically look around for whomever was making the noise.

As for standing in front of me and waving their hands, being that they are transparent, it is largely a moot point. If them doing this for you makes for a much clearer interaction, more power to you. For me, the entire episode consists of "I heard voices. I think it was my aunt. She sounded p***ed."

But I'm glad you agreed that you probably would still cling to your bias. That's ok ... Forgive my lak of passive voice when writing. I actually think it takes a strong thoughtful person to cling to their principles in the face of such evidence.

How much strength does it take to decide what people who don't agree with you must think and process the world around them, and decide they must not be as open-minded and perceptive as you are?

The truth of course is the everything you experience is created by your mind. But if we shred our respective bias, 'experience' is perfectly capable of showing you that something like a spirit slapping you, dragging you out of bed, or cuddling with you on your sofa, is just as real as these words you are reading on your computer screen. Cant you see that denying your experiences and verifications is the true delusion

No, I really can't. See, it is absolutely true that the mind doesn't know the difference between a spirit girlfriend who wants quality time, an imaginary girlfriend, and a real flesh and blood one. As you say, all data is interpreted by the mind. Whether your girlfriend exists or whether you imagined her up, the brain is going to record the event the exact same way.

This does not, however, make the actual subject of the event "real". Either your girlfriend is real, and either has a body or is a spirit, or she is imaginary. It doesn't matter whether you accept it or deny it, the ultimate reality is going to be one of those two options. I won't be able to tell the difference; if my brain is convinced Jane is real, then I will see, hear, feel, and cuddle with Jane. Even when my friend shows me a secret video of me watching "She's all that!" while whispering sweet nothings into the ear of my couch pillow, my first reaction will be to claim he is delusional for not believing in my girlfriend (followed closely by a demand to know just how many secret cameras he has in my apartment. Like I said, experience).

This is why objective verification is so important. You act as if the sole purpose of it was to deny the existence of the immaterial. The actual purpose of it is to remove a variable which we already know to exist. The human mind has the ability to make up things that are not really there; We know this, as a fact, and we can replicate this at will. It is a significant variable, and in any attempt to show that something is actually there, it would be absolutely silly to not remove a variable that has been shown to be specifically responsible for people thinking something is there.

It is a little bit like putting a kettle on the stove, focusing on it, and claiming the water boiled due to your psychic abilities; You should not be surprised if someone asks whether you checked to make sure the stove was off.

If it acts like a duck and looks like a duck, then I have no other framework but to call it a duck. there are various kinds of ducks, there or 28 kinds living in North America alone. There are also various levels of duckness. Some birds like geese have a lot of similar traits as ducks. So I'd have to say duck like or I might say ducks or goose like.

And no one would think twice about it. Because ducks have been shown to objectively exist. Their existence is not reliant on anecdotal evidence. No one has any reason to believe that you didn't see a duck.

Now, if you run out of your room yelling that a duck attacked you while you were on the computer, this would cause a bit more controversy. At this point, a cursory investigation would have to be made and assuming the duck isn't sitting there making it easy for us, we would have no choice but to look for circumstantial evidence, evidence we know should be there had a duck actually been in the room.

If absolutely no evidence is found, we would have to consider that perhaps you were not attacked by a duck.

For me, people mired in physical philosophy are fundamentalists because it seems that in their minds there can be nothing other. Despite the evidence. Much like other kinds of fundamentalists. I only have words to go on to express the grouping and likeness of such thought processes.

Has it occurred to you, instead of assuming you understand how they think, to actually ask them questions and learn from them how they think?

It occurs to me all the time, my friend. And you mistake my assertiveness for aggressiveness.

Nonsense. I am open-minded about such things. I simply attributed both to you. Nothing wrong with that. I myself am both assertive and aggressive.

You know that old cognitive problem of misinterpretation ;) I was taught in school to write in active voice. It puts people off sometimes. In fact I consider yourself and others that I debate quit open and intelligent, real fundis I barely bother with anymore. just don't expect me to not hammer my points. Infact the reason I even engage people like yourself is because I believe fundamentally you will accept reason even if you disagree with it. Or at least I hope you will. If course being the person on the fringe it's an uphill battle. But trust me its fun for me. I'm surrounded by children 95% of my life, and this may be the only adult interaction I get in a day. Arguing with my wife is not so fun:(

And for the record, I have never met people that agree 100% with me.... Not even myself ;)

It isn't you aggression or your assertiveness that is the problem. It is your assumption that you know what other people are thinking, followed by the judgement you make based on your assumptions, all the while topping the whole mess with a healthy spread of ironic obliviousness.

In other words:

  • Claiming that someone thinks in one particular way without actually verifying it,
  • Referring to people who think in that way as being close-minded without actually supporting that conclusion,
  • Making blanket assumptions about an entire group of people, how they behave, what they believe, etc, even when you have been directly told this is not how they behave or believe...

This doesn't make you either open-minded or unbiased. Holding a differing opinion of mine in regards to an analytic process does not, in any way, translate to academic, social, or intellectual, neutrality. You don't get to be on top just by claiming that I am at the bottom. You do have to actually prove your case to be the stronger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The thing about hallucinations that convinces me they are not real is that I have to do special things, like take certain pain relievers or meditate certain way or go without sleep, to have them. That tells me they are me and not "real," and I long ago gave up experimenting like that.

By the way, such hallucinations, at least for me, do not consist of my dead mother slapping me on the face. The most I ever got from her was an enigmatic and self-serving statement from a lamp saying, "You can have anything you want." Nonsense, but something my ever-wishful subconscious might produce. Most hallucinations do not involve people, but just visions of places -- nice, pleasant, safe places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Wait...calling me a fundamentalist and saying I only believe in one explanation makes what more probable? They existence of an hysterical spirit?

Well, that's you. To me, a cool breeze as an immaterial hand brushes across my face or a dark figure in a spooky corridor are pretty much in the same category of clarity, ranging from a pleasantly scary thrill to a "WTH are we doing in this spooky house, Scoob?". A voice screaming at me would cause me much greater alarm, and I suspect my first reaction would be to frantically look around for whomever was making the noise.

As for standing in front of me and waving their hands, being that they are transparent, it is largely a moot point. If them doing this for you makes for a much clearer interaction, more power to you. For me, the entire episode consists of "I heard voices. I think it was my aunt. She sounded p***ed."

How much strength does it take to decide what people who don't agree with you must think and process the world around them, and decide they must not be as open-minded and perceptive as you are?

No, I really can't. See, it is absolutely true that the mind doesn't know the difference between a spirit girlfriend who wants quality time, an imaginary girlfriend, and a real flesh and blood one. As you say, all data is interpreted by the mind. Whether your girlfriend exists or whether you imagined her up, the brain is going to record the event the exact same way.

This does not, however, make the actual subject of the event "real". Either your girlfriend is real, and either has a body or is a spirit, or she is imaginary. It doesn't matter whether you accept it or deny it, the ultimate reality is going to be one of those two options. I won't be able to tell the difference; if my brain is convinced Jane is real, then I will see, hear, feel, and cuddle with Jane. Even when my friend shows me a secret video of me watching "She's all that!" while whispering sweet nothings into the ear of my couch pillow, my first reaction will be to claim he is delusional for not believing in my girlfriend (followed closely by a demand to know just how many secret cameras he has in my apartment. Like I said, experience).

This is why objective verification is so important. You act as if the sole purpose of it was to deny the existence of the immaterial. The actual purpose of it is to remove a variable which we already know to exist. The human mind has the ability to make up things that are not really there; We know this, as a fact, and we can replicate this at will. It is a significant variable, and in any attempt to show that something is actually there, it would be absolutely silly to not remove a variable that has been shown to be specifically responsible for people thinking something is there.

It is a little bit like putting a kettle on the stove, focusing on it, and claiming the water boiled due to your psychic abilities; You should not be surprised if someone asks whether you checked to make sure the stove was off.

And no one would think twice about it. Because ducks have been shown to objectively exist. Their existence is not reliant on anecdotal evidence. No one has any reason to believe that you didn't see a duck.

Now, if you run out of your room yelling that a duck attacked you while you were on the computer, this would cause a bit more controversy. At this point, a cursory investigation would have to be made and assuming the duck isn't sitting there making it easy for us, we would have no choice but to look for circumstantial evidence, evidence we know should be there had a duck actually been in the room.

If absolutely no evidence is found, we would have to consider that perhaps you were not attacked by a duck.

Has it occurred to you, instead of assuming you understand how they think, to actually ask them questions and learn from them how they think?

Nonsense. I am open-minded about such things. I simply attributed both to you. Nothing wrong with that. I myself am both assertive and aggressive.

It isn't you aggression or your assertiveness that is the problem. It is your assumption that you know what other people are thinking, followed by the judgement you make based on your assumptions, all the while topping the whole mess with a healthy spread of ironic obliviousness.

In other words:

  • Claiming that someone thinks in one particular way without actually verifying it,
  • Referring to people who think in that way as being close-minded without actually supporting that conclusion,
  • Making blanket assumptions about an entire group of people, how they behave, what they believe, etc, even when you have been directly told this is not how they behave or believe...

This doesn't make you either open-minded or unbiased. Holding a differing opinion of mine in regards to an analytic process does not, in any way, translate to academic, social, or intellectual, neutrality. You don't get to be on top just by claiming that I am at the bottom. You do have to actually prove your case to be the stronger.

Actually people start arguing about arguing and make it personal when thy are running out of things to argue about. I'm not going to grill every person on every forum about what they think. You say what you think if you want me to know it. If you don't like being compared to a fundamentalist then speak up why, but that may or may not change what I think on the matter.

As to spirit girl friends. Your assumption and a large falacy in skeptical rhetoric is the assumption that because the mind can make something up means that everytime something dosnt fall within normal parameters it must be one of these instances. This is born of the kind of fundamentalism I was speaking about and is quite illogical. ---Your spirit girl friend can't possibly be a spirit because there are no such things as spirits, and only physical objectivly verifiable things exist because there is no non-physical reality-- petitio principii.

Just because something can happen does not mean that it does. This is the same fallacious argument attempted by people to invalidate NDEs. An induced experience has says nothing about the natural occurance of an experience. If the smell of flowers is reproduced because a brain surgon manipulates my brain in a lab, this certainly does not mean that flowers do not exist.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
Actually people start arguing about arguing and make it personal when thy are running out of things to argue about.

Yes, we know why you started making references to fundamentalists and denialists. That is neither here nor there.

I'm not going to grill every person on every forum about what they think. You say what you think if you want me to know it. If you don't like being compared to a fundamentalist then speak up why, but that may or may not change what I think on the matter.

I...I just wrote a huge post on why judging someone as a fundamentalist is wrong...

And, I mean, I even broke it down into the fallacies of judgement, of logic, and even of reason. I even bullet pointed the last...

You quoted the post. Didn't you see any of it? Why didn't you address anything that was written in direct response to the points you brought up?

As to spirit girl friends. Your assumption and a large falacy in skeptical rhetoric is the assumption that because the mind can make something up means that everytime something dosnt fall within normal parameters it must be one of these instances.

Hmm...Wow...

You really didn't read the post at all.

This from the guy who posted a gif of someone slamming their face unto a table.

This is born of the kind of fundamentalism I was speaking about and is quite illogical. ---Your spirit girl friend can't possibly be a spirit because there are no such things as spirits, and only physical objectivly verifiable things exist because there is no non-physical reality-- petitio principii.

Look...if all you are going to do is make up what you believe I am saying instead of actually reading what I am saying, there is little purpose to continuing this.

All I can do is point out how I specifically stated several times now, that when you get to the point that you have already convinced yourself that you know what other people are thinking and saying to the point that you utterly ignore what they are actually thinking and saying, you have pretty much become the thing you are arguing against.

Just because something can happen does not mean that it does. This is the same fallacious argument attempted by people to invalidate NDEs. An induced experience has says nothing about the natural occurance of an experience. If the smell of flowers is reproduced because a brain surgon manipulates my brain in a lab, this certainly does not mean that flowers do not exist.

Agreed. Similarly, just because you say something is so, does not mean it is. However, if we can show that something has the greatest likelihood of being so (like, say, using a bell curve to show probability), and additionally show an absence of data we would expect to appear had a given phenomena actually occurred (of the "dog that didn't bark" variety), and on top of that show an alternatively that not only has happened, has been shown to happen on a regular basis, and has every reason of being a suspected variable in what did happen, then perhaps there is reason to consider it a significant factor in the investigation. Just like ball lightning. After all, if it quacks like a duck, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Yes, we know why you started making references to fundamentalists and denialists. That is neither here nor there.

I...I just wrote a huge post on why judging someone as a fundamentalist is wrong...

And, I mean, I even broke it down into the fallacies of judgement, of logic, and even of reason. I even bullet pointed the last...

You quoted the post. Didn't you see any of it? Why didn't you address anything that was written in direct response to the points you brought up?

Hmm...Wow...

You really didn't read the post at all.

This from the guy who posted a gif of someone slamming their face unto a table.

Look...if all you are going to do is make up what you believe I am saying instead of actually reading what I am saying, there is little purpose to continuing this.

All I can do is point out how I specifically stated several times now, that when you get to the point that you have already convinced yourself that you know what other people are thinking and saying to the point that you utterly ignore what they are actually thinking and saying, you have pretty much become the thing you are arguing against.

Agreed. Similarly, just because you say something is so, does not mean it is. However, if we can show that something has the greatest likelihood of being so (like, say, using a bell curve to show probability), and additionally show an absence of data we would expect to appear had a given phenomena actually occurred (of the "dog that didn't bark" variety), and on top of that show an alternatively that not only has happened, has been shown to happen on a regular basis, and has every reason of being a suspected variable in what did happen, then perhaps there is reason to consider it a significant factor in the investigation. Just like ball lightning. After all, if it quacks like a duck, etc, etc.

I post from an iPhone, I don't have the energy to address things you write that are irrelevant or when you insist on arguing about arguing. I understood and read everything you said and I am attempting to stay with material instead of dealing with emotions and incrudality. I'm not ignoring anything. This is what an ethics professor I once had called "the professors huff". It's a claim that the other person is not listening or ignoring by the simple fact of disagreeing.

Ill say it again in a different way. Attempting to discern the reality of a thing that is apart of a non physical reality by looking for a physical signature is simply silly. It's assuming your bias. This is what bible fundis do. There can be nothing outside of the Bible. There can be nothing outside of our methodologies.

Yes a bell curve. I believed I addressed that. It's perfectly fine to say that statistics show us that this event most likely falls within this range. But this is also an assumption. In physics, if I walk toword a wall the greater bulk of the bell curve will have me running into it; However, we know for a fact that it is possible that I will pop up on the other side... Even the other side of the universe. The probability can be calculated. This is because the fringe edge of the bell curve of the probability distrubution defining where im at extends through the wall. No where in science are you supposed to look at where the bulk of your probability lies and completely disregard the margins. If it were not a reality, the sun would not shine.

Of course we are talking about human experiences not quantum uncertainty. Judging the reality of a spiritual type reality based on picking and choosing variables and assuming all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve is simply assuming. You want the dog to bark and it is, the only problem is that you are deaf. Why are you ( I'm speaking about a general "you") deaf? It's because like ball lightning we are evaluating anecdotes, but you have already thrown out anecdotes as evidence, so the logic now becomes ----these anecdotes most likely fall within this range of explanation, but those outside of that range can't be considered authentic because they are anecdotes.----like ball lightning the person on the fringe cannot produce anything physical so they are now silent.

Look, I'm not saying anyone should simply believe because Somone says that something happened to them. Only recognize that that a non physical reality is going to have a very difficult time leaving physical evidence. And securing proof is nearly impossible with science because it is necessarily built on physical philosophy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soulseeker

People were once referred to as insane for believing the world was round because there was no scientific proof...science is always changing and growing. When some super intelligent geek :geek: invents a ghost capturing camera ill show you proof.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I post from an iPhone, I don't have the energy to address things you write that are irrelevant or when you insist on arguing about arguing.

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.

I understood and read everything you said and I am attempting to stay with material instead of dealing with emotions and incrudality.

Then stop repeating the irrelevant and incorrect conclusions you have decided on regarding physical evidence.

I'm not ignoring anything. This is what an ethics professor I once had called "the professors huff". It's a claim that the other person is not listening or ignoring by the simple fact of disagreeing.

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:

This does not, however, make the actual subject of the event "real". Either your girlfriend is real, and either has a body or is a spirit, or she is imaginary. It doesn't matter whether you accept it or deny it, the ultimate reality is going to be one of those two options. I won't be able to tell the difference; if my brain is convinced Jane is real, then I will see, hear, feel, and cuddle with Jane. Even when my friend shows me a secret video of me watching "She's all that!" while whispering sweet nothings into the ear of my couch pillow, my first reaction will be to claim he is delusional for not believing in my girlfriend (followed closely by a demand to know just how many secret cameras he has in my apartment. Like I said, experience).

meant:
Your assumption and a large falacy in skeptical rhetoric is the assumption that because the mind can make something up means that everytime something dosnt fall within normal parameters it must be one of these instances.

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.

Ill say it again in a different way. Attempting to discern the reality of a thing that is apart of a non physical reality by looking for a physical signature is simply silly. It's assuming your bias. This is what bible fundis do. There can be nothing outside of the Bible. There can be nothing outside of our methodologies.

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.

Yes a bell curve. I believed I addressed that. It's perfectly fine to say that statistics show us that this event most likely falls within this range. But this is also an assumption.

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.

In physics, if I walk toword a wall the greater bulk of the bell curve will have me running into it; However, we know for a fact that it is possible that I will pop up on the other side... Even the other side of the universe. The probability can be calculated. This is because the fringe edge of the bell curve of the probability distrubution defining where im at extends through the wall. No where in science are you supposed to look at where the bulk of your probability lies and completely disregard the margins. If it were not a reality, the sun would not shine.

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.

Of course we are talking about human experiences not quantum uncertainty. Judging the reality of a spiritual type reality based on picking and choosing variables and assuming all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve is simply assuming.

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.

You want the dog to bark and it is, the only problem is that you are deaf.

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.

Why are you ( I'm speaking about a general "you") deaf?

Because we make assumptions about the world (and people) around us? I agree with you there.

It's because like ball lightning we are evaluating anecdotes, but you have already thrown out anecdotes as evidence, so the logic now becomes ----these anecdotes most likely fall within this range of explanation, but those outside of that range can't be considered authentic because they are anecdotes.----like ball lightning the person on the fringe cannot produce anything physical so they are now silent.

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.

Look, I'm not saying anyone should simply believe because Somone says that something happened to them. Only recognize that that a non physical reality is going to have a very difficult time leaving physical evidence. And securing proof is nearly impossible with science because it is necessarily built on physical philosophy.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Angel1510

I wouldn't really want my doctor using the "accept all evidence approach" and deliver a shaman instead of antibiotics. Just saying. :)

I am not saying ghosts are not possible just that no one has shown otherwise and the methods employed so far to expose them are very poorly designed and executed but some call it science.

What has doctors and antibiotics got to do with ghosts? I know you are lumping all anamolies under the same umbrella and that is just wrong. There is a difference between claiming to see a ghost and taking some poison because someone said so. Of course, scientific method is vital in some areas, I am not disputing that but in the case of 'ghosts', I think the tools required to prove their existence have not been discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

People were once referred to as insane for believing the world was round because there was no scientific proof...science is always changing and growing. When some super intelligent geek :geek: invents a ghost capturing camera ill show you proof.

This can't go unchallenged; odds are when someone invents a ghost capturing camera it will show proof they aren't there.

I really tire of the believing the world is round bit; no "scientist," even in the ancient world, has thought the world was flat since maybe the Egyptians, and science wasn't invented them. Science grows, largely by discarding theories that don't fit, and ghosts are probably one of these that needs to be discarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Angel1510

This can't go unchallenged; odds are when someone invents a ghost capturing camera it will show proof they aren't there.

I really tire of the believing the world is round bit; no "scientist," even in the ancient world, has thought the world was flat since maybe the Egyptians, and science wasn't invented them. Science grows, largely by discarding theories that don't fit, and ghosts are probably one of these that needs to be discarded.

Regardless of the fact you believe ghosts will probably be discarded, it does not stop millions of people believing they see them. To many people their experiences are real and not imagined. So whatever science can prove or can't prove, there will always be a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Regardless of the fact you believe ghosts will probably be discarded, it does not stop millions of people believing they see them. To many people their experiences are real and not imagined. So whatever science can prove or can't prove, there will always be a debate.

I have no doubt you are right. Actually my metaphysical speculation (not worth calling a hypothesis) involves life spirits "out there," (generally lined up to go over or be reborn) but they are disembodied, which means they should not be able to be detected by any possible means, nor have any influence on us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

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:

meant:

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?

This is silly all you are doing is filibustering.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

This is silly all you are doing is filibustering. 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.

You have to proceed everything by referring to it as "irrelevant", or "filibustering", or a "professor's rant"? You really can't just argue the points?

You have, several times, claimed that scientists ignore marginal data and that it is a inherent property of science to rely solely on physical evidence. This is wrong, and I have already explained why. Repeating it doesn't make it any more accurate, particularly when your comparisons progress from ignoring data on a graph, to refusing to believe any evidence except what is in the middle of the curve, to being a physical fundamentalist, to being a religious fundamentalist...

How can you sit there and tell yourself you haven't defined anyone incorrectly? You don't find it the slightest bit suspicious that your description gets progressively harsher and harsher? Now you are at the "I know you are, but what am I stage?" You don't see the difference between yourself stating that scientists only see things one way and only accept one sort of data, and scientists saying "No, we don't"? One is an accusation, the other a defense.

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.

Feel free to look back on your posts and note how absolute your statement is every time.

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.

I view religious fundamentalism in science as an insult, and I saw the eventual tie-in from a mile away the moment you began that thread. And I sincerely doubt that you chose to use that word based solely on its descriptive value.

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"?

You haven't, though. You've stated that it doesn't, and you have given your reason for it as scientists not accepting anything but physical evidence as valid, which is not explanation, but rather a postulate, and one based on on a wrong assumption at that.

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.

Pretty sure you didn't...

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.

Wait...first you say it is irrelevant to the argument, then in the same breath you state that it becomes important to quantum physics...

In all cases, yes, how long is most definitely relevant when you are calculating probability. If chances are that the universe will implode before your event occurs, you can pretty much consider that event an impossibility. That said, the world of quantum physics is so utterly different from our own that it may as well be considered its own reality, with its own laws to follow.

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.

You posted an example where you claimed that a spirit slapping my face should be something so obvious that to not believe it was a spirit would be unreasonable. I pointed out that a spirit slapping you in the face wouldn't really be all that obvious as evidence for a spirit, and that your reaction would be pretty much the same, regardless of whether you believed you were being slapped by a spirit or not.

It's the same as your previous example with the ghost girlfriend. You actions would be the same whether your girlfriend was real, was a ghost, or was imaginary. If an example is meant to contrast the difference between two phenomena, but the reaction to both is the same, then the example isn't a very good one. This ties in to what I mentioned in an earlier post about not asking the right question and blaming the graph for it. If your bell curve is too shallow, it isn't the bell curve's fault.

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.

My assumption would be that psychological phenomena is the most probable cause. I would make that assumption based both on past experience, on academic knowledge, and on lack of pending evidence. Should new information arise, I would revisit my initial assumption.

No one (statistically speaking) assumes all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve. They do, however, assume that, unless there is mitigating evidence to show otherwise, the greatest probability is of something falling into the curve.

In other words, scientists make assumptions based on the information they have available to them, and modify those assumptions as needed. You are acting as if scientists make assumptions ahead of time, without bothering to look at information, and never change their mind unless physical evidence is presented. You are describing scientific methodology as religious fundamentalism.

Your own none the less. I will not stop repeating it, any you can't make me :) more "professors huffing" I see.

That's fine; I did give you two options, after all. If you refuse to stop describing scientists as material fundamentalists, then at least have the courtesy to stop complaining when people correct you on that incorrect description.

Then you very well miss the interesting dog that barks in a completely different way only because you refuse to call it a bark.

Wow, you are really going out of your way to refuse to admit that scientists are perfectly willing to accept non-physical information.

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.

No theories are taken as scientific truths ever. All theories in existence exist in a state where they are not "truths", but rather where they are "yet to be proven false". And no, testable does not mean they can be physically verified. It just means they can be verified. There are some things that simply do not have anything physical to verify.

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.

With the exception of Sinewave's misunderstanding, I don't think anyone has claimed you have.

Science is all about looking at all types of evidence. They just don't assign absolute values to it. The supporting strength of any given piece of evidence depends entirely on the probability of the phenomena it is being connected to. The higher the probability of something occurring, the less supporting evidence is needed to validate it. The farther out you go to the fringes, the greater the supporting evidence you need (i.e. incredible claims require incredible evidence).

To only allow for the existence of something that falls within a specific premise is sort of like...... Are you ready..... Fundamentalism.

No matter how many times you imply that science only accepts physical data, it will not make it true. Whether this is a scarecrow or whether you honestly believe it to be so, it simply is not.

Science has absolutely no problem accepting non-physical evidence. Bear in mind, however, that accepting something as evidence is not the same as giving all evidence equal weight.

Science has no problem with things lying on the margins...as long as their claims do not outreach the evidence they have to support it. This is not the same as claiming that nothing in the margins exist, and only the stuff in the middle is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Science has absolutely no problem accepting non-physical evidence. Bear in mind, however, that accepting something as evidence is not the same as giving all evidence equal weight.

Science has no problem with things lying on the margins...as long as their claims do not outreach the evidence they have to support it. This is not the same as claiming that nothing in the margins exist, and only the stuff in the middle is real.

Yeah A, he seems to have trouble with that concept. Unfortunately for his argument, all of the psychobabble in the world does not change the fact the existing evidence is virtually insignificant. Rather than accept it, he insists science should bend to put it in a more favorable light. Until that happens, he considers science inadequate because it does not validate fringe belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Angel1510

This topic certainly brings to mind 'bird of a feather, flock together'....although maybe the birds are vultures, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Yeah A, he seems to have trouble with that concept. Unfortunately for his argument, all of the psychobabble in the world does not change the fact the existing evidence is virtually insignificant. Rather than accept it, he insists science should bend to put it in a more favorable light. Until that happens, he considers science inadequate because it does not validate fringe belief.

It's not insignificant. It's massive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.