Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[gnostic]

And according to you which empty, false, claim have I made?

You have only provide speculative scenario of ghost walking through walls and saying boo.

You have never show any evidence that such scenario actually happened.

And without evidence, your scenario and your claims are false and empty.

Can you provide evidence that it happened? Some recordings of actual events (not fictional tv shows or movies about ghosts)?

 

[gnostic]

A quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal evidence can leave me believing something beyond reasonable doubt. We all do that process when reasoning. But I don’t claim scientific proof.

Without real evidence of such things taking places, then you are only believing in these claims of paranormal or supernatural are only basing your “beyond reasonable doubt” on faith alone.

Faith is nothing more than conviction of a belief that requires no evidence.

I have told you before, that anecdotal evidence isn’t evidence at all, unless they have been supported by actual evidence - what you yourself call them “experimental evidence” or “investigative evidence”.

You keep using anecdotes as if they are facts, George. They are not fact, until they can be back up by real evidence, not by mere testimonies.

You brought up murder trial in court case. You want us to rely on testimonies of eyewitnesses to the murder. Witnesses are only good, if they were there at the time, but what if the murder took place without witnesses.

Regardless if there are witnesses or not, you would still need the body of victim, you need the murder weapon, and the evidence that tie the body and weapon to the murderer, such as fingerprints, dna, trace evidence, video recordings if any at the scene, and so on.

So you would require physical evidence, and if or when possible, a witness or more. But you need to understand that murder could take place without witnesses.

But all this, have nothing to do with supernatural.

Have you come across a murder that occurred through “supernatural”?

Are the weapon or other evidence “supernatural”?

Would forensic science/testing yield supernatural causes to murder investigation?

Are the witnesses in a murder trial, giving testimonies of supernatural events?

Do you think in any court case, a judge or jury would give any credence to anecdotes or testimonies of ghosts or other supernatural entities?​

If answer “no” to any or all of these questions, then your comparison of court case with supernatural or paranormal events or phenomena, are nothing more than flimsy false equivalence.

I know that you want to use “beyond reasonable doubt” card on anecdotes of supernatural phenomena, but I am afraid that you are making a fool of yourself with these empty claims, and even more emptier excuses.

 

[George-ananda]

Without real evidence of such things taking places, then you are only believing in these claims of paranormal or supernatural are only basing your “beyond reasonable doubt” on faith alone.

Faith is nothing more than conviction of a belief that requires no evidence.

I have told you before, that anecdotal evidence isn’t evidence at all, unless they have been supported by actual evidence - what you yourself call them “experimental evidence” or “investigative evidence”.

You keep using anecdotes as if they are facts, George. They are not fact, until they can be back up by real evidence, not by mere testimonies.

You brought up murder trial in court case. You want us to rely on testimonies of eyewitnesses to the murder. Witnesses are only good, if they were there at the time, but what if the murder took place without witnesses.

Regardless if there are witnesses or not, you would still need the body of victim, you need the murder weapon, and the evidence that tie the body and weapon to the murderer, such as fingerprints, dna, trace evidence, video recordings if any at the scene, and so on.

So you would require physical evidence, and if or when possible, a witness or more. But you need to understand that murder could take place without witnesses.

But all this, have nothing to do with supernatural.

Have you come across a murder that occurred through “supernatural”?

Are the weapon or other evidence “supernatural”?

Would forensic science/testing yield supernatural causes to murder investigation?

Are the witnesses in a murder trial, giving testimonies of supernatural events?

Do you think in any court case, a judge or jury would give any credence to anecdotes or testimonies of ghosts or other supernatural entities?​

If answer “no” to any or all of these questions, then your comparison of court case with supernatural or paranormal events or phenomena, are nothing more than flimsy false equivalence.

I know that you want to use “beyond reasonable doubt” card on anecdotes of supernatural phenomena, but I am afraid that you are making a fool of yourself with these empty claims, and even more emptier excuses.

I looked up eyewitness evidence in the police journal:

Eyewitness evidence is often viewed as a critical piece of the investigative puzzle, the utility of which can be further enhanced by the pursuit of other corroborative evidence. Sometimes, even after a thorough investigation, an eyewitness identification is the sole piece of evidence.


I employ 'reason' and not 'faith'. I would not believe in the supernatural without eyewitness and other evidence. Faith is belief not requiring evidence. That is not my modus operandi. I am evidence-driven.

The question I am answering is 'All things considered, what is the most reasonable position on the existence of the supernatural",

With what you are saying is that if five people see a murderer strangle someone the murderer would be relieved to know they have no evidence against him. As for me I can reason something is highly likely just based on eyewitness (anecdotal) evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I looked up eyewitness evidence in the police journal:

Eyewitness evidence is often viewed as a critical piece of the investigative puzzle, the utility of which can be further enhanced by the pursuit of other corroborative evidence. Sometimes, even after a thorough investigation, an eyewitness identification is the sole piece of evidence.


I employ 'reason' and not 'faith'. I would not believe in the supernatural without eyewitness and other evidence. Faith is belief not requiring evidence. That is not my modus operandi. I am evidence-driven.

The question I am answering is 'All things considered, what is the most reasonable position on the existence of the supernatural",

You are missing my points, George.

If there are witnesses in murder investigation, that's great, but police don't rely on them alone. Testimonies can be used to support the physical evidence. They can have evidence tested in forensic. If the firearm was used in murder, they can test various things (make/model used, bullets types, blood spatter where shooting took place, the distance between victim and shooter, any blowback when firing the gun on murderer's hand or clothes, etc), as well as investigate and check the ownership of gun and so on.

That's not true.

No police reports, and no court of law, would find any eyewitness' testimony as credible for claiming supernatural phenomena or event.

So it isn't the same for murder investigation or murder trial. Murder investigation and trial are not supernatural.

And I have not heard of any police investigation that would test evidence for ghosts or other other supernatural entities in a forensic lab.

In a murder investigation, there have to be evidence to arrest, prosecute and try a murderer, not on witnesses' testimonies alone. There are no evidence to support witnesses' testimonies of alleged paranormal or supernatural phenomena.

You are not evidence-driven, you are anecdote-driven. They are not one and the same thing.

 

[George-ananda]

You are missing my points, George.

If there are witnesses in murder investigation, that's great, but police don't rely on them alone. Testimonies can be used to support the physical evidence. They can have evidence tested in forensic. If the firearm was used in murder, they can test various things (make/model used, bullets types, blood spatter where shooting took place, the distance between victim and shooter, any blowback when firing the gun on murderer's hand or clothes, etc), as well as investigate and check the ownership of gun and so on.

That's not true.

No police reports, and no court of law, would find any eyewitness' testimony as credible for claiming supernatural phenomena or event.

So it isn't the same for murder investigation or murder trial. Murder investigation and trial are not supernatural.

And I have not heard of any police investigation that would test evidence for ghosts or other other supernatural entities in a forensic lab.

In a murder investigation, there have to be evidence to arrest, prosecute and try a murderer, not on witnesses' testimonies alone. There are no evidence to support witnesses' testimonies of alleged paranormal or supernatural phenomena.

You are not evidence-driven, you are anecdote-driven. They are not one and the same thing.

Since you quoted me I added another paragraph to the end of that reply:

With what you are saying is that if five people see a murderer strangle someone the murderer would be relieved to know they have no evidence against him. As for me I can reason something is highly likely just based on eyewitness (anecdotal) evidence.


Sufficient quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal evidence can similarly have me believing even the paranormal is highly likely to occur.

 

[gnostic]

Since you quoted me I added another paragraph to the end of that reply:

With what you are saying is that if five people see a murderer strangle someone the murderer would be relieved to know they have no evidence against him. As for me I can reason something is highly likely just based on eyewitness (anecdotal) evidence.


Sufficient quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal evidence can similarly have me believing even the paranormal is highly likely to occur.

Sorry, but you are still missing the points.

A murderer is not a ghost or alien or demon or what other. It is a physical violence against another person.

And I am not saying testimonies of witnesses are not useful. But more often than not, murders don't always take place where they can be seen.

But if there were really 5 witnesses close enough to watch one person strangling another, and close enough to identify the murderer, then they are close enough to intervene in some ways, before the victim's death. Examples, would a murderer or would-be murderer stick around to finish strangling his victim, if he notice people can see him, or if the witnesses rush in, being out-numbered 5 to 1?

Beside that, strangling a person will still leave trace evidence, whether it be victim on the murderer or the murderer on the victim. If the victim was fighting for his or her life, they would be striking, kicking out, pushing and scratching.

You were the one who brought up witnesses, jury and court in the first place, and yet you continue to make excuses of how anecdotes/testimonies are better than evidence. They should be used together.

My points is that murderers are not supernatural beings, so if any evidence can be found, will be tested. If there are witnesses, great, but no evidence will be dismissed because of the witnesses say so.

All you have with supernatural phenomena, are the say so of witnesses. Not evidence that can be tested. So, really supernatural phenomena isn't remotely anything like murder investigation. How many witnesses do you know of bring evidence with them about supernatural phenomena?

 

[leroy]

How should I know what Polymath257 drink? Apart from here at the forums, I don’t know if he prefers coffee or tea or some other beverages.

These questions of yours, are just speculation. With speculative questions from you, I can give speculative answers...meaning, you want me to guess if he drink coffee, and you want me to guess if his memories are reliable or not.

I have no ask him if he drink coffee or not. I have only responded to you, and to your speculation about his memory and his coffee drinking.

But based on what little I know about Polymath257, and his knowledge about maths and science, I can only say he have good memory, so I wouldn’t dismiss what he say.

But I cannot know what I would know the answer to that, until I ask him myself.

You are trying to push me into giving answer yes or no, when I haven’t ask him such questions about about his drinking habits. You are playing stupid game where you are trying to make definite answers to something I don’t know about. I don’t know his memory, and that the idiocy of these questions you have given me.

I can only give you yes or no answer, to what I did yesterday; I cannot give you answer to what you or Polymath257 did yesterday...I’m not a mind-reader.

I am not asking you if you belive polymath drank coffee or not...... I am asking if you think that personal memories are sources of knowledge..... The coffee is just an example. Would you trust your memories to determine whether if you drank coffee or not?.....

 

[leroy]

Sorry, but you are still missing the points.

A murderer is not a ghost or alien or demon or what other. It is a physical violence against another person.

And I am not saying testimonies of witnesses are not useful. But more often than not, murders don't always take place where they can be seen.

But if there were really 5 witnesses close enough to watch one person strangling another, and close enough to identify the murderer, then they are close enough to intervene in some ways, before the victim's death. Examples, would a murderer or would-be murderer stick around to finish strangling his victim, if he notice people can see him, or if the witnesses rush in, being out-numbered 5 to 1?

Beside that, strangling a person will still leave trace evidence, whether it be victim on the murderer or the murderer on the victim. If the victim was fighting for his or her life, they would be striking, kicking out, pushing and scratching.

You were the one who brought up witnesses, jury and court in the first place, and yet you continue to make excuses of how anecdotes/testimonies are better than evidence. They should be used together.

My points is that murderers are not supernatural beings, so if any evidence can be found, will be tested. If there are witnesses, great, but no evidence will be dismissed because of the witnesses say so.

All you have with supernatural phenomena, are the say so of witnesses. Not evidence that can be tested. So, really supernatural phenomena isn't remotely anything like murder investigation. How many witnesses do you know of bring evidence with them about supernatural phenomena?

The point is that atleast sometimes all we have is witnesses.... And we still accept them as reliable sources of knowledge..... So why making an arbitrary exception with Gohst witnesses?

Just to be clear I don't belive in Gohst ether, but I would accept reliable witnesses as evidence (it is just that I don't know of any reliable witnesses)

 

[leroy]

You have only provide speculative scenario of ghost walking through walls and saying boo.

You have never show any evidence that such scenario actually happened.

And without evidence, your scenario and your claims are false and empty.

Can you provide evidence that it happened? Some recordings of actual events (not fictional tv shows or movies about ghosts)?

No, I don't belive that my hypothetical scenario can happen.... I didn't make such a claim.

I am saying that my scenario (if true) would be testable, you can test it objectively and ether accept or reject the Gohst hypothesis using rigorous scientific methodology....... Agree yes or no?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1+2=3

That is a math problem. But I am glad to see you are progressing.

 

[joelr]

Well, we have a strong difference of opinion on which side is generally more honest and objective. Such deep differences are not going to be settled by endless debate.

I've been a keen observer of this scene for decades.

Then I'll ask again, which experiment has confirmed any ESP? In science confirmation comes from multiple independent teams producing the same results. Until that happens something isn't confirmed.

I'm sure skeptics have an agenda because people who buy skeptic material want to see skepticism only.
But which side is more honest? Dude?!
The new age field is ripe with corruption. Let's start with over 30 million complete lies.


First the writers and several people who participated in What the Bleep Do We Know have come out and admitted they bent the truth.
The Secret which effected hundreds of millions of people (book and movie) which was supported by Oprah ended up being complete BS. The Law of Attraction does not work. 7 years after I read countless stories on new age forums of people completely broken because they didn't "create their own reality" and move into their dream house and get their dream job. Or I should say "manifest".
Remember that word?
Also stories about people who were going to "manifest healing" after watching the Secret or reading Deepak Chopra's Quantum Healing and decided to beat cancer on their own. And died. I heard a lot of complaints on the now defunct Personal Development For Smart People forum several years after manifesting your reality became a buzzword from both mentioned movies.

All of the speakers in the Secret went on to sell books about how quantum physics proves the LOA works and charged insane money for seminars. All of them wrote books as well which ALL stated LOA is 100% proven and literal - your consciousness changes physical reality.

Can we get into the empire that Ester-Hicks, Bashar, Abraham and other channelers created and the millions of books they all sold? That's all BS.

The Secret has sold more than almost any other New Age book ever and orders of magnitudes more than any skeptic material. The Secret starts out with a Churchill quote - "Winston Churchill: “You create your own universe as you go along.”" to begin the deception.
Churchill was saying this in a sarcastic way about the new ager people of his own day.

"The Secret is a best-selling 2006 self-help book by Rhonda Byrne, based on the earlier film of the same name. It is based on the belief of the law of attraction, which claims that thoughts can change a person's life directly.[1][2] The book has sold 30 million copies worldwide and has been translated into 50 languages and done 300 million in sales"

Byrne's scientific claims, in particular concerning quantum physics, have been rejected by a range of authors including Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons at The New York Times[16] and Harvard physicist Lisa Randall.[17] Mary Carmichael and Ben Radford, writing for the Center for Inquiry, have also pointed out that The Secret has no scientific foundation, stating that Byrne's book represents: "a time-worn trick of mixing banal truisms with magical thinking and presenting it as some sort of hidden knowledge: basically, it’s the new New Thought."


Now add about 10 different authors who spoke in the movie and went on to write best sellers about LOA.
John Assaraf, Michael Beckwith, John Demartini, Bob Proctor, Jack Canfield, James Arthur Ray, Joseph Vitale,....

This is just TWO NEW AGE SUBJECTS here. Not one author admitted that the LOA is not a proven fact and is speculative. They ALL LIED. Just between LOA and channeling those have sold more media and influenced more people than any skeptic media BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE?!

While skeptics can be a bit bias show me something even close to this bogus industry of lies? Show me where even one skeptic article actually lied?
New Age is a massive industry full of scams.

Then move on to cold readers (mediums) and psychics which has been shown over and over to be a manipulative skill rather than ESP abilities.
I gave you a video of Derren Brown completely debunking a liar medium and showing what he did and how he did it. All mediums have been analyzed and explained, it's a trick.
So that's all fraud.
And you think that side is "more honest and objective"?

But your actual source Dean Radin was shown to be supporting mediums who ended up being fraud and being sketchy with meta analysis? So even he isn't being fully honest?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are misquoting me, please go the actual post and quote what I actually said

No, I am not. You claimed other sources of knowledge and I asked for you to provide them. Since you only offer this fallacious response, I am left to consider that you really have nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am just providing an example of a scenario where if real, you can conclude the existence of Ghost using the scientific method.

Obviously this is assuming that you define Ghost as “an apparition of a dead person which is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image”………if you have another definition feel free to share it and I can answer to the OP with that definition in mind.

"An example of a scenario where if real". You just paraphrased a definition for speculation. How do you not understand that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then put me in the correct context, exactly what claim am I supposed to justify?

Ah yes, misdirection. It will not save you from the misrepresentation of my words that you have carried out. You keep claiming I am making my objections to an issue of labels when I have repeatedly shown you that it is not.

You are a very difficult person to discuss with. You do not recognize your own assumptions and circular logic, while repeatedly lofting speculation up to the level of an accepted fact by fiat of your own desire.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am just providing an example of a scenario where if real, you can conclude the existence of Ghost using the scientific method.

Obviously this is assuming that you define Ghost as “an apparition of a dead person which is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image”………if you have another definition feel free to share it and I can answer to the OP with that definition in mind.

Your scenarios do not offer a mechanism that explain ghosts, since we have no real knowledge that your definition of ghost is what a ghost is. Nor does your speculation eliminate other explanations and rise to the level of best explanation.

 

[HonestJoe]

A ghost appears and disappears to multiple witnesses. What is there for science to study?

If it was something actually present that they could see, it must have been reflecting light. To reflect light it much have some form of matter (or a heck of a lot of energy). Those are things which can be detected, measures and studied (after all, some "ghosts" appear on photographs).

Clearly that requires the phenomena to reoccur (though ghosts are commonly said to appear in the same places an times) but it could be done in principle. Any idea that it could be automatically outside the scope of science would be simply wrong.

If it never happens again, obviously nothing about it can be studied in any form and thus nothing can be definitively concluded about the incident, including definitively calling it "a ghost" (however you're defining that term). It would be yet another "we don't know" situation and no amount of wanting to believe a specific conclusion can change that.

 

[George-ananda]

Then I'll ask again, which experiment has confirmed any ESP? In science confirmation comes from multiple independent teams producing the same results. Until that happens something isn't confirmed.

Well I'll again quoted respected parapsychologist Dean Radin:



“After a century of increasingly sophisticated investigations and more than a thousand controlled studies with combined odds against chance of 10 to the 104th power to 1, there is now strong evidence that psi phenomena exist. While this is an impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of these experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We’ve considered other common explanations like selective reporting and variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be no little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. It seems increasingly likely that as physics continues to redefine our understanding of the fabric of reality, a theoretical outlook for a rational explanation for psi will eventually be established

I'm sure skeptics have an agenda because people who buy skeptic material want to see skepticism only.
But which side is more honest? Dude?!
The new age field is ripe with corruption. Let's start with over 30 million complete lies.


First the writers and several people who participated in What the Bleep Do We Know have come out and admitted they bent the truth.
The Secret which effected hundreds of millions of people (book and movie) which was supported by Oprah ended up being complete BS. The Law of Attraction does not work. 7 years after I read countless stories on new age forums of people completely broken because they didn't "create their own reality" and move into their dream house and get their dream job. Or I should say "manifest".
Remember that word?
Also stories about people who were going to "manifest healing" after watching the Secret or reading Deepak Chopra's Quantum Healing and decided to beat cancer on their own. And died. I heard a lot of complaints on the now defunct Personal Development For Smart People forum several years after manifesting your reality became a buzzword from both mentioned movies.

All of the speakers in the Secret went on to sell books about how quantum physics proves the LOA works and charged insane money for seminars. All of them wrote books as well which ALL stated LOA is 100% proven and literal - your consciousness changes physical reality.

Can we get into the empire that Ester-Hicks, Bashar, Abraham and other channelers created and the millions of books they all sold? That's all BS.

The Secret has sold more than almost any other New Age book ever and orders of magnitudes more than any skeptic material. The Secret starts out with a Churchill quote - "Winston Churchill: “You create your own universe as you go along.”" to begin the deception.
Churchill was saying this in a sarcastic way about the new ager people of his own day.

"The Secret is a best-selling 2006 self-help book by Rhonda Byrne, based on the earlier film of the same name. It is based on the belief of the law of attraction, which claims that thoughts can change a person's life directly.[1][2] The book has sold 30 million copies worldwide and has been translated into 50 languages and done 300 million in sales"

Byrne's scientific claims, in particular concerning quantum physics, have been rejected by a range of authors including Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons at The New York Times[16] and Harvard physicist Lisa Randall.[17] Mary Carmichael and Ben Radford, writing for the Center for Inquiry, have also pointed out that The Secret has no scientific foundation, stating that Byrne's book represents: "a time-worn trick of mixing banal truisms with magical thinking and presenting it as some sort of hidden knowledge: basically, it’s the new New Thought."


Now add about 10 different authors who spoke in the movie and went on to write best sellers about LOA.
John Assaraf, Michael Beckwith, John Demartini, Bob Proctor, Jack Canfield, James Arthur Ray, Joseph Vitale,....

This is just TWO NEW AGE SUBJECTS here. Not one author admitted that the LOA is not a proven fact and is speculative. They ALL LIED. Just between LOA and channeling those have sold more media and influenced more people than any skeptic media BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE?!

While skeptics can be a bit bias show me something even close to this bogus industry of lies? Show me where even one skeptic article actually lied?
New Age is a massive industry full of scams.

Then move on to cold readers (mediums) and psychics which has been shown over and over to be a manipulative skill rather than ESP abilities.
I gave you a video of Derren Brown completely debunking a liar medium and showing what he did and how he did it. All mediums have been analyzed and explained, it's a trick.
So that's all fraud.
And you think that side is "more honest and objective"?

But your actual source Dean Radin was shown to be supporting mediums who ended up being fraud and being sketchy with meta analysis? So even he isn't being fully honest?

Ok, there you touch on several subjects that are cherry-picked, tangential to this conversation and presented with a skeptic slant but those items are not the subject of this thread.

My main point is that the so-called 'supernatural phenomena' exists beyond reasonable doubt and that almost all of it can not be studied with the scientific method at this time as the supernatural is not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments.

As evidence I called on anecdotal, experimental and investigative evidence to support my position. By anecdotal I mean the millions/billions of nameless individuals alleging experiences with the supernatural/paranormal. With the quantity, quality and consistency of this evidence I believe the likelihood that all can be explained as 'being mistaken' has essentially approached zero in my estimation. Hence I say I believe 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Again, to stay on track my answer to the OP question is that although I believe the supernatural/paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt it can not be much studied with the physical senses and instruments of today's science.

 

[George-ananda]

If it was something actually present that they could see, it must have been reflecting light. To reflect light it much have some form of matter (or a heck of a lot of energy). Those are things which can be detected, measures and studied (after all, some "ghosts" appear on photographs).

Clearly that requires the phenomena to reoccur (though ghosts are commonly said to appear in the same places an times) but it could be done in principle. Any idea that it could be automatically outside the scope of science would be simply wrong.

I would never say anything real is beyond the scope of science. However science at any time in history is restricted by the reach of the physical senses and instruments of that time.

If it never happens again, obviously nothing about it can be studied in any form and thus nothing can be definitively concluded about the incident, including definitively calling it "a ghost" (however you're defining that term). It would be yet another "we don't know" situation and no amount of wanting to believe a specific conclusion can change that.

I would agree that science would have to say 'we don't know'.

Not of the scientism school that restricts its interests to science, I consider what other wisdom traditions like Vedic (Hindu) and Theosophical have to tell us in forming my personal worldview.

 

[leroy]

I said

eroy said: ↑
You are misquoting me, please go the actual post and quote what I actually said

You said

No, I am not. You claimed other sources of knowledge and I asked for you to provide them. Since you only offer this fallacious response, I am left to consider that you really have nothing.

How do you know that you didn’t misquote me? Can you prove it scientifically? (the original post is no longer available) Aren’t you trusting your own personal experience and your own memories as sources of knowledge ? …… So there is your example of knowledge coming from an other source

you claimed other sources of knowledge

Sure as I showed your memory would be another source of knowledge……………..you know things (at least with a high degree of certainty) on the basis of your own personal experiences and memories.

 

[leroy]

Ah yes, misdirection. It will not save you from the misrepresentation of my words that you have carried out. You keep claiming I am making my objections to an issue of labels when I have repeatedly shown you that it is not.

You are a very difficult person to discuss with. You do not recognize your own assumptions and circular logic, while repeatedly lofting speculation up to the level of an accepted fact by fiat of your own desire.

SO, will you ever answer to my question?

leroy said: ↑

Then put me in the correct context, exactly what claim am I supposed to justify?

You are accusing me of establishing as fact things that are just “speculation” “fiat of my own desire” care to provide an example where I did something like that?