Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[leroy]

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.

Ok, don’t call it “ghost” if you don’t what; use any other label that you want. I honestly don’t understand your point.

It seems to me that you are saying that we can’t show that Ghosts exist, because there is no a clear definition of what a Ghost is………..is that your point?

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

You didn't say anything about time in history or available equipment. You just suggested that if some people see a "ghost" appear then disappear, there would be nothing for "science to study". That is not true.

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

Nothing to do with science. If the phenomena only happens once then nobody can say anything definitive about it. We don't know - no conditions or exceptions.

You'd be free to guess based on your faith but that would be no different to me guessing based on my personal opinion. None of that can impact what we know.

 

[leroy]

Nothing to do with science. If the phenomena only happens once then nobody can say anything definitive about it. We don't know - no conditions or exceptions.

w.

@George-ananda


If I understood @George-ananda: , he not claiming to “know” definitely that Ghost exist. (he is not claimng to be 100% certain) , He is simply saying that he believes in ghosts because he knows of testimonies that he considers reliable.,

You trust in reliable testimonies all the time to gather knowledge, so why making an arbitrary exception with Ghost.

I personally don’t believe in ghosts ether, but reliable testimonies would convince me , it would be intellectually dishonest to accept testimonies for things that I like and reject testimonies for ideas that contradict my view.

 

[George-ananda]

You didn't say anything about time in history or available equipment. You just suggested that if some people see a "ghost" appear then disappear, there would be nothing for "science to study". That is not true.

'current science' was implied, sorry.

Nothing to do with science. If the phenomena only happens once then nobody can say anything definitive about it. We don't know - no conditions or exceptions.

If only one time I would think nothing much of it. If millions/billions of similar type experiences are out there then you got my attention.

You'd be free to guess based on your faith but that would be no different to me guessing based on my personal opinion. None of that can impact what we know.

I have little interest in just guessing but I have come to give serious consideration to many masters/seers/clairvoyants that give a lot of overlapping information about the universe beyond our physical senses. They do not guess but claim direct observation of things beyond the physical through psychic senses.

 

[George-ananda]

@George-ananda


If I understood @George-ananda: , he not claiming to “know” definitely that Ghost exist. (he is not claimng to be 100% certain) , He is simply saying that he believes in ghosts because he knows of testimonies that he considers reliable.,

I happen to know that George believes in ghosts 'beyond reasonable doubt' at this point from the quantity, quality and consistency of millions/billions of experiences. The likelihood that all such experiences can be explained away as natural phenomena misinterpreted has approached zero by this point.

 

[leroy]

I happen to know that George believes in ghosts 'beyond reasonable doubt' at this point from the quantity, quality and consistency of millions/billions of experiences. The likelihood that all such experiences can be explained away as natural phenomena misinterpreted has approached zero by this point.

I see.

And why is that? Why couldn't the testimonies be wrong, lies or delusions?

Are there examples of testimonies reporting unambiguous appearances, during the day, with more than 1 witness, where the witnesses where not biased nor predisposed, and where the witnesses had nothing to win by lying?......... That type of testimony would be very hard to explain and I would consider them as powerful evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

I see.

And why is that? Why couldn't the testimonies be wrong, lies or delusions?

Some certainly are in fact. But the likelihood of millions/billions all being wrong, lies and delusions is fast approaching zero considering the quantity, quality and consistency I've seen.

 

[leroy]

Some certainly are in fact. But the likelihood of millions/billions all being wrong, lies and delusions is fast approaching zero considering the quantity, quality and consistency I've seen.

Are there examples of testimonies reporting unambiguous appearances, during the day, with more than 1 witness, where the witnesses where not biased nor predisposed, and where the witnesses had nothing to win by lying?......... That type of testimony would be very hard to explain and I would consider them as powerful evidence

 

[George-ananda]

Are there examples of testimonies reporting unambiguous appearances, during the day, with more than 1 witness, where the witnesses where not biased nor predisposed, and where the witnesses had nothing to win by lying?......... That type of testimony would be very hard to explain and I would consider them as powerful evidence

I'm sure you could find a flock of such reports. I've been at this stuff for decades.

 

[cladking]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

Mankind is like a bunch of blind men describing an elephant. If no one touches a ghost it hardly means ghosts don't exist.

Most people have their heads up its backside and just complain about the odor all the time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

SO, will you ever answer to my question?



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?

What question?

You already provided the example.

What is the factual basis that ghosts talk? What is the factual basis that ghosts will respond with honesty? How do you know the entity you call great granddad is a ghost? Without having evidence for that and much more, your scenario is just your speculation that you are claiming as a valid test for ghosts.

 

[HonestJoe]

If only one time I would think nothing much of it. If millions/billions of similar type experiences are out there then you got my attention.

If there are lots of instances of the same phenomena and that phenomena is having a physical impact on the world (such as sight and sound), it can be studied using our current capabilities to apply scientific method.

In that context at least, there is no difference between this and phenomena like lightning, tidal waves or comets. They're all difficult to study because they're unpredictable (at least until after we've studied them ironically) and difficult to gather accurate data from.

They do not guess but claim direct observation of things beyond the physical through psychic senses.

They can claim anything they want, it still doesn't impact what we know. Also, if those people are truly capable of directly observing something by any means, they could apply scientific method to it.

 

[leroy]

What question?

You already provided the example.

What is the factual basis that ghosts talk? What is the factual basis that ghosts will respond with honesty? How do you know the entity you call great granddad is a ghost? Without having evidence for that and much more, your scenario is just your speculation that you are claiming as a valid test for ghosts.

Yes my scenario is just speculation, I never meant to suggest otherwise.

All I am saying is that is that given that scenario you could prove objectively with a high degree of cernatinity if the Gohst is real....

---
The only statement that I am making is that if ghost where real there could be scenarios where the “ghosts claims” could be tested……..(and thus responding to the OP)
--

So do you agree or disagree with this statement?.....just kitting, I know that you will not answer directly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes my scenario is just speculation, I never meant to suggest otherwise.

All I am saying is that is that given that scenario you could prove objectively with a high degree of cernatinity if the Gohst is real....

---
The only statement that I am making is that if ghost where real there could be scenarios where the “ghosts claims” could be tested……..(and thus responding to the OP)
--

So do you agree or disagree with this statement?.....just kitting, I know that you will not answer directly.

If Superman were real, there could be scenarios where his claims could be tested.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes my scenario is just speculation, I never meant to suggest otherwise.

All I am saying is that is that given that scenario you could prove objectively with a high degree of cernatinity if the Gohst is real....

---
The only statement that I am making is that if ghost where real there could be scenarios where the “ghosts claims” could be tested……..(and thus responding to the OP)
--

So do you agree or disagree with this statement?.....just kitting, I know that you will not answer directly.

How do you determine the degree of certainty on unreal events?

 

[leroy]

If Superman were real, there could be scenarios where his claims could be tested.

Yes, what’s your point?

 

[leroy]

How do you determine the degree of certainty on unreal events?

What is the point of quoting from my post, if you are not going to answer to my question?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, don’t call it “ghost” if you don’t what; use any other label that you want. I honestly don’t understand your point.

It seems to me that you are saying that we can’t show that Ghosts exist, because there is no a clear definition of what a Ghost is………..is that your point?

It is not about what you call it. It is about what you can demonstrate a ghost to be. If you claim some definition of a ghost, you have to substantiate that claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, what’s your point?

If you have to ask, you will never understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is the point of quoting from my post, if you are not going to answer to my question?

Do you have something substantial to discuss here?