Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[Dan From Smithville]

@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.

That is only good for the person that accepts the testimony. That does not demonstrate "ghosts" to others. All one has to do is consider one person's reliable testimony as more stories and the debate continues on without resolution.

You do not even understand that for your scenarios to hold any water, much would already have had to be established about ghosts that has not been established.

Anyone can make up fictional scenarios that prove their point even though they do not.

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok, and my answer was, if the ghost can talk you can just ask him who he is, if you think he might be lying you can ask him something that only he (grandpa) would know……. Care to explain your points of disagreement?

 

[leroy]

If you have to ask, you will never understand.

Once again avoiding an answer….why do you always what to keep threads long and boring? Why can’t you simply explain your point clearly and unambiguously?

 

[leroy]

Do you have something substantial to discuss here?

I have no idea….. you seem to disagree with me, but for some reason you are unable to explain to me what your points of disagreement are

 

[leroy]

That is only good for the person that accepts the testimony. That does not demonstrate "ghosts" to others. A.

But “others” can also study the testimonies and reach their own conclusions. …. As I said before I don’t believe in Ghost but if you show me a couple of reliable testimonies I would accept that as evidence, even if I don’t know the witnesses myself. (but this wouldn’t be scientific evidence, this would be testimonial evidence)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no idea….. you seem to disagree with me, but for some reason you are unable to explain to me what your points of disagreement are

I have already explained this numerous times to you. You are misrepresenting that here.

You came up with a scenario you claim would be a scientific test for ghosts and then you do not respond to legitimate points made and questions asked. This seems to be the scope of what you do.

What are the other sources of knowledge you have claimed in prior posts? This is a question that you have not answered. I had the courtesy and honesty to include the question with my claim and not just use it as a ruse to assert you are avoiding something.

Where is the evidence that is necessary to support your scenarios. Where are the studies showing that ghosts are the spirits of the dead? Where are the studies supporting the notion that ghosts are honest in interviews? Where are the studies showing that ghosts actually talk to people. You have not presented a valid scientific test for a phenomenon considered to be supernatural.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But “others” can also study the testimonies and reach their own conclusions. …. As I said before I don’t believe in Ghost but if you show me a couple of reliable testimonies I would accept that as evidence, even if I don’t know the witnesses myself. (but this wouldn’t be scientific evidence, this would be testimonial evidence)

Others can. What others accept is not evidence that what they accept is real.

 

[leroy]

Anyone can make up fictional scenarios that prove their point even though they do not.

The problem is that I don’t understand your point, sure these are hypothetical scenarios so what? My point is that there are scenarios (yes hypothetical) where supernatural claims could be tested……so please explain to me where is your point of disagreement?

 

[leroy]

I have already explained this numerous times to you. You are misrepresenting that here.

You came up with a scenario you claim would be a scientific test for ghosts and then you do not respond to legitimate points made and questions asked. This seems to be the scope of what you do.

What legitimate point have I failed to answer?

What are the other sources of knowledge you have claimed in prior posts? This is a question that you have not answered. I had the courtesy and honesty to include the question with my claim and not just use it as a ruse to assert you are avoiding something.

I did answer to that, logic, history, testimonies, personal experiences, memories etc, would be other sources of knowledge.

Where is the evidence that is necessary to support your scenarios

I don’t claim that these scenarios are real, these are just hypothetical scenarios



.

Where are the studies showing that ghosts are the spirits of the dead?

That’s the way people define ghosts…………..where are the studies that show that “squares” have 4 sides?

Where are the studies supporting the notion that ghosts are honest in interviews?

The same would apply to real people…. There are ways to know* (with some degree of certainty ) if someone is being honest

Where are the studies showing that ghosts actually talk to people. You have not presented a valid scientific test for a phenomenon considered to be supernatural.

I don’t claim to have evidence for that, all I am saying is that in a hypothetical scenario where they can talk you can test if his claims are real and therefore show if they are who they say they are.

 

[leroy]

Others can. What others accept is not evidence that what they accept is real.

With “others” I mean anyone……….. you can study the testimonies and determine if they are reliable or not

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Sure science can have at ghost hunting something random and unpredictable but how? Having surveillance cameras everywhere and arguing after if it's faked or artefacts?

But anyway here is the key difference between ghosts and the natural phenomena you are trying to compare it with. The supernatural is posited to have its origin in planes/realms of nature not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments. That situation is not analogous anymore to say tidal waves.

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.

When I first started looking into this stuff I was rather stunned by the level of detail many clairvoyants have given and how they corroborate with each other on developing models and theories in many of the Theosophical publications for example. They can be called occult scientists or some other term.

 

[leroy]

Sure science can have at ghost hunting something random and unpredictable but how? Having surveillance cameras everywhere and arguing after if it's faked or artefacts?

There are probably more cameras in the world than people (at least talking about the developed world) and there palaces where multiple independent cameras video tape the same spot, so to me finding unambiguous evidence for ghosts shouldn’t be hard, for example if one of my neighbors “saw something” in front of his house, there would be 3 or 4 other neighbors with security cameras videotaping that spot………what are your thoughts on that?

 

[HonestJoe]

Sure science can have at ghost hunting something random and unpredictable but how? Having surveillance cameras everywhere and arguing after if it's faked or artefacts?

Again, the claim isn't that it is difficult, the claim is that it is fundamentally impossible. Literally any observed phenomena can have scientific process applied to it. If insufficient evidence is available to reach a conclusion, so be it, the cause of the phenomena remains unknown (at that time). That is still applying scientific method.

But anyway here is the key difference between ghosts and the natural phenomena you are trying to compare it with. The supernatural is posited to have its origin in planes/realms of nature not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments. That situation is not analogous anymore to say tidal waves.

What if I say tidal waves are caused by Poseidon on the Realm of the Gods? Regardless of what anyone might choose to assert in the cause of a phenomenon (with absolutely zero rational basis) doesn't make the blindest bit of difference.

Science isn't studying your assertions, it is studying the observable phenomena. Again, where "ghosts" are seen and/or heard, that is physical effects which can be recorded, measured and studied. The source of those physical effects can be studied too (even if the conclusion is "we don't know where they came from").

When I first started looking into this stuff I was rather stunned by the level of detail many clairvoyants have given and how they corroborate with each other on developing models and theories in many of the Theosophical publications for example. They can be called occult scientists or some other term.

In which case that would be applying scientific method to the "supernatural", which is exactly what I'm saying can and should happen.

What shouldn't happen is someone not liking the results (or lack thereof) and just unilaterally declaring it has "origin in planes/realms of nature not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments". You could dismiss literally anything on that basis; "A wizard did it!"

 

[George-ananda]

There are probably more cameras in the world than people (at least talking about the developed world) and there palaces where multiple independent cameras video tape the same spot, so to me finding unambiguous evidence for ghosts shouldn’t be hard, for example if one of my neighbors “saw something” in front of his house, there would be 3 or 4 other neighbors with security cameras videotaping that spot………what are your thoughts on that?

My thought is that we do have many quality photos and videos out there. Who determined we don’t have good quality ones? Who defined what an unambiguous one is supposed to like like? An unambiguous ghostly capture may be an oxymoron.

 

[leroy]

My thought is that we do have many quality photos and videos out there. Who determined we don’t have good quality ones? Who defined what an unambiguous one is supposed to like like? An unambiguous ghostly capture may be an oxymoron.

A single camera is not reliable because it is very easy to fake a Ghost and one can earn money with a fake video.

But multiple independent cameras (say form 3 different neighbors) would be very hard to explain. The thing is that it shouldn’t be hard to find these type of videos

 

[George-ananda]

Again, the claim isn't that it is difficult, the claim is that it is fundamentally impossible. Literally any observed phenomena can have scientific process applied to it. If insufficient evidence is available to reach a conclusion, so be it, the cause of the phenomena remains unknown (at that time). That is still applying scientific method.

OK, so where are you thinking we disagree on that. We would probably also agree that science's ability to investigate is limited by the reach of the physical senses and instruments.

Again and again I am saying it is not fundamentally impossible but limited by the equipment of TODAY'S science.

What if I say tidal waves are caused by Poseidon on the Realm of the Gods? Regardless of what anyone might choose to assert in the cause of a phenomenon (with absolutely zero rational basis) doesn't make the blindest bit of difference.

Science isn't studying your assertions, it is studying the observable phenomena. Again, where "ghosts" are seen and/or heard, that is physical effects which can be recorded, measured and studied. The source of those physical effects can be studied too (even if the conclusion is "we don't know where they came from").

In which case that would be applying scientific method to the "supernatural", which is exactly what I'm saying can and should happen.

I thought we both already agreed that science at this time can't say much about the supernatural. And then I go on to say I understand that but my interests extends to other wisdom traditions too (not just scientism).

What shouldn't happen is someone not liking the results (or lack thereof) and just unilaterally declaring it has "origin in planes/realms of nature not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments". You could dismiss literally anything on that basis; "A wizard did it!"

Then we agree that nobody should unilaterally declare anything. As for the case of the many types of the alleged supernatural a thinking person should give fair consideration to the quantity, quality and consistency of millions/billions of human experiences and fair consideration to those proposing theories on how this works from alleged direct experience.

 

[George-ananda]

A single camera is not reliable because it is very easy to fake a Ghost and one can earn money with a fake video.

But multiple independent cameras (say form 3 different neighbors) would be very hard to explain. The thing is that it shouldn’t be hard to find these type of videos

Things are caught on multiple cameras on my ghost TV programs occasionally. On another of the forums I am on, there was a thread about such a case. It turned heated and was closed by the administrator. Someone will always have an idea on how fraud or just a natural artefact could have occurred. I guarantee it.


There is no such thing as a paranormal photo/video that won't end in disagreement. We are our own jury of one person holding sway over our jurisdiction of one person. Consider fairly and decide for yourself.

 

[HonestJoe]

I thought we both already agreed that science at this time can't say much about the supernatural.

No, I say there is no such thing as "supernatural",there are just things which exist and things which don't. Many of them we have been able to establish (at least to a decent level of confidence) and many things we haven't (yet). There is nothing special about that constantly shifting line though.

And then I go on to say I understand that but my interests extends to other wisdom traditions too (not just scientism).

There's nothing wrong with that, they just can't give you any more answers than scientific method can.

Then we agree that nobody should unilaterally declare anything.

Which is exactly what people do when they assert things like ghosts have "an origin in planes/realms of nature not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments". That statement is entirely unjustified and shouldn't have any influence on how any phenomena is addressed or studied.

As for the case of the many types of the alleged supernatural a thinking person should give fair consideration to the quantity, quality and consistency of millions/billions of human experiences and fair consideration to those proposing theories on how this works from alleged direct experience.

Again, the fact is relates to things labelled "supernatural" is irrelevant either way. All experiences have equal value and all ideas should be given fair consideration. That does mean that empty assertions hold little value and any claims for the "quality and consistency" of experiences or the validity of proposed "theories" need to be formally studied if they're to be given any credence. Using scientific method.

 

[leroy]

Things are caught on multiple cameras on my ghost TV programs occasionally. On another of the forums I am on, there was a thread about such a case. It turned heated and was closed by the administrator. Someone will always have an idea on how fraud or just a natural artefact could have occurred. I guarantee it.


There is no such thing as a paranormal photo/video that won't end in disagreement. We are our own jury of one person holding sway over our jurisdiction of one person. Consider fairly and decide for yourself.

is there a source for such a case? in my opinion that would be strong evidnece

 

[George-ananda]

No, I say there is no such thing as "supernatural",there are just things which exist and things which don't. Many of them we have been able to establish (at least to a decent level of confidence) and many things we haven't (yet). There is nothing special about that constantly shifting line though.

I agree that if it exists it is natural. The wordplay with supernatural to me is the real beyond the familiar physical realm of our physical senses and instruments.

There's nothing wrong with that, they just can't give you any more answers than scientific method can.

That I have to disagree with, They can access reality with psychic sensing and tell us about planes of reality unknown to science.

Which is exactly what people do when they assert things like ghosts have "an origin in planes/realms of nature not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments". That statement is entirely unjustified and shouldn't have any influence on how any phenomena is addressed or studied.

Why is that unjustified if that is people's direct experience? Provable to science, no, but not unjustified as a theory. We each have to fairly consider anomalous paranormal phenomena and those claiming insight and form our judgment as to what to believe. You could compose some random theory like you claim occultists are doing but I am not going to give it much respect if there is not some real world evidence to suggest it.

Again, the fact is relates to things labelled "supernatural" is irrelevant either way. All experiences have equal value and all ideas should be given fair consideration. That does mean that empty assertions hold little value and any claims for the "quality and consistency" of experiences or the validity of proposed "theories" need to be formally studied if they're to be given any credence. Using scientific method.

Then you are free to discount occult sciences. As for me, I see a framework proposed that has explanatory power for real world events that science has not yet successfully addressed.