Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[HonestJoe]

Well, we are actually kind of in agreement after all. I realize the value and imperfection of anecdotal evidence in my considerations.

Very selectively it seems given you're only promoting one tiny subset of such anecdotal evidence and not the millions of people who have made similar but different claims on the same basis.

Science doesn't work well with anecdotal evidence except as cause for suggesting theories for scientific consideration.

No, anecdotal evidence just doesn't work well as evidence. It is part of the scientific process which establishes that fact. If it wasn't for science, you wouldn't be calling it "anecdotal evidence" at all, it's just be "what these people say".

You feel denigrated by my use of the term 'scientism' to describe your arguments and I feel denigrated when you downplay other wisdom traditions as 'faith', 'made-up', 'huckster filled'. etc..

I didn't do that. I did say you have faith as a statement of fact. We all do about all sorts of different things, which is why it's important to recognise it for what it is.

"Made-up" and "huckster" were your words, never mine, so I resent the implied slander.

 

[George-ananda]

Very selectively it seems given you're only promoting one tiny subset of such anecdotal evidence and not the millions of people who have made similar but different claims on the same basis.

Kind of confused me here. I consider all the anecdotes and look for patterns.

I didn't do that. I did say you have faith as a statement of fact. We all do about all sorts of different things, which is why it's important to recognise it for what it is.

When I say that objectively something is 'the most reasonable position with all things considered' and then calling that 'faith' it becomes an incorrect put-down word.

"Made-up" and "huckster" were your words, never mine, so I resent the implied slander.

I didn't remember your exact words at the time but was referring just one of your past replies to me like:

Lets be honest here. The only reason the whole idea of things being "beyond the reach of our senses or instruments" is because some people want to assert things that they know they can't come close to proving.

It doesn't provide anything of the sort, it is empty speculation at best, wilful dishonesty at worst.

 

[leroy]

A lie detector is not something falsifiable. It works for a large portion of humans. However, some will trigger the detector even when telling the truth and some will not even lies.

If it works 100% then the law courts will use it. It is not used, not because the laws don't want the criminals to be caught. It's not used because its reliability is not 100% and cannot be accepted to be part of the judgment process.

That said. In reality, how many truths you ever got in touch with, and out of which how many times you have to use a detector? You are living in dreams. Humans in majority never rely on a detector to get to a truth. They rely on testimonies from other humans without using a detector. They use faith instead. This is the reality, detector is your delusion.

Granted, if you are raising the bar as high as 100% certainty then I would agree with the OP, you can’t prove the “paranormal” with 100% certainty and you can’t tell if someone is lying with 100% certainty.

 

[leroy]

There have never been a real case of ghosts, Leroy.

Just claims that have never been verified, because whenever someone go to investigate they will find nothing but stories.

Don’t you people have already try setting up cameras, audio recorders and other equipment to capture spirit encounters on films or tapes?

They have tried such methods for decades, and found either nothing or they discovered the claims were fraudulent.

Parapsychology is study of all supernatural and paranormal phenomena, that included the investigation of ghosts, that began in the late 19th century. They found no evidence, right up to this day, but they persisted trying to validate something that are unfalsifiable.

And since all those decades, lot of false claims and frauds were uncovered, not only from the claimants, but from these so-called “investigators”, who would “doctored” test results and data.
?

Yes,,,,, so the question is what makes you think that I would disagree with anything that have been said by you in this comment?

They have tried such methods for decades, and found either nothing or they discovered the claims were fraudulent.

How do you know that the claims are fraudulent? Do you trust in the testimony of the researchers? Didn’t you say that testimonies are not a reliable source of knowledge?........

 

[gnostic]

How do you know that the claims are fraudulent? Do you trust in the testimony of the researchers? Didn’t you say that testimonies are not a reliable source of knowledge?........

Parapsychology have been debunked, and yet it persisted, so parapsychology is as much pseudoscience as the subjects they claim to study.

Harry Houdini exposed a numbers of fraudulent seance during the 1920s before his death in 1926. He used his skills as illusionist to exposed these fake mediums.

Houdini worked with Rose Meckenburg, who carried on Houdini’s works, tirelessly exposing hundreds of frauds right up World War 2. Meckenburg exposed fake mediums for 3 decades.

Did you know during and after wars, eg American Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, etc, the numbers of psychic mediums in the US spiked, taken advantages of people’s grief? Scammers, all of them.

So yes, the numbers of fakes are far greater during wars.

The fake mediums gave spiritualists bad reputations.

 

[leroy]

Parapsychology have been debunked, and yet it persisted, so parapsychology is as much pseudoscience as the subjects they claim to study.

Harry Houdini exposed a numbers of fraudulent seance during the 1920s before his death in 1926. He used his skills as illusionist to exposed these fake mediums.

Houdini worked with Rose Meckenburg, who carried on Houdini’s works, tirelessly exposing hundreds of frauds right up World War 2. Meckenburg exposed fake mediums for 3 decades.

Did you know during and after wars, eg American Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, etc, the numbers of psychic mediums in the US spiked, taken advantages of people’s grief? Scammers, all of them.

So yes, the numbers of fakes are far greater during wars.

The fake mediums gave spiritualists bad reputations.

I agree...

The only problem that I have is that you are trusting the testimony of Harry Haudini despite the fact you said earlier that you don't accept testimonies as sources of knowledge

 

[Hawkins]

Granted, if you are raising the bar as high as 100% certainty then I would agree with the OP, you can’t prove the “paranormal” with 100% certainty and you can’t tell if someone is lying with 100% certainty.

The reality is, humans lack the capability to make anything with 100% certainty(perhaps except for science which can repeat). Humans in majority thus all rely on testimonies to get to a truth of any kind (including science), though testimonies can convey lies. Exactly as Trump put that news can be faked, humans in majority however don't prove news before believe. They can't prove history before accepting history. They (the majority) can't even prove science as only scientists can have access to expensive equipment.

In a nutshell, humans rely on faith in an extreme minority who witnessed a truth to get to such a truth. We the majority will have to rely on faith in the testimonies of our scientists (an extreme minority in comparing to the 70 billion humans in this world) to get to a scientific truth. Our media and education may serve as a filter to try to allow only a truth to reach the majority. However it by no means says that a lie won't be conveyed even in terms of science.

That said. One of biggest lies conveyed by our education is, "you shall believe only when they can prove". Once it is a lie but went through our education, it affects all humans as we are all forced into such an education ever since our childhood. An advocate follows this is who has the capability to fool humans in mass including the smartest, through our own education system?!

 

[gnostic]

I agree...

The only problem that I have is that you are trusting the testimony of Harry Haudini despite the fact you said earlier that you don't accept testimonies as sources of knowledge

Houdini was a master in tricks and illusions. Who else is better suited in exposing fake seance?

And he wasn’t the only one, Leroy. His wife assisted him, as well as Rose Meckenburg, whom I already have mentioned, exposing fraud after fraud, for 3 decades.

 

[leroy]

The reality is, humans lack the capability to make anything with 100% certainty(perhaps except for science which can repeat). Humans in majority thus all rely on testimonies to get to a truth of any kind (including science), though testimonies can convey lies. Exactly as Trump put that news can be faked, humans in majority however don't prove news before believe. They can't prove history before accepting history. They (the majority) can't even prove science as only scientists can have access to expensive equipment.

In a nutshell, humans rely on faith in an extreme minority who witnessed a truth to get to such a truth. We the majority will have to rely on faith in the testimonies of our scientists (an extreme minority in comparing to the 70 billion humans in this world) to get to a scientific truth. Our media and education may serve as a filter to try to allow only a truth to reach the majority. However it by no means says that a lie won't be conveyed even in terms of science.

That said. One of biggest lies conveyed by our education is, "you shall believe only when they can prove". Once it is a lie but went through our education, it affects all humans as we are all forced into such an education ever since our childhood. An advocate follows this is who has the capability to fool humans in mass including the smartest, through our own education system?!

So with respect to the OP I would say that there is nothing preventing you to put cameras in a house where someone claims that there is a Gohst, those cameras would ether prove or refute the Ghosts claims at least with a high degree of certainty (because 100% certainty is impossible)

 

[leroy]

Houdini was a master in tricks and illusions. Who else is better suited in exposing fake seance?

And he wasn’t the only one, Leroy. His wife assisted him, as well as Rose Meckenburg, whom I already have mentioned, exposing fraud after fraud, for 3 decades.

so do you accept these type of testimonies as reliable sources of knowledge? Yes or no………honestly I am confused, because earlier you said that testimonies are never reliable sources of knowledge.

Would you agree that there are “good testimonies” and “bad testimonies”? would you agree that the good testimonies are good sources of knowledge ?I am not talking about ghosts-testimonies I am talking about testimonies in general.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

But you scenario of asking questions of a ghost to determine if it is the ghost of my ancestor is not a test of the supernatural. It is a dodge. In your scenario, the existence of ghosts would need to be established. That they can talk and be interviewed would need to be established. That honest answers can be expected from that interview would need to be established. At best your scenario is a test of whether a ghost is the ghost of my great grandfather.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So with respect to the OP I would say that there is nothing preventing you to put cameras in a house where someone claims that there is a Gohst, those cameras would ether prove or refute the Ghosts claims at least with a high degree of certainty (because 100% certainty is impossible)

Since, the existence of ghosts has not been determined with any certainty, how can you claim that cameras will provide evidence with a high degree of certainty? Do you know what that even means?

 

[leroy]

But you scenario of asking questions of a ghost to determine if it is the ghost of my ancestor is not a test of the supernatural. It is a dodge. In your scenario, the existence of ghosts would need to be established. That they can talk and be interviewed would need to be established. That honest answers can be expected from that interview would need to be established. At best your scenario is a test of whether a ghost is the ghost of my great grandfather.

Yes but tests can be done to determine whether if each of those things can be established or not, you can measure it objectively and empirically. For example you can test empirically whether if the ghost can talk or not.

Quite frankly to me it sounds like you are saying “the paranormal can’t be tested because first the paranormal has to be established (which would be circular reasoning)

 

[leroy]

Since, the existence of ghosts has not been determined with any certainty, how can you claim that cameras will provide evidence with a high degree of certainty? Do you know what that even means?

Really can’t you note the circularity of your reasoning?

 

[gnostic]

so do you accept these type of testimonies as reliable sources of knowledge? Yes or no………honestly I am confused, because earlier you said that testimonies are never reliable sources of knowledge.

Would you agree that there are “good testimonies” and “bad testimonies”? would you agree that the good testimonies are good sources of knowledge ?I am not talking about ghosts-testimonies I am talking about testimonies in general.

You haven’t been paying attention to what I have been saying, Leroy.

The only testimonies that are truly objectively acceptable are those that can be verified - hence verification required real testable evidence.

How many times must I say it, before you understand?

If there are no evidence, especially with claims of supernatural, then it is completely illogical for me to accept such testimonies being true.

That’s my answer.and I am not going to change my answer. No evidence for supernatural phenomena, then the testimonies are false.

Understand?

 

[gnostic]

Yes but tests can be done to determine whether if each of those things can be established or not, you can measure it objectively and empirically. For example you can test empirically whether if the ghost can talk or not.

Quite frankly to me it sounds like you are saying “the paranormal can’t be tested because first the paranormal has to be established (which would be circular reasoning)

You got everything backwards, Leroy.

You are the one who keep thinking any testimony about ghost must be true, regardless if there are no evidence to support ghosts, whether someone else claim it or you are making some twisted half-baked scenarios.

That’s circular reasoning. The only person not think rationally, is you, not Dan.

You are reading but not understanding Dan’s reply and you are not understanding mine.

You keep repeating the same scenario over and over again, that a testimony of ghost that can walk through walls or doors, and saying boo, must be true without evidence.

Don’t you understand, Leroy, that if you have no evidence for ghost, then how you possibly test it?

The only way to test anything, is to have evidence, FIRST.

Without evidence, there can be no tests.

 

[Hawkins]

So with respect to the OP I would say that there is nothing preventing you to put cameras in a house where someone claims that there is a Gohst, those cameras would ether prove or refute the Ghosts claims at least with a high degree of certainty (because 100% certainty is impossible)

It only shows in a case of claims though. The problem is, humans don't have the ability to do wider scale monitoring to get to all claims. By nature a claim is actually a testimony, mostly a one time event (people don't usually claim to encounter the same ghost over and over again, in movies then it is), you can't predict when is the next time an encounter occurs. You can't probe them all with human capability.

In contrary, science can be very accurate because the phenomenon is repeatable infinitive number of times. Moreover, "probing can detect a ghost" is just an assumption or something on paper. We don't have a technology to detect ghost in the first place, we lack the ability to develop a tool for something not repeatable.

 

[leroy]

You got everything backwards, Leroy.

You are the one who keep thinking any testimony about ghost must be true, regardless if there are no evidence to support ghosts, whether someone else claim it or you are making some twisted half-baked scenarios.

Really? Can you quote a single instance where I made such an affirmation?..........That is typical new atheist tactic “you know I am correct, but you don’t what to admit it, so you invent a dishonest strawman “

My point is and has always been that Ghost claims are not untestable by definition, atleeast in theory (given a convenient scenario) the claims can be tested, and evidence would show whether if the claim is likely to be real or not … of Couse you don’t disagree with this point, but you don’t what to admit it because that would imply to admit that you were wrong. .so you would rather invent a strawman

That’s circular reasoning. The only person not think rationally, is you, not Dan.

Dan is saying that Ghosts claims can’t never be tested (regardless of the scenario) because first the existence of Ghosts has to be established, which is circular reasoning , because if one is not allowed to test for Gohsts then it would be impossible to establish the existence of gohsts.

But are you going to correct Dan?..........noooooooo because he is on your side and correcting him would not be appropriate.

You are reading but not understanding Dan’s reply and you are not understanding mine.

Well perhaps clear and direct answers would be helpful, that way nobody would misunderstand you.

You keep repeating the same scenario over and over again, that a testimony of ghost that can walk through walls or doors, and saying boo, must be true without evidence.

Noooo I said that if you have multiple independent testimonies, from people who were in a position to know (had access to reliable sources) and have the intention to tell the truth, would be “good testimonies” and therefore I would accept them as evidence for ghosts or for any other claim……….obviously you agree with me, you would also accept this testimonies as evidence, but you won’t admit it because you don’t what to admit that you were wrong when you said that testimonies are never reliable sources of knowledge

The only way to test anything, is to have evidence, FIRST.

And what would stop you to place some cameras and gather some evidence? .if you can use cameras to test for “naturalistic” claims, why cant you do the same with paranormal claims?..........is there a mysterious force that prevents cameras from working if your intent is to prove/disprove the paranormal?

 

[gnostic]

My point is and has always been that Ghost claims are not untestable by definition, atleeast in theory (given a convenient scenario) the claims can be tested, and evidence would show whether if the claim is likely to be real or not … of Couse you don’t disagree with this point, but you don’t what to admit it because that would imply to admit that you were wrong. .so you would rather invent a strawman

Dan is saying that Ghosts claims can’t never be tested (regardless of the scenario) because first the existence of Ghosts has to be established, which is circular reasoning , because if one is not allowed to test for Gohsts then it would be impossible to establish the existence of gohsts.

What dan mean by “established”, is EVIDENCE.

There need to be EVIDENCE, before you carry out any test.

No evidence, would mean “NO TESTS”.

Dan is correct. You are incorrect , because YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAVE TO BE EVIDENCE FIRST, BEFORE THERE CAN BE TESTING.

Until you understand this, you are never going to understand science and how science process what is true and what is false.

You cannot carry out test, if there are no evidence of ghosts. That’s why claims of ghosts unfalsifiable and untestable.

You can gather as many testimonies (about anything supernatural) as you like (and you believe in the testimonies all you want), but without evidence, there can be no testings.

You are the who is professing circular reasoning.

 

[gnostic]

And what would stop you to place some cameras and gather some evidence? .if you can use cameras to test for “naturalistic” claims, why cant you do the same with paranormal claims?..........is there a mysterious force that prevents cameras from working if your intent is to prove/disprove the paranormal?

Don’t you think people have already tried that?

They have been doing that for decades, and there have been no evidence of ghosts.

You would think they have something by now, but the facts of the matter is there none of the photos or videos show definitive evidence of ghosts or spirits.