Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[gnostic]

But you can test whether if electricity exists or not without establishing a priori the existence of electricity

That’s not what “a priori” mean, leroy.

You have no idea what “a priori” mean because you are using wrongly.

It is only a priori, if you rely on reason alone, like deduction, rather than relying on observation, evidence and testing.

If you can observe the evidence, first, then reason what it is, and how it work. Then that’s not a priori.

Electricity have always exist.

It was a matter of discovery electricity, then to determine what it is, determine the source, and then to test it. And along the way, you could determine what applications electricity have, and that is usually accompanied with more tests.

People have known the existence of electricity, since ancient times (eg in ancient Egypt and Greece), because certain animals (eg eels, catfishes) or objects can give them electric shocks when touched. But they never understood what electricity is, and how to use electricity. Electric shocks have already been established this far back in history.

It wasn’t until in early modern times, from the 17th to the 19th centuries that different pioneering physicists have each contributed to our understanding electricity, including André-Marie Ampère and Hans Christian Ørsted in 1819–1820, and James Clerk Maxwell in 1861, who provided us with understanding of electromagnetism as a single phenomena of both electricity and magnetism.

The evidence for electricity have been known for millennia, but it was only in more recent history that we understood electricity, and how to produce electricity.

It isn’t a priori, if there have already been observations of electricity existence, before real tests (eg experiments) began.

A priori is deriving logical conclusion before observation or before evidence...or before testing.

 

[ppp]

Sure, but multiple witnesses would disprove the hallucination hypothesis,

If the witnesses had nothing to win and everything to lose the “lie hypothesis” would be disproven,

If the ghosts does something physically impossible like walking through a wall you can disprove the “it’s a man with a hallowing costume

If the experience is clear an unabigous, then the “mistake” hypothesis would be disproven

Etc. Etc.

My point is that in theory there could be testimonies that would count as strong evidence for ghosts…….. in my experience I don’t know of any good testimonies, but if someone shows me those testimonies I would change my mind.

A good testimony would be:

1 A testimony that is consistent with other multiple independent testimonies

2 A testimony from people that had nothing to win and everything to lose by inventing a lie

3 A testimony that describes a clear and unambiguous experience where the ghosts does something physically impossible,

As I said before I am not aware of any testimony that has all those characteristics, but such a testimony would make me change my mind,

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but how would you know that should you find something, that whatever you find is a ghost? Let's say that there is a translucent three dimensional image of a person that appears every night in the place where the physical person died violently. Is that a ghost? How can you tell?

 

[leroy]

That’s not what “a priori” mean, leroy.

You have no idea what “a priori” mean because you are using wrongly.

It is only a priori, if you rely on reason alone, like deduction, rather than relying on observation, evidence and testing.

If you can observe the evidence, first, then reason what it is, and how it work. Then that’s not a priori.

Electricity have always exist.

It was a matter of discovery electricity, then to determine what it is, determine the source, and then to test it. And along the way, you could determine what applications electricity have, and that is usually accompanied with more tests.

People have known the existence of electricity, since ancient times (eg in ancient Egypt and Greece), because certain animals (eg eels, catfishes) or objects can give them electric shocks when touched. But they never understood what electricity is, and how to use electricity. Electric shocks have already been established this far back in history.

It wasn’t until in early modern times, from the 17th to the 19th centuries that different pioneering physicists have each contributed to our understanding electricity, including André-Marie Ampère and Hans Christian Ørsted in 1819–1820, and James Clerk Maxwell in 1861, who provided us with understanding of electromagnetism as a single phenomena of both electricity and magnetism.

The evidence for electricity have been known for millennia, but it was only in more recent history that we understood electricity, and how to produce electricity.

It isn’t a priori, if there have already been observations of electricity existence, before real tests (eg experiments) began.

A priori is deriving logical conclusion before observation or before evidence...or before testing.

And that is relevant because......?

It really is very pathetic that you would prefer to make an irrelevant comment rather than admitting that you are wrong...

It is still a fact that you can put some cameras in and old house and test for Gohst regardless if the existance if Gohst has been stablished before the cameras or not.

 

[leroy]

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but how would you know that should you find something, that whatever you find is a ghost? Let's say that there is a translucent three dimensional image of a person that appears every night in the place where the physical person died violently. Is that a ghost? How can you tell?

Well if you define Gohst as a "translucent three dimensional image of a person who died" then it would be Gohst..... If you use a different definition then it might not be a Gohst.... This is just semantics

 

[leroy]

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but how would you know that should you find something, that whatever you find is a ghost? Let's say that there is a translucent three dimensional image of a person that appears every night in the place where the physical person died violently. Is that a ghost? How can you tell?

So what is your opinion on testimonies (given my comments in the post that you quoted?)

 

[ppp]

Well if you define Gohst as a "translucent three dimensional image of a person who died" then it would be Gohst..... If you use a different definition then it might not be a Gohst.... This is just semantics

If you have not pinned down the definition of the word 'ghost', then you have no idea what you are looking for. Which means that you have no metrics and thus no clue as to when you have found it. Or more to the point, when you have not found it.

 

[leroy]

If you have not pinned down the definition of the word 'ghost', then you have no idea what you are looking for. Which means that you have no metrics and thus no clue as to when you have found it. Or more to the point, when you have not found it.

Ok, so all you have to do is “define ghost” before placing the cameras or performing any other test that could potentially prove or disprove ghost claims…… honestly I don’t understand why are you making such a big deal with it.

That is like saying, “you can’t look for other planets if you don’t define planet before”…… well sure, but all you have to do is define planet, I don’t see the problem.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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)

Not at all. What I am saying that you have failed to provide the tests you claim exist. You just refuse to understand that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

My reasoning is not circular. It is your reasoning that is.

Here is your reasoning. The supernatural can be tested by an experiment on a ghost to determine if they are the ancestor of a living person. This is a test of the ghost to see if it is a specific ghost. Your question assumes that the supernatural exists and has been established by tests. Tests you have mentioned nothing about. You just do not get that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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





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.






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





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




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?

Dan is not saying that ghost claims cannot be tested. Dan is asking you to provide the tests of the supernatural that you claim exist. Not tests of whether a ghost is that of my great grandparent.

I thought that misrepresenting what others are saying was a no no?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The scientific method was designed to factor out certain things, therefore it cannot be used for all things, as the method is currently written. For example, we have all had dreams, so we all know dreams are a real brain output affect. Yet, we cannot use the scientific method to validate a specific dream. Dreams do not repeat themselves very often and there is no way for others to watch my dream on rerun. It is real, but the method cannot go there.

If I had a spiritual experience, while I was awake, this too could be connected to my brain, but it may not be repeatable, via the scientific method. The scientific method is about sensory verification and second hand duplication which does not apply to all things.

For example, nobody has ever created life in the lab, from scratch, to show that the formation of life is possible. Therefore there is no scientific method proof life started on earth. The theory of evolution is dependent on life somehow starting; unique event, but this starting has never been proven to be true by the scientific method, even if if is true.

Back when the scientific method was written it was designed to factor out unique and subjective experience. It was designed of thing outside the mind. It was about a group hug that all can share via sensory experience. If a dozen scientists were in the woods at night, and someone heard a sound, this may not be accepted, unless it could be verify by others. What would be accepted was it was dark and the mosquitos were numerous, since we all could sensory agree.

All new and creative ideas would not be accepted by the method, since only the creator would have the vision before the prototype is developed for the group hug. This gap is where scientific skepticism evolved.

Magic is an interesting set of observational data. A good magician can fool the senses, so the group will think there are all hugging. However, nobody will know how to duplicate the test results seen on stage; levitation, unless they are in on the trick. This, in the free market can be called proprietary information; for your eyes only.

Life exists and the evidence supports that it evolved. This has been well established for over 200 years.

Life exists. If it had a starting point, then evidence for that can be evaluated using the scientific method.

Failure to create life in the lab can be the result of many factors that are outside of the possibility that it cannot be replicated in the lab. At one time, we could not transplant organs and now we can. You are assigning a default as an answer without determining the validity of your default.

I am not sure what proprietary information has to do with scientific testing and the outcomes of those tests. That no one has been able to duplicate magic tricks where the outcome is an actual result tells us something.

If there are repeatable phenomena associated with some event labeled supernatural, those phenomena can be studied using the scientific method. Due to the limitations of the scientific methods reliance on physical phenomena, such studies will only be able to comment on the physical phenomena.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My point is and has always been that Ghost claims are not untestable by definition, ..

Nice ploy. Put everything that you say under the label of 'untestable'. Ghost, God, Soul, heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance, creation, destruction. So what is left for discussion?

 

[ppp]

Ok, so all you have to do is “define ghost” before placing the cameras or performing any other test that could potentially prove or disprove ghost claims…… honestly I don’t understand why are you making such a big deal with it.

That is like saying, “you can’t look for other planets if you don’t define planet before”…… well sure, but all you have to do is define planet, I don’t see the problem.

Glad to hear it. So, define 'ghost' and construct a practical experiment where you can demonstrate that said 'ghost' is the product of supernatural causation.

 

[leroy]

Glad to hear it. So, define 'ghost' and construct a practical experiment where you can demonstrate that said 'ghost' is the product of supernatural causation.

sure

an apparition of a dead person which is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image.

A camera would test for a ghost claim


To test for supernatural causation would require one to define supernatural


But why are you making such a big deal? Whats your point?

 

[ppp]

sure


A camera would test for a ghost claim


To test for supernatural causation would require one to define supernatural


But why are you making such a big deal? Whats your point?

That there is no extant method to test for supernatural causation.

 

[gnostic]

And that is relevant because......?

It really is very pathetic that you would prefer to make an irrelevant comment rather than admitting that you are wrong...

It is still a fact that you can put some cameras in and old house and test for Gohst regardless if the existance if Gohst has been stablished before the cameras or not.

Well, you provided shoddy scenario, thinking that installing some cameras in some allegedly haunted house, thinking that "This is a test".

What you don’t realize that’s not test, unless there is actual evidence of ghosts that you can test your claims of ghosts.

This is just an example of incompetency in understanding that tests require evidence. No evidence (eg no ghosts) mean you cannot test your claims of ghosts.

You haven’t provided any photos or recordings of any ghost at all. All you do is make claim of ghosts.

Instead of ditching unsuccessful claim when everyone have already answered your questions, and tried to approach your claim from different angle, you just repeat the same scenario, ask the same absurd questions, and not learning from your mistakes.

This is nothing more than persistent ignorance using irrational arguments.

 

[leroy]

That there is no extant method to test for supernatural causation.

Why not? Is an event contradicts the laws of nature then it would be “supernatural causation”…….. if ghost walks through a wall (violating natural laws) then it can be said that the Gohst is supernatural or has supernatural abilities.

Besides, you don’t have to know the “cause” of ghost in order to establish its existence. For all we know the cause could be natural…..so what?

 

[gnostic]

A camera would test for a ghost claim

No it doesn’t.

Unless you can provide pictures or video of ghosts, there are no tests.

Where are these images of ghosts, Leroy?

You are just making claims, over and over and over again, not once showing evidence of ghosts.

 

[Spirit of Light]

sure


A camera would test for a ghost claim


To test for supernatural causation would require one to define supernatural


But why are you making such a big deal? Whats your point?

A problem with both video camera and still photo camera of today, is that they are digital, so even if you show video or photo of a "ghost" sceptics will often put forth a claim that it is faked or tampered with.
As a former photographer my self I know how easy photos can be "faked" to look like there is a ghost there.

A better way to prove it would be if a group of sceptics saw it together, and could verify separately what they had seen, plus if you had EMF readings, sound ,video or photo at the same time when sceptics saw it too.

 

[Onoma]

You mean, like Michael Persinger's " God Helmet " ?

That's probably the closest I've heard of, and that seems to have a lot of criticism