Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[ppp]

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.

Nope. You have not ruled out natural causes of which you are ignorant.

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?

LOL. The question is "Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?" For the answer to be yes, you have to:

• positively define characteristics that are exclusively supernatural
• establish that the supernatural is actually a candidate explanation,
• establish that you are capable of distinguishing supernatural causation from natural causes.
• avoid logical fallacies

You have done none of these things.

 

[ppp]

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.

What do you think a ghost is?

 

[leroy]

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.

Aja, and since you don’t allow for tests, it would be impossible to gather evidence for Ghosts…… can’t you realize your circular logic?

 

[Spirit of Light]

What do you think a ghost is?

There could be more then one answer to your question.

It could be "lost souls" or spirits of dead people that technically is not in our physical world anymore, but their energy linger still.
It could be a overlap between two dimensions where what we experiences as ghosts are real beings, but we can only see them if they cross over in dimensions.
It could be just illusion created from spikes in EMF that track our brain to think we see ghosts.

I don't have a concluded answer to it my self.

 

[leroy]

Nope. You have not ruled out natural causes of which you are ignorant.

Sure if your standards are as high as “considering all possible natural causations, including those that we don’t know about” before even thinking about the possibility of supernatural, then granted, supernatural causes can’t be established.

LOL. The question is "Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?" For the answer to be yes, you have to:

• positively define characteristics that are exclusively supernatural

Those that contradict natural laws are likelly to be supernatural
Especially if the law is well documented, established and uncontroversial.

• establish that the supernatural is actually a candidate explanation

  ,

Unless you can show that the supernatural is impossible, then by default it has to be a candidate explanation

• establish that you are capable of distinguishing supernatural causation from natural causes

  .

Sure any event that contradicts the laws of nature would be probably supernatural

• avoid logical fallacies

• done

But if your standards are “prove supernatural with 100% accuracy” then granted I can’t meat your standards, but I will question the reason why are your standards so high

 

[leroy]

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.

So far test have failed, this is why we don’t have images…..so far the claims have been tested and failed………….why is this so hard to accept?..... you already accepted this comment in the past (with your Houdini stuff) so why did you change your mind?.........

 

[leroy]

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.

But the good news is that science is repeatable, you can place your own cameras and test the claims by yourself.

The same can be said about any other test, scientists who claim that have discovered a new planet, could also be liars or mistaken, or can fake the data

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.

Yes that would be good evidence too (even without the video, or the photo)

 

[Spirit of Light]

But the good news is that science is repeatable, you can place your own cameras and test the claims by yourself.

The same can be said about any other test, scientists who claim that have discovered a new planet, could also be liars or mistaken, or can fake the data




Yes that would be good evidence too (even without the video, or the photo)

Not sure we can look at ghost and a plant equally in this case yes the plant is there physically, and can be found again if not someone removed it on purpose.
A ghost can not be asked to come on camera to be proven by a scientist.
It also depend on what form of ghost it is.
An orb, a mist, only sound, ( knocking test could be used for sound)
Is it a full figure ghost, shadow, .

Ghost hunters, scientists, parapsycolog are all in to finding the answer, and yet even with all the equipment they have now. They have not yet "proven" that it exist.

That said, it might be true that ghost do exist, they just have not proven it 100% yet

 

[leroy]

Not sure we can look at ghost and a plant equally in this case yes the plant is there physically, and can be found again if not someone removed it on purpose.
A ghost can not be asked to come on camera to be proven by a scientist.
It also depend on what form of ghost it is.
An orb, a mist, only sound, ( knocking test could be used for sound)
Is it a full figure ghost, shadow, .

Ghost hunters, scientists, parapsycolog are all in to finding the answer, and yet even with all the equipment they have now. They have not yet "proven" that it exist.

That said, it might be true that ghost do exist, they just have not proven it 100% yet

But statistically speaking, ghosts shouldn’t be less likely to appear to skeptics than to believers.

For the record, the discovery of planets outside the solar system is pretty much random, one puts the telescope at a random spot (near a star) and a “shadow” may or may not appear (a shadow would indicate the presence or a planet)

 

[Spirit of Light]

But statistically speaking, ghosts shouldn’t be less likely to appear to skeptics than to believers.

For the record, the discovery of planets outside the solar system is pretty much random, one puts the telescope at a random spot (near a star) and a “shadow” may or may not appear (a shadow would indicate the presence or a planet)

Why would a ghost appear more often for a believer? Do the ghost know who believe and who does not?

 

[leroy]

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

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 ...

So which one is it?

Are paranormal claims untestable…… or have they been tested (by haudini for example).. you are making these 2 mutually exclusive claims simultaneously, so which one is “true” and which one would you reject?

 

[leroy]

Why would a ghost appear more often for a believer? Do the ghost know who believe and who does not?

It shouldn’t be that way. (That’s my point) Ghost shouldn’t appear to believers more often that to non believers.

But hallucinations of ghosts are expected to be more likely in believers than in non-believers.

I have no data, but if I were to bet I´ll say that ghost’s claims are more common among believers than among skeptics , making the hallucination more probably true.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It shouldn’t be that way. (That’s my point) Ghost shouldn’t appear to believers more often that to non believers.

But hallucinations of ghosts are expected to be more likely in believers than in non-believers.

I have no data, but if I were to bet I´ll say that ghost’s claims are more common among believers than among skeptics , making the hallucination more probably true.

When you say hallucinations, do you think personally that ghost are not real, but only something a few humans hallucinate?

 

[ppp]

Those that contradict natural laws are likelly to be supernatural
Especially if the law is well documented, established and uncontroversial.

It contradicts your expectations, therefore you are justified in claiming it's supernatural. That is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Also, I have no idea why you think that "Those that contradict natural laws are likelly to be supernatural". Every single time that we have had to revise scientific law the resulting law was natural. Not one single time has it been unnatural. If you were actually using probability, then the result would be the number of times that the change has been supernatural divided by the total number of times a law has had to be revised. That is a zero probability.

Unless you can show that the supernatural is impossible, then by default it has to be a candidate explanation

Nope. Candidate explanation has to be demonstrated to be epistemically possible to meet scientific rigor.

Sure any event that contradicts the laws of nature would be probably supernatural

That is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You don't understand it, therefore you are justified in claiming it's supernatural. Depending on how you define supernatural, it is potentially also a black and white fallacy

done

Your argument is full of fallacies.

 

[ppp]

There could be more then one answer to your question.

It could be "lost souls" or spirits of dead people that technically is not in our physical world anymore, but their energy linger still.
It could be a overlap between two dimensions where what we experiences as ghosts are real beings, but we can only see them if they cross over in dimensions.
It could be just illusion created from spikes in EMF that track our brain to think we see ghosts.

I don't have a concluded answer to it my self.

Thanks you.

You said earlier, "The 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. 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."

If I saw the given phenomenon, on camera or in person, I would not have to go so far as to say it was faked. In fact, I would not go that far unless I had positive evidence of fakery. I would be happy to acknowledge the experience. The experience happened. What I would not be able to do, lacking evidence, is to provide an explanation for the experience.

Is it actually a "spirits of dead people that technically is not in our physical world anymore"? An "overlap between two dimensions"? "Spikes in EMF that trick our brains?"

An FRMI might be able rule out the EMF. But how would I ever be able to test for either of the other two? I cannot think of a away. And until I can, I am not rationally justified in accepting either* as the explanation for he experience.

*changed 'other' to 'either' in last sentence

 

[Spirit of Light]

Thanks you.

You said earlier, "The 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. 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."

If I saw the given phenomenon, on camera or in person, I would not have to go so far as to say it was faked. In fact, I would not go that far unless I had positive evidence of fakery. I would be happy to acknowledge the experience. The experience happened. What I would not be able to do, lacking evidence, is to provide an explanation for the experience.

Is it actually a "spirits of dead people that technically is not in our physical world anymore"? An "overlap between two dimensions"? "Spikes in EMF that trick our brains?"

An FRMI might be able rule out the EMF. But how would I ever be able to test for either of the other two? I cannot think of a away. And until I can, I am not rationally justified in accepting other as the explanation for he experience.

It is many years since I was on a "ghost hunt" my self, I used a still photo camera with infrared sensor (built to capture infrared light) because it is said that the spirit"ghost" can more easily show them self in infrared spectrum of light. Honestly I never captured anything on camera

I did hear knocking sounds, footsteps and some "growling" sounds and maybe I saw something in the corner of my eyes. But I can not say that was a ghost
It could be my eyes tricking me. It was after all pich black in the "haunted house"

But I can not rule out that ghost do exist.

I had a different sighting a few days after my mother passed away. When I walked in to the apartment that had been her's I clearly saw my own mother standing at the sink doing the dishes as she had done every day for years. And "she" reacted when I spoke to her. But I could not hear her voice.

Can say this was the spirit of my mom lingering in her apartment before she "left" our world? No absolutely not. But I can not rule it out either, because honestly do not know if that would be possible for her to "come back" for only a few moment for me to see her.
I have no idea

 

[leroy]

It contradicts your expectations, therefore you are justified in claiming it's supernatural. That is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Also, I have no idea why you think that "Those that contradict natural laws are likelly to be supernatural". Every single time that we have had to revise scientific law the resulting law was natural. Not one single time has it been unnatural. If you were actually using probability, then the result would be the number of times that the change has been supernatural divided by the total number of times a law has had to be revised. That is a zero probability.


Nope. Candidate explanation has to be demonstrated to be epistemically possible to meet scientific rigor.


That is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You don't understand it, therefore you are justified in claiming it's supernatural. Depending on how you define supernatural, it is potentially also a black and white fallacy


Your argument is full of fallacies.

Again if your expectation is “prove the supernatural with 100% accuracy” then I would agree with the OP, it cant be done.

it contradicts your expectations, therefore you are justified in claiming it's supernatural. That is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

In the same way a doctor would be justified in claiming that “it is not a viral infection” if the symptoms don’t meet his expectations, but if your standards are as high as “fist you have to consider alllllll viruses (even those that we don’t know about)” and only then you can propose some other hypothesis (like bacterial or fungus infection) then granted the doctor would have no justification


It is just that my standards are not as high as yours,

Also, I have no idea why you think that "Those that contradict natural laws are likelly to be supernatural". Every single time that we have had to revise scientific law the resulting law was natural. Not one single time has it been unnatural.

That is irrelevant, the fact is that some laws are uncontroversial and almost 100% certainly true , so a clear an unambiguous observation of an event that contradicts such law would likely be supernatural.

If anything you would have to compare the probability of a supernatural event VS the probability that science is wrong, including millions and millions of experiments and theoretical work.

Nope. Candidate explanation has to be demonstrated to be epistemically possible to meet scientific rigor.

You dont need to meet scientific rigor in order to consider an X” as a possible cause

That is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You don't understand it, therefore you are justified in claiming it's supernatural. Depending on how you define supernatural, it is potentially also a black and white fallacy

The same applies to the doctor “he doesn’t understands how a virus could have caused those symptoms, therefore it was not a virus.
-----------------
But I think it all boils down to the fact that we have different standards, if I personally ever observe a man walking through a wall (multiple times, in walls that I selected, after confirming that the wall is real and solid etc.)……. I would say “hey something supernatural happened” you would say “the laws of physics are wrong” ….. in my opinion the first seems more likely than the second.

 

[ppp]

The same applies to the doctor “he doesn’t understands how a virus could have caused those symptoms, therefore it was not a virus.

If the doctor said something silly like that, then like you, he would be guilty of an argument from ignorance fallacy. If the doctor were rational, like me, he would say, Let me run some test to see if I can determine the cause.

But your analogy fails even harder because the doctor has already established that viruses exist, and he knows their baseline characteristics. You have no such knowledge about your purported ghost.

It is just that my standards are not as high as yours,

Yes. Your arguments are fallacious.

That is irrelevant, the fact is that some laws are uncontroversial and almost 100% certainly true , so a clear an unambiguous observation of an event that contradicts such law would likely be supernatural.

That is still an argument from ignorance. No point in going on if you are going to retread the same faulty ground.
.

 

[leroy]

If the doctor said something silly like that, then like you, he would be guilty of an argument from ignorance fallacy. If the doctor were rational, like me, he would say, Let me run some test to see if I can determine the cause

But according to your nonsense and ridiculous logic, the doctor can’t run any tests nor search for any other causes, until he tests every single virus (including those that have not been discovered) obviously in the real world things don’t work that way,

This is analogous to “you can’t even suggest any supernatural cause, unless and until you test for every single possible naturalistic cause (including those that we don’t know about)

That is still an argument from ignorance. No point in going on if you are going to retread the same faulty ground.
.

Its not an argument form ignorance….

The doctor “knows” with a high degree of certainty what viruses can and can’t do basedonwhat he knows he can conclude that a virus is not the cause of the synthoms,…….in the same way we can know with a high degree of certainty what can happen and can’t happen (according to the laws of nature)…………..Specifically we know that humans can’t walk through walls (accodrdint to the laws of nature) so any observation of a man walking through a wall would be interpreted as supernatural

This is not an argument form ignorance, because its an argument based on what we know about the laws of nature

 

[ppp]

But according to your nonsense and ridiculous logic, the doctor can’t run any tests nor search for any other causes, until he tests every single virus (including those that have not been discovered) obviously in the real world things don’t work that way,

Nope. Not even close. No point in reading further.