Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[leroy]

Then, by all means, show us what those sources of knowledge have provided and demonstrated.

You are misquoting me, please go the actual post and quote what I actually said

 

[leroy]

Are you serious! How would I know what my great grandfather knew.

You just cannot get over that everything you post about this is conjecture. None of it has been demonstrated and there is no evidence it could be.

You can ask him things like where was he born, who you wife is, who your son is etc. You can also ask him about historical facts from his date for example who was the schools director when you were in 5th grade. ..
If the Ghost is a hoax perpetuated by a fried of yours, then the author of the hoax is unlikely to respond to those questions and therefore the Ghost hypothesis would ether gain or lose strength depending if the “entity” answers correctly or not.

 

[leroy]

Let's take those in reverse order. Ethics is NOT a matter of knowledge. it is a matter of opinion, usually based on culture and upbringing. There are certain ethical feelings that seem to be hardwired into us, but even those don't qualify as knowledge.

Why not? If I say something like “I know that torturing an innocent child for fun is wrong” why wouldn’t this be knowledge?

My memory of what I did yesterday *is* in some senses, scientific. In fact, it is the basssssssse repeatability aspect of science

Can you prove scientifically whether if you drank coffee yesterday ?......NO…………Can you know it? YES? … so why isn’t this knowledge that comes from another source rather than science?

Perhaps your best example here is that of history. But even there, the *knowledge* aspect is based on hypothesis formation, testing (perhaps based on documents), and revision of ideas that fail the tests: in other words, the scientific method. Even the documents have to be analyzed for their provenance, the point of view of the author, and other things. That process is, at base, scientific. And, history is done best when there are other pieces of evidence to bring to bear, say archeology.

Anyway, a good try, but I don't think you succeeded.

Can you prove scientifically that Alexander the Grate was born in Macedonia?..............NO……….Can you know it ? ? yes………(at least with a high degree of certanity)

 

[leroy]

It not semantics, Leroy.

Nature, natural processes, exist, and there are all sorts of evidence.

Supernatural only exist in myths, fairytale, folklore, fiction, superstition, religious beliefs, religious myths, etc...

...there are no evidence supernatural existing in any reality, others than imaginary made-up ones or made-up delusions. Supernatural is a con job made to swindle into converting silly faiths, or to swindle money from people.

Aren’t you paying attention to the thread? The questions is not whether if there is evidence for the supernatural or not, the question is whether if supernatural claims can in principle be tested ………if I tell you that I can walk through walls (violating some laws of nature) could you in principle test my claims and ether confirm or refute my assertions?........

 

[Polymath257]

Why could it not be a person being honest too as I think is generally the case? A fair person considers both and all the evidence he can scrape up so all things are considered and tries to be as objective as possible.

As I was pointing out: the motivation is in the direction of lying. That means we have to maintain some skepticism and see how they deal with *known* frauds.

 

[Polymath257]

Why not? If I say something like “I know that torturing an innocent child for fun is wrong” why wouldn’t this be knowledge?

No. It is not knowledge. It is a culturally accepted norm.

Can you prove scientifically whether if you drank coffee yesterday ?......NO…………Can you know it? YES? … so why isn’t this knowledge that comes from another source rather than science?

Memory is one of the data methods for science. So, yes, this is known scientifically.

Can you prove scientifically that Alexander the Grate was born in Macedonia?..............NO……….Can you know it ? ? yes………(at least with a high degree of certanity)

No, actually. Outside of the physical evidence that has come down to us in the form of documents, and other archeological data, we cannot know this. It is a *hypothesis* based on the best data we have about what happened in the past. The confidence in that hypothesis is found in testing the nature of those documents, comparing what they say, checking with the archeological record, etc. That *is* a scientific process.

 

[Polymath257]

A ghost appears and disappears to multiple witnesses. What is there for science to study?

Well, among other things, we can ask the witnesses and compare their statements to physical evidence at the site. We can see if they have recording devices that captured additional evidence. We can see if the witnesses are prone to other types of conspiracy theories.

And, if the only times that ghosts appear is when there are no recording devices, that is reason to doubt their existence. If the recordings are all high static with suggestion as the primary way to 'hear' what is being 'said', then we should hold that evidence to be of lesser value. If it is *always* the case that the only evidence is ambiguous and prone to suggestion, then it is reasonable to say it is questionable.

And, given the wealth of high quality equipment available, the fact that those TV shows don't fund better equipment is telling, no?

 

[leroy]

No. It is not knowledge. It is a culturally accepted norm.

*ok agree for the sake of the argument, …….. how do you know that it is a culturally accepted norm? can you prove it scientifically?

Memory is one of the data methods for science. So, yes, this is known scientifically.

I´ll repeat my question, can you prove scientifically whether if you drank coffee yesterday or not?


All I am saying is that at least sometimes you rely in your memories and experiences to gather knowledge .agree?

No, actually. Outside of the physical evidence that has come down to us in the form of documents, and other archeological data, we cannot know this. It is a *hypothesis* based on the best data we have about what happened in the past. The confidence in that hypothesis is found in testing the nature of those documents, comparing what they say, checking with the archeological record, etc. That *is* a scientific process.

How is trusting the words of ancient biographers for example “scientific”……. I would say that the scientific method and the historical method are simply different things, sure sometimes there is some overlap and sometimes you can use one to confirm the other……… but at least sometimes all we have is historical data, sometimes all we have is testimonies, and whether if we should trust those testimonies or not is beyond the scope of science. (but that is ok, we have the historical method too)

 

[George-ananda]

Well, among other things, we can ask the witnesses and compare their statements to physical evidence at the site. We can see if they have recording devices that captured additional evidence. We can see if the witnesses are prone to other types of conspiracy theories.

And, if the only times that ghosts appear is when there are no recording devices, that is reason to doubt their existence. If the recordings are all high static with suggestion as the primary way to 'hear' what is being 'said', then we should hold that evidence to be of lesser value. If it is *always* the case that the only evidence is ambiguous and prone to suggestion, then it is reasonable to say it is questionable.

And, given the wealth of high quality equipment available, the fact that those TV shows don't fund better equipment is telling, no?

We differ in a large way on the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal, investigative and experimental evidence out there.

I say that the evidence is out there already to give me the conclusion that the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

Overly vehement skeptics can set up a lose/lose/lose/lose scenario for all paranormal evidence. If nothing was captured: lose. If something vague or questionable was captured it is just natural artefacts: lose. If something quite clear is captured then it's fake: lose. And if an investigation shows highly likely phenomena then publicity mongering is called: lose. etc....

In the end it is up to each of us who are interested in these subjects to consider deeper and draw our own conclusion and that's what I've done.

 

[gnostic]

Aren’t you paying attention to the thread? The questions is not whether if there is evidence for the supernatural or not, the question is whether if supernatural claims can in principle be tested ………if I tell you that I can walk through walls (violating some laws of nature) could you in principle test my claims and ether confirm or refute my assertions?........

Well, you don’t understand that in science, a “test” does mean “evidence” and “observation”.

Evidence or observation mean “testable evidence” or “testable observation”, so that would mean it must also be “repeatable” or “reproducible”, because empirical evidence mean multiple evidence or multiple observations, so the more evidence you have, the more scientists can determine what is true and accepted, and what is false and refuted.

Tests are equal to multiple observations or multiple evidence. Without evidence, then supernatural is false, and this claim - your claim - of ghost being able to walk through walls are false claims

You really don’t understand the concept of empirical science or experimental science, do you?

They - experimental science - are about tests and verification. YOU CANNOT PERFORM ANY TEST WITHOUT EVIDENCE!!!

As I have said many times before, evidence have a number of requirements, and they must be -

• observable or detectable,
• measurable,
• quantifiable (hence repeatable or reproducible),
• testable (eg to compare and test evidence against each other)

- all of which (meaning, “all of the above”), will help to determine any explanatory models being VERIFIED or REFUTED.

There are no evidence for ghosts existing, so how else would you test ghost, if they don’t exist? How do you test ghosts can walk through walls, if ghosts don’t exist?

It is becoming apparent that you have never studied science before, otherwise you would understand that evidence is required for there to be any test to occur. And there must be multiple evidence - TO TEST one evidence against another evidence - because that’s what required to be scientific.

So supernatural isn’t scientific. Nor are ghosts.

Your claims about ghosts and walking through walls, aren’t testable, because there are no and there have never been evidence for ghosts, to test your claim that they are capable of walking through wall.

All you are doing, Leroy is making multiple claims, without producing a single testable evidence to support your claims.

 

[gnostic]

I´ll repeat my question, can you prove scientifically whether if you drank coffee yesterday or not?


All I am saying is that at least sometimes you rely in your memories and experiences to gather knowledge .agree?

Just about anyone who have smartphone or own a camera (eg video camera, CT camera, etc) can record what anyone being doing and playback what they record yesterday, and the day before, last week or last year.

So you can record Polymath257 making and drinking coffee at anytime of the day. The video would be evidence, and with modern digital camera, you could look at meta-data, to see when it was taken, time-stamped (more evidence).

Let say, that there is a camera pointing in the kitchen, where the cups, coffee and coffee machine are kept, where Polymath257 worked. And the camera have motion sensor to detect anyone using the coffee machine. They can record on video, anyone, including Polymath257, making coffee in the kitchen. He or they may or may not drink the coffee in the kitchen, but at least, you would know when Polymath257 made coffee, and even know how many cups he would make in a single day. If you want to know if he drank coffee, instead of asking him, you can playback and watch what happened yesterday at work.

The video playback will either support or not support his memory of making/drinking coffee yesterday.

Why do you insist on asking silly questions?

 

[leroy]

Well, you don’t understand that in science, a “test” does mean “evidence” and “observation”.

Evidence or observation mean “testable evidence” or “testable observation”, so that would mean it must also be “repeatable” or “reproducible”, because empirical evidence mean multiple evidence or multiple observations, so the more evidence you have, the more scientists can determine what is true and accepted, and what is false and refuted.

Tests are equal to multiple observations or multiple evidence. Without evidence, then supernatural is false, and this claim - your claim - of ghost being able to walk through walls are false claims

You really don’t understand the concept of empirical science or experimental science, do you?

They - experimental science - are about tests and verification. YOU CANNOT PERFORM ANY TEST WITHOUT EVIDENCE!!!

As I have said many times before, evidence have a number of requirements, and they must be -

• observable or detectable,
• measurable,
• quantifiable (hence repeatable or reproducible),
• testable (eg to compare and test evidence against each other)

- all of which (meaning, “all of the above”), will help to determine any explanatory models being VERIFIED or REFUTED.

There are no evidence for ghosts existing, so how else would you test ghost, if they don’t exist? How do you test ghosts can walk through walls, if ghosts don’t exist?

It is becoming apparent that you have never studied science before, otherwise you would understand that evidence is required for there to be any test to occur. And there must be multiple evidence - TO TEST one evidence against another evidence - because that’s what required to be scientific.

So supernatural isn’t scientific. Nor are ghosts.

Your claims about ghosts and walking through walls, aren’t testable, because there are no and there have never been evidence for ghosts, to test your claim that they are capable of walking through wall.

All you are doing, Leroy is making multiple claims, without producing a single testable evidence to support your claims.

So whats the answer to the question that i asked, yes or no?

if I tell you that I can walk through walls (violating some laws of nature) could you in principle test my claims and ether confirm or refute my assertions?..

----

There are no evidence for ghosts existing, so how else would you test ghost, if they don’t exist? How do you test ghosts can walk through walls, if ghosts don’t exist?

You don’t have to label them as Ghosts if you don’t what, but if someone claims that there is a “nebulous” image of a dead person that is manifesting himself in an old house every single night, and that says BOOOO and can walk thought walls……..surely that claim could in principle be tested

 

[gnostic]

We differ in a large way on the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal, investigative and experimental evidence out there.

I say that the evidence is out there already to give me the conclusion that the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

Overly vehement skeptics can set up a lose/lose/lose/lose scenario for all paranormal evidence. If nothing was captured: lose. If something vague or questionable was captured it is just natural artefacts: lose. If something quite clear is captured then it's fake: lose. And if an investigation shows highly likely phenomena then publicity mongering is called: lose. etc....

In the end it is up to each of us who are interested in these subjects to consider deeper and draw our own conclusion and that's what I've done.

If anyone is seeking publicity, it would be those who make claims they have witnessed a supernatural/paranormal phenomena, George.

It is the claimant who must support what they have witnessed. Without evidence, claimant can make all sorts of stories.

You can choose to believe whatever you want - their anecdotes, their testimonies - but if you want facts, then there must be actual evidence to support the anecdotes.

Otherwise, the testimonies or anecdotes, are just unsubstantiated stories, made to grab media or public attention.

 

[gnostic]

So whats the answer to the question that i asked, yes or no?




----




You don’t have to label them as Ghosts if you don’t what, but if someone claims that there is a “nebulous” image of a dead person that is manifesting himself in an old house every single night, and that says BOOOO and can walk thought walls……..surely that claim could in principle be tested

You keep making up claims and excuses that are speculative or false.

Without evidence, that’s all you have, empty false claims.

 

[leroy]

Just about anyone who have smartphone or own a camera (eg video camera, CT camera, etc) can record what anyone being doing and playback what they record yesterday, and the day before, last week or last year.

So you can record Polymath257 making and drinking coffee at anytime of the day. The video would be evidence, and with modern digital camera, you could look at meta-data, to see when it was taken, time-stamped (more evidence).

Let say, that there is a camera pointing in the kitchen, where the cups, coffee and coffee machine are kept, where Polymath257 worked. And the camera have motion sensor to detect anyone using the coffee machine. They can record on video, anyone, including Polymath257, making coffee in the kitchen. He or they may or may not drink the coffee in the kitchen, but at least, you would know when Polymath257 made coffee, and even know how many cups he would make in a single day. If you want to know if he drank coffee, instead of asking him, you can playback and watch what happened yesterday at work.

The video playback will either support or not support his memory of making/drinking coffee yesterday.

Why do you insist on asking silly questions?

That’s good, but sadly I forgot to videotape Polymaths kitchen, so there are no video tapes available.

Would Polymath be reasonable if he simplly trusts his memories and determines whether if he drank coffee or not?...........(note that this is a simple yes or no question Hopefully you will answer with a clear yes or a clear no

 

[George-ananda]

If anyone is seeking publicity, it would be those who make claims they have witnessed a supernatural/paranormal phenomena, George.

It is the claimant who must support what they have witnessed. Without evidence, claimant can make all sorts of stories.

You can choose to believe whatever you want - their anecdotes, their testimonies - but if you want facts, then there must be actual evidence to support the anecdotes.

Otherwise, the testimonies or anecdotes, are just unsubstantiated stories, made to grab media or public attention.

A quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal evidence can leave me believing something beyond reasonable doubt. We all do that process when reasoning. But I don’t claim scientific proof.

 

[leroy]

You keep making up claims and excuses that are speculative or false.

Without evidence, that’s all you have, empty false claims.

And according to you which empty, false, claim have I made?

 

[leroy]

A quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal evidence can leave me believing something beyond reasonable doubt. We all do that process when reasoning. But I don’t claim scientific proof.

I am not following your posts, are you talking about your own personal experiences? Have you seen Ghost?........ or are your talking about other people who have seen a ghost and you simply trust them as reliable witnesses?

 

[George-ananda]

I am not following your posts, are you talking about your own personal experiences? Have you seen Ghost?........ or are your talking about other people who have seen a ghost and you simply trust them as reliable witnesses?

I am saying the chance of all of them being wrong approaches zero from the quantity, quality and consistency.

 

[gnostic]

That’s good, but sadly I forgot to videotape Polymaths kitchen, so there are no video tapes available.

Would Polymath be reasonable if he simplly trusts his memories and determines whether if he drank coffee or not?...........(note that this is a simple yes or no question Hopefully you will answer with a clear yes or a clear no

How should I know what Polymath257 drink? Apart from here at the forums, I don’t know if he prefers coffee or tea or some other beverages.

These questions of yours, are just speculation. With speculative questions from you, I can give speculative answers...meaning, you want me to guess if he drink coffee, and you want me to guess if his memories are reliable or not.

I have no ask him if he drink coffee or not. I have only responded to you, and to your speculation about his memory and his coffee drinking.

But based on what little I know about Polymath257, and his knowledge about maths and science, I can only say he have good memory, so I wouldn’t dismiss what he say.

But I cannot know what I would know the answer to that, until I ask him myself.

You are trying to push me into giving answer yes or no, when I haven’t ask him such questions about about his drinking habits. You are playing stupid game where you are trying to make definite answers to something I don’t know about. I don’t know his memory, and that the idiocy of these questions you have given me.

I can only give you yes or no answer, to what I did yesterday; I cannot give you answer to what you or Polymath257 did yesterday...I’m not a mind-reader.