Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[leroy]

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

And how is someone supposed to gather evidence, if you don’t allow for tests?..........besides what mysterious force would prevent me to place cameras in an old house even if I don’t have prior evidence for ghosts? ….

.

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

Why? Is there a “science police” that would prevent me to place the cameras?

You can gather as many testimonies (about anything supernatural) as you like (and you believe in the testimonies all you want), but without evidence,

And aren’t testimonies evidence? (bad testimonies are bad evidence, good testimonies are good evidence)..........................

But even without testimonies, why can’t I simply place my cameras in and old hourse and see if there are any ghosts?


Once again I ask the question that you are refusing to answer, do you have scientific evidence (say genetic evidence) confirming who your parents are?...... or do you simply trust in testimonies?

 

[leroy]

Don’t you think people have already tried that?

Yes, they have done it and have proven conclusively that at least some ghost claims are false……….the problem is that according dan (and therefore according to you) this has never been done and it is impossible to do it

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

yes and that is my point……… tests where done and concluded that there are probably no gohsts……..so why are you insisting these tests are impossible to do?

 

[gnostic]

And aren’t testimonies evidence? (bad testimonies are bad evidence, good testimonies are good evidence)..........................

But even without testimonies, why can’t I simply place my cameras in and old hourse and see if there are any ghosts?

What you called “good testimonies” are those that can be verified by actual evidence.

That’s not true regarding to supernatural phenomena, like psychic phenomena or spiritual phenomena (eg ghosts, demons, angels, gods, etc). None of these have been verified.

And how is someone supposed to gather evidence, if you don’t allow for tests?..........besides what mysterious force would prevent me to place cameras in an old house even if I don’t have prior evidence for ghosts? ….

Man, Leroy.

You cannot learn at all, can you?

You cannot learn from your errors.

Ok. Let tack this in another way with an example.

Can you measure and test electricity, without electricity?

The electricity has to exist first, before you can measure it, or test it.

So there have to be evidence of electricity, before you can measure the voltage, current and powers.

Measuring is part of the testing. No electricity, would mean no test.

What would you use to test and measure electricity?

Multimeters is device capable of measuring electricity, but it won’t give any reading if the wires have no electric current flowing through the wires.

It is that simple. Surely even you can understand that concept.

You want to test a ghost, but how do you test a ghost that doesn’t exist?

You want to take pictures of a ghost , in a supposedly haunted house, which the owner claim. So you set the cameras there in every rooms, but what if there are no pictures, even leaving the cameras there for months?

Would you still believe the owner’s testimony, after 1 or 5 or 10 years of waiting, and still no pictures of the ghost?

What you are doing is believing something that exist before there are verifications. That Leroy, is what I called textbook “circular reasoning”.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, they have done it and have proven conclusively that at least some ghost claims are false……….the problem is that according dan (and therefore according to you) this has never been done and it is impossible to do it

There have to be evidence before test.

As I keep telling you, you cannot test for something that don’t exist.

You are still having the same problems as before - not understanding the needs for evidence, before testing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As I keep telling you, you cannot test for something that don’t exist.

Michelson, A. A.; Morley, E. W. (1887). "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether" . American Journal of Science. 34 (203): 333–345.

 

[leroy]

What you called “good testimonies” are those that can be verified by actual evidence.

That’s not true regarding to supernatural phenomena, like psychic phenomena or spiritual phenomena (eg ghosts, demons, angels, gods, etc). None of these have been verified.



Man, Leroy.

You cannot learn at all, can you?

You cannot learn from your errors.

Ok. Let tack this in another way with an example.

Can you measure and test electricity, without electricity?

But you can test whether if electricity exists or not without establishing a priori the existence of electricity, in the same way you can test for whether if ghosts exists or not without establishing a priori the existence of ghosts.

The electricity has to exist first, before you can measure it, or test it.

So there have to be evidence of electricity, before you can measure the voltage, current and powers.

Granted, in the same way there has to be evidence for ghosts before testing if the can say Booooo and walk through doors. . so what is your point?

You want to take pictures of a ghost , in a supposedly haunted house, which the owner claim. So you set the cameras there in every rooms, but what if there are no pictures, even leaving the cameras there for months?

Would you still believe the owner’s testimony, after 1 or 5 or 10 years of waiting, and still no pictures of the ghost?

What you are doing is believing something that exist before there are verifications. That Leroy, is what I called textbook “circular reasoning”.

If I place my cameras and see no ghost in 3,5,10 years, I would conclude that there is probably no ghost in the house……..if I see the ghost I would conclude that the ghosts is probably real.

But I don’t have to establish a priori whether if Ghosts exist or not , before placing my cameras.

 

[leroy]

There have to be evidence before test.

So what mysterious force prevents you from puttin a camera in a house where people claim to have seen ghosts?.......... you can put your camera and videotape regardless if you have already established the existence of ghosts or not.

 

[gnostic]

So what mysterious force prevents you from puttin a camera in a house where people claim to have seen ghosts?.......... you can put your camera and videotape regardless if you have already established the existence of ghosts or not.

You can put all the cameras you want, but from the history of past experiences, there are either no ghosts, or the images of alleged ghosts have turned out to be fake.

You are aware that a lot of photos of ghosts published, were demonstrated to be phony?

Well. Knock yourself out, Leroy, but none of photos and videos provided evidence of actual ghosts or haunting.

 

[leroy]

You can put all the cameras you want, but from the history of past experiences, there are either no ghosts, or the images of alleged ghosts have turned out to be fake.

You are aware that a lot of photos of ghosts published, were demonstrated to be phony?

Well. Knock yourself out, Leroy, but none of photos and videos provided evidence of actual ghosts or haunting.

And why is that relevant?


My point is that Gohst claims can be subjected to tests.... Agree yes or no?

 

[wellwisher]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

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.

 

[gnostic]

And why is that relevant?


My point is that Gohst claims can be subjected to tests.... Agree yes or no?

Good grief...

I have already given you my answers. Repeating your same silly question, repeatedly is not going to change my answer.

The answer is still:

No evidence means no possible tests can be carry out.​

How many times must I say before you comprehend?

It would seem like “never”. My nieces have better grasp of science than you do.

 

[leroy]

Good grief...

I have already given you my answers. Repeating your same silly question, repeatedly is not going to change my answer.

The answer is still:

No evidence means no possible tests can be carry out.​

How many times must I say before you comprehend?

It would seem like “never”. My nieces have better grasp of science than you do.

You can repeat your answer as many times as you like and you answer would be ridiculous and circular.

No evidence means no possible tests can be carry out.

And what prevents you from making tests to gather evidence?

Your starting point would be:

1 “I don’t know if there are ghosts in that house”

2 Then you make some tests (cameras for example)

3 Then based on the results of the tests you can conclude ether that there are probably no ghosts or that probably there are ghosts. (Probably because we are never going to be 100% sure)

What mysterious force prevents you from following these 3 simple steps?

How many times must I say before you comprehend?

Just 1 more time, tell me exactly which of these 3 points are impossible to do?..............just kitting, I know that you won’t answer directly.

-----
Not to mention that you are contradicting yourself, first you say that Ghosts claims are untestable and in other comments you say that ghosts claims have been tested (and refuted)…..so which one is it?
You cant claim that ghosts claims are untestable and then claim that they have been tested, you can’t have it both ways, so which one is it?




You said that testimonies are never valid sources of knowledge, but then you claim to accept the testimonies of Houdini when refuting ghosts claims, so which one is it?

 

[gnostic]

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.

That’s ABIOGENESIS, NOT EVOLUTION.

Evolution is about changes over time, hence it is biodiversity of populations.

It has nothing to do with with origin of first life.

This is where you misunderstand.

On Galápagos Islands, different environments on two nearby islands would force selective changes to the giant tortoises.

On one island, where the highlands is humid, the soil allow for growth of short vegetation. Because the vegetation are within easy reach, no changes would occurred so the tortoises’ shells remained large dome-shaped, and they have short necks and short legs.

But on the island, the lowland is dry, the terrain more rocky, and the leaves that they feed on, are higher, and would be harder to reach. So over times, over numbers of generations, their necks and legs grew longer, and their shells became slightly smaller, and change in shape, known as he saddleback shell. This shape allow the tortoises to stretch their legs, and crane their necks upright.

The image above, shows a tortoise with saddleback shell. In a normal dome shell, a tortoise wouldn’t be able to crane its neck upwards like this.

This demonstrate that population must change selectively, due to different environment they must live. If the lowland tortoises didn’t change, they would have starved, and die off in this island.

Because they changed enough to survive, the tortoises with saddleback shells, long necks and legs, are seen as new subspecies.

The study of these changes, don’t require biologists to know how first life came about.

It is about passing genes that are beneficial to population of descendants, that allowed for changes or adaption, otherwise faced extinction as population.

Abiogenesis is study of how life might have begun over 3.5 billion years ago. The only evidence of life, are microfossils of earliest bacteria, single-celled organisms. So the questions that Abiogenesis researchers trying to answer, is how bacteria first form?

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different fields of studies, where Evolution is scientific theory, and Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis - but an active working hypothesis.

 

[joelr]

Radin is doing a meta-analysis and as he said in his video includes data from dozens of labs over five continents.

Meta analysis is complicated and has all sorts of issues with statistics as well as agenda driven bias.
This is what peer review is for. Nothing in science or history for example is accepted until it passes peer-review. So far the reviews on the analysis are negative.
More independant teams are needed to show accurate results.

You are cherry-picking conclusions. There are always two sides to all those things you want to suggest a negative conclusion towards. Each one can be their own thread but here you present a rambling collection not really relevant to this thread and too much to comment upon.

Not really? I looked up the most famous ESP studies and people and studies funded by a large entity who was interested in getting results. If it worked they wanted to weaponize it. It didn't.
The results are negative. Besides Radin, who is one team, I don't know of any studies that favored ESP?
And as I have covered the peer-review has shown mistakes in Radin's work. So that is not proof. More teams need to work on these experiments.

Why don't you cherry pick the studies that actually produced positive results, were repeated by separate teams who also got the same results? Show me those. By saying I "cherry picked" you implied there was something I missed on the positive side.

Wikipedia is without objective value since the heavy editing by guerilla skeptics wishing to present one side of the story. For whatrever reason I feel you have a disposition towards biased skeptical material. I like balance myself. As for me, I'll take someone like Radin's integrity over the biased arch-skeptics.

That is not balance. First Radins peers have pointed out errors. So he had not demonstrated anything remarkable.
Radin's integrity is suspect as he backed known hoax mediums and may have presented faulty data on purpose? We don't know this as fact, maybe he made a mistake? But the errors have been pointed out.
So as a source of integrity Radin isn't the guy.
Next those Wiki articles are mostly just facts? When the remote viewing experiments were forced to be done in controlled settings they didn't work. It's believed trickery was being used when the performer was able to set up the time and place/
You can investigate any of these incidents with some effort? You are making assumptions that the articles must be written by militant skeptics and are admitting you really don't know?

I have followed trails and bought books and looked for 2nd opinions and actual stats. My bias is towards the truth.
I was glad to hear experiments on Kundalini energy demonstrated some amazing results. Dozens of other people also were and seemed to re-post the article.
However I had to due my proper part and looked up the doctor from Harvard who was involved. Long story short, there is no Harvard doc who did any study and this study in India never happened.
"The study was based on a similar study conducted by Jeffery A. Dusck at Harvard Medical School and published in Public Library of Science in July 2008."
SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF KUNDALINI ACTIVATION & ITS BENEFITS | Nithyananda Sangha's Official Web Site | Health, Wealth, Relationships, Excellence, Enlightenment, Yoga, Meditation

A statistics professor reviewed Radin's meta-analysis and sees flaws in the work:

"In his review of Radin's book for the journal Nature, statistics professor I.J. Good disputes this calculation, calling it "a gross overestimate." He estimates that the number of unpublished, unsuccessful reports needed to account for the results by the file drawer effect should be reduced to fifteen or less. How could two meta-analyses result in such a wide discrepancy? Somebody is doing something wrong, and in this case it is clearly Radin. He has not performed the file-drawer analysis correctly."

Science has to have consensus. He has to get some results then have multiple peers agree he is not making mistakes. ALL SCIENCE works this way.
When someone finds an error in a history paper you do not say "OH no, you must be a militant historicity skeptic.."? You fix it and find work that people can agree is correct. You do not invent a conspiracy theory to suggest you are still correct and the world is just holding you down?

My bias is towards the truth. As disappointing as it may be, bring it on. I want magic to be real just like every one else. But that doesn't make Bob Lazar any more truthful.

 

[joelr]

Ok those comments are probably relevant for another thread. The question is “assuming you have good testimonies and good sources” would it be possible to establish a supernatural/ paranormal event? Like ghosts, resurrection, crystal balls that predict the future etc.

With good sources and good testimonies* I mean “realistically good” the same kind of sources that you would use in a court law or to establish any historical fact form ancient history.

No.
In a court of law a reliable witness may have seen a shooting. If they are certain it was the defendant who they saw shoot the victim then this can be used to convict the shooter of a crime.
But this is because shooting someone is something we already know can and does happen.
If someone testifies to seeing a ghost this is not evidence because we do not yet know if ghosts are even real.
So being that we have no actual confirmation of ghosts sightings the sighting of a ghost would fall into a category that we know exists - a hallucination/trick of the eye, a lie or some type of trick like a hologram or person dressed as a ghost.
So ancient history involving any ghost or similar then becomes a historical myth, hallucination, lie, mistaken identity or work of fiction.

If multiple nations around one side of the globe ALL had a story of seeing a giant man in the sky 100's of miles long, all reported on the same day (as far as we could tell) then we would know something happened. But having no evidence of 300 mile long gods in the sky would probably be assuming it was some type of atmospheric phenomenon. If it spoke the same words to everyone, all in their native language, that would be interesting. Especially if it went from Asia and far up to into northern areas who did not associate with southern regions.


Facts from ancient history go by likelyhood (a king being murdered would be likely, a god in a chariot floating in the sky is not). And cross culture mentions plus archeological findings. Different nations never mention each others main God but they will mention wars or supernova.

 

[George-ananda]

Meta analysis is complicated and has all sorts of issues with statistics as well as agenda driven bias.
This is what peer review is for. Nothing in science or history for example is accepted until it passes peer-review. So far the reviews on the analysis are negative.
More independant teams are needed to show accurate results.


Not really? I looked up the most famous ESP studies and people and studies funded by a large entity who was interested in getting results. If it worked they wanted to weaponize it. It didn't.
The results are negative. Besides Radin, who is one team, I don't know of any studies that favored ESP?
And as I have covered the peer-review has shown mistakes in Radin's work. So that is not proof. More teams need to work on these experiments.

Why don't you cherry pick the studies that actually produced positive results, were repeated by separate teams who also got the same results? Show me those. By saying I "cherry picked" you implied there was something I missed on the positive side.




That is not balance. First Radins peers have pointed out errors. So he had not demonstrated anything remarkable.
Radin's integrity is suspect as he backed known hoax mediums and may have presented faulty data on purpose? We don't know this as fact, maybe he made a mistake? But the errors have been pointed out.
So as a source of integrity Radin isn't the guy.
Next those Wiki articles are mostly just facts? When the remote viewing experiments were forced to be done in controlled settings they didn't work. It's believed trickery was being used when the performer was able to set up the time and place/
You can investigate any of these incidents with some effort? You are making assumptions that the articles must be written by militant skeptics and are admitting you really don't know?

I have followed trails and bought books and looked for 2nd opinions and actual stats. My bias is towards the truth.
I was glad to hear experiments on Kundalini energy demonstrated some amazing results. Dozens of other people also were and seemed to re-post the article.
However I had to due my proper part and looked up the doctor from Harvard who was involved. Long story short, there is no Harvard doc who did any study and this study in India never happened.
"The study was based on a similar study conducted by Jeffery A. Dusck at Harvard Medical School and published in Public Library of Science in July 2008."
SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF KUNDALINI ACTIVATION & ITS BENEFITS | Nithyananda Sangha's Official Web Site | Health, Wealth, Relationships, Excellence, Enlightenment, Yoga, Meditation

A statistics professor reviewed Radin's meta-analysis and sees flaws in the work:

"In his review of Radin's book for the journal Nature, statistics professor I.J. Good disputes this calculation, calling it "a gross overestimate." He estimates that the number of unpublished, unsuccessful reports needed to account for the results by the file drawer effect should be reduced to fifteen or less. How could two meta-analyses result in such a wide discrepancy? Somebody is doing something wrong, and in this case it is clearly Radin. He has not performed the file-drawer analysis correctly."

Science has to have consensus. He has to get some results then have multiple peers agree he is not making mistakes. ALL SCIENCE works this way.
When someone finds an error in a history paper you do not say "OH no, you must be a militant historicity skeptic.."? You fix it and find work that people can agree is correct. You do not invent a conspiracy theory to suggest you are still correct and the world is just holding you down?

My bias is towards the truth. As disappointing as it may be, bring it on. I want magic to be real just like every one else. But that doesn't make Bob Lazar any more truthful.

Radin is actually an expert in that type of statistical analysis of experimental results.

Here's an article from Jessica Utts a highly respected statistician from the University of California that was selected by the U.S. government to analyze the statistics. Here's a quick excerpt:

In the past, critics have attempted to discredit positive results in psychical research on grounds of lack of repeatability. But, as anyone with a training in statistics knows, even where an influence exists, an isolated experiment with an insufficient number of trials may not demonstrate a statistically significant effect. Accordingly, without a more sophisticated analysis, "failure to reproduce an effect" does not demonstrate its absence. Suppose, for example, psychic abilities, in line with the results already described, increase the chances of a successful match from 1/4 to 1/3. Then (according to the accepted statistical theories), an experiment with 30 trials, which has been typical of these experiments, would have less than a 17% chance of achieving a result of statistical significance. The more recent larger experiments still utilise only about 100 trials, and have only about a 57% chance of achieving statistical significance.

Detailed analysis of the complete collection of experiments on this type of phenomenon shows that what holds, despite changes in equipment, experimenter, subjects, judges, targets and laboratories, is far greater consistency with the 1 in 3 success rate already mentioned than with the 1 in 4 chance expectation rate. Such consistency is the hallmark of a genuine effect, and this, together with the very low probability of the overall success rate observed occurring by chance, argues strongly for the phenomena being real and not artifactual.

Reexamination of other types of psychical investigations reveals that they too achieved replicable effects, which went largely unappreciated because of a poor understanding of statistics.


However the bottom line in our discussion joelr, is that I have become convinced there is a certain confederated group of materialists (self-named 'skeptics') that wish to fight all paranormal evidence with no-holds-barred and a never-say-die attitude. My best honest objective opinion is strongly that people like Radin and Utts are way more interested in being fairer with the overall facts and evidence. The materialists' interest is in defending their philosophy of materialism to the death.

Those seriously interested in these subjects must judge for ourselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well we are at an impasse if you think the serious seers and myself are claiming these things out of some kind of desperation to bypass the demands of the materialists.

It certainly seems that way to me.

I am saying they are giving honest testimony to the best of their ability. They’re as honest as Joe in my book.

The mere fact that someone is sincere doesn't automatically mean that they aren't engaging in motivated reasoning.

The paranormal that science can’t address hits people in the nose showing the dramatic incompleteness of our scientific understanding regarding the things in this universe that are most important.

I suppose you can go with scientism and I’ll continue believing the evidence and experience after objective consideration Is that Vedic and Theosophical wisdom traditions are on the right track.

Here's the thing, though: science is nothing more than investigating evidence in a rigorous way, so when people say things like "I have evidence but not scientific evidence," we can recognize that what they're really saying is "the support for my claims doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny."

 

[cladking]

Evolution is about changes over time, hence it is biodiversity of populations.

It has nothing to do with with origin of first life.

Let there be life that changes and evolves according to the laws of survival of the fittest.

Let that life be visible only as to its type and not in and of itself as individuals.

And it was so.

 

[George-ananda]

It certainly seems that way to me.


The mere fact that someone is sincere doesn't automatically mean that they aren't engaging in motivated reasoning.

So many traditions, masters and seers all on the same page is what impresses me.

Here's the thing, though: science is nothing more than investigating evidence in a rigorous way, so when people say things like "I have evidence but not scientific evidence," we can recognize that what they're really saying is "the support for my claims doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny."

Again and again I say you require rigorous scientific physical proof of the 'beyond the physical' then you are fine to stick to scientism. As for me though, the evidence that this universe is something greater is out there (in paranormal/spiritual phenomena) and I am going to give serious consideration to the wisdom traditions built by those claiming direct insight into the 'beyond the physical'. They build an model with explanatory power for phenomena that seem to completely not fit in a physicalist/materialist worldview.

 

[leroy]

- a hallucination/trick of the eye, a lie or some type of trick like a hologram or person dressed as a ghost.
.

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,