Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[leroy]

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

There is something really wrong in the mind of new atheists

 

[ppp]

There is something really wrong in the mind of new atheists

Don't sell yourself short. I am sure if you work at it, and try really hard, before long you will be able to rub three neurons together.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

How would a camera test a ghost claim? What you are really saying is if the camera captures some image then we can accept that it is the image of a ghost. Why would we accept that? What about your test eliminates other explanations?

Your tests are not tests of what you claim them to be tests of.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

You could establish that you had evidence for something, but you fail to demonstrate that it would be evidence of what you want it to be--a ghost. You are just saying ghost as if you are the test.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

It does not even have to be a logical conclusion. It could be ghosts, for instance, as we are seeing here.

 

[leroy]

How would a camera test a ghost claim? What you are really saying is if the camera captures some image then we can accept that it is the image of a ghost. Why would we accept that? What about your test eliminates other explanations?

Your tests are not tests of what you claim them to be tests of.

Well then before placing the camera one should “define ghost” and the see if the image corresponds to our expectation

 

[ppp]

Well then before placing the camera one should “define ghost” and the see if the image corresponds to our expectation

You are back with your position that things that don't make sense to you are supernatural.

 

[leroy]

You are back with your position that things that don't make sense to you are supernatural.

Well then don’t label them as “supernatural” if you don’t what to……………the fact is that one can use a camera to test whether if there is the nebulous image of a dead person that can walk through walls and say BOOOO

Whether if you what to label it as supernatural ghost or give it another name is irrelevant

 

[ppp]

Well then don’t label them as “supernatural” if you don’t what to……………the fact is that one can use a camera to test whether if there is the nebulous image of a dead person that can walk through walls and say BOOOO

Whether if you what to label it as supernatural ghost or give it another name is irrelevant

The topic is, "Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?" Which means that the supernatural label is entirely relevant.

If you are switching to "Can the scientific method be applied to study natural phenomenon?" then your claim is trivial and uninteresting.

 

[leroy]

The topic is, "Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?" Which means that the supernatural label is entirely relevant.

If you are switching to "Can the scientific method be applied to study natural phenomenon?" then your claim is trivial and uninteresting.

Well obviously if you don’t what to define nor accept any definition for “supernatural” then the answer for the OP would be NO

But the same can be said if the topic would have been “can the scientific method can be used to study chairs, or tables, or dogs etc.” if you don’t define Dog, and you don’t what to accept any definition for “Dog” then obviously the answer would be “NO” the scientific method can’t be used to study Dogs.


but once you define Dog or Gohst........you can always put some cameras to test for their existance

 

[ppp]

Well obviously if you don’t what to define nor accept any definition for “supernatural” then the answer for the OP would be NO

You havent defined supernatural.

 

[joelr]

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:


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.

Utts is saying there might be something there and more research is needed.
I agree.
I'm not so sure about Radin. I just watched a video where he was suggesting all the religious characters could have been people with supernatural abilities. While ESP might be real it's basically certain that creating fish and bread out of thin air and parting seas are not stories of ESP but are myths taken from older myths and are inspired by imagination rather than someone with Jean Grey abilities. I'm sure Radin is genuine to some degree but I suspect he's also pandering a bit to the new age crowd.
Notice he's not saying Greek mythic characters are in that group, just things still worshiped today. Did Lord of the Rings take inspiration from supernatural people? No and odds are it's the same for all myths.
Why would someone as smart as Radin support cold reading (a known manipulative skillset) as something real unless he was trying to widen his audience? Which is sketchy.

Like I said there isn't room for middle ground. I also suspect most of the skeptics you mention are doing the same. They want to get sales, hits or likes and you have to sell to your audience. Full skeptic or full new age.
I don't trust skeptics either. But if they make a case and use evidence that can be looked at then great.
The only good thing about skeptic material is when they provide good evidence. Like a recent debunking of the Lazar ufo documentary.
They demonstrated 3 lies that could be verified.

This is exactly why the rules in science are you cannot claim any breakthrough until multiple teams have confirmed the results. People would be claiming all sorts of things and writing books and cashing in on science that might not be true.
I get that Radin has to make a living and fund his work but there are many red flags raised by his behavior.

 

[joelr]

Sure, but multiple witnesses would disprove the hallucination hypothesis,


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,

Maybe.
But here is the thing, this is exactly what we have in the ufo field.
I just read the first 50 pages of Night Siege by Allen Hyneck about the 1980's Hudson Valley ufos. He is a well known researcher, scientist and worked on the original Blue Book for the military. He's known to be honest. The witness descriptions fit your list.
He found witnesses and gave their names, occupation, actual company they worked for and many sightings had multiple witnesses from different vantage points. The sightings are stunning in some cases.
The 50 pages can be read here:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Night_Siege/atWOL2IHoHsC?hl=en&gbpv=1

But this hasn't convinced the world? I'm even unsure what to make of it?
I just don't know.

Also how can you be sure that the hypothetical ghost sighting you describe wasn't an advanced hologram prank? Or a new type of plasma energy that travels in balls which we actually have scientific evidence for?
Hessdalen lights - Wikipedia

There is also video of ball lightning on youtube that looks very supernatural.

 

[leroy]

You havent defined supernatural.

An event that contradicts the laws of nature

 

[leroy]

Maybe.
But here is the thing, this is exactly what we have in the ufo field.
I just read the first 50 pages of Night Siege by Allen Hyneck about the 1980's Hudson Valley ufos. He is a well known researcher, scientist and worked on the original Blue Book for the military. He's known to be honest. The witness descriptions fit your list.
He found witnesses and gave their names, occupation, actual company they worked for and many sightings had multiple witnesses from different vantage points. The sightings are stunning in some cases.
The 50 pages can be read here:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Night_Siege/atWOL2IHoHsC?hl=en&gbpv=1

But this hasn't convinced the world? I'm even unsure what to make of it?
I just don't know.

Also how can you be sure that the hypothetical ghost sighting you describe wasn't an advanced hologram prank? Or a new type of plasma energy that travels in balls which we actually have scientific evidence for?
Hessdalen lights - Wikipedia

There is also video of ball lightning on youtube that looks very supernatural.

Sure and on the basis of testimony we can conclude that UFOs excist...... Certainly there are "unidentified flying objects" (or UFOs)...... It is just that nobody has proven that these are space ships tripulated by Aliens and as far as I know, we don't have good testimonies for Aliens tripulating UFOs

Sure the Gohst could be an hologram, but there are ways to test for the hologram theory too....

 

[ppp]

An event that contradicts the laws of nature

Such as?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

-establish that such a thing as The Scientific Method exists outside of pre-college and undergraduate textbooks and define it.

An event that contradicts the laws of nature

Which are? That is, what are the laws of nature that would or could be contradicted?

 

[joelr]

Sure and on the basis of testimony we can conclude that UFOs excist...... Certainly there are "unidentified flying objects" (or UFOs)...... It is just that nobody has proven that these are space ships tripulated by Aliens and as far as I know, we don't have good testimonies for Aliens tripulating UFOs

Sure the Gohst could be an hologram, but there are ways to test for the hologram theory too....

We don't have good testimony for any supernatural thing or aliens. If it's just testimony it would be hard to test for a hologram or a plasma after the fact.
The ghosts are in a similar boat to ufos. We can confirm people saw something but was it an actual spirit of a person once alive or entity from an afterlife dimension? That seems as hard as showing a ufo defying our laws of aviation to be actual alien.

 

[ppp]

-establish that such a thing as The Scientific Method exists outside of pre-college and undergraduate textbooks and define it.

Why? On what grounds do you question it?

 

[leroy]

Such as?

Walking through walls.

In response to the OP the answer r is yes you can test whether if someone can walk through doors or not,