Is Science the Search for Objective Truth in an Objective Reality

Your example of a ghost has a lot of assumptions and asks a lot of questions of the physical world. We may not know about ghosts but we do know about sight
1) The ghost in question must have been made of a material that was capable of reflecting light within the visible spectrum to be seen by the human eye.
2) This implies that it could be detected by cameras and it's material structure investigated in terms of atoms, electromagnetic forces etc.
3) If you are claiming your ghost was not reflecting light but generating it then again that follows known physical principles of energy conservation etc.However you look at it either you are proposing that there is a whole array of physics regards the possible behaviour of photons or that the ghost in question must have at some point acted in a way that is directly scientifically observable.To just call it "supernatural" means nothing really.

Predictive as compared to........reality?Superior predictive power has no meaning without reference to the objective reality it is predicting against?Does it?

Predictive as compared to what we wind up observing and experiencing. Why does it need meaning? Predictive power would seem to be pretty useful in it's own right.

I'm saying that it acted in a way that is directly scientifically observable, by relfecting or emitting photons of light, but that at a later point in time it no longer relects/emits light, so a person could see a ghost an then bust out there camera right after the ghost 'disappears' and take a picture of nothing even thought the ghost might still be right in front of them.Its like entering and exiting a physical realm, whereby supernatural entities could exist but not always be detectable.Or, on top of that, it were really talking about 'supernatural' then they could possess properties where the light they use is detectable by human eyes but not cameras. They don't really have to be limited to our natural laws if they aren't limited to them by definition of being super-natural.

After calling the matrix thing a red herring I would like to contradict myself and go back to it (sorry!)Surely the ultimate aim of science within the matrix bound universe would be to discover all the laws of the matrix AND the root cause of all these laws. I.e. the matrix itself (whether practically possible or not)
The ultimate aim science would then be to understand the laws of the universe in which the matrix itself exists.This could go on ad infinitum in theory but eventually there would have to be an objective reality in which all of it exists and to which there may or may not be a root cause.My point remains that in the widest possible context science necessarily assumes the existence of an objective reality. Without that there is no basis for science.

So you videotape it. Science can deal with events that are sporadic. Impossible, since eyes and cameras work the same way. (How do you think we invented cameras?)

I still disagree.It doesn't matter what is really real and what isn't, as long as the prediction hold true, science will function and be useful and 'have a basis'. See, I don't think science would ever discover that it was in the matrix or that there was anything outside of what it was experiencing within the matrix. Its the way science is set up to be depending on previous observations and limiting itself to what is observable that would prevent if from discovering the objetive reality of being constrained by the matrix. I don't think so, it would stop at being 'within the matrix' and all the laws would be based on those of the matrix and not whats outside of it. I don't really see why the objective reality is actually neccessary.

I did not mean meaning in the "meaning of life sort of way"Predictive power is useful in it's own right but what is it that makes Einsteins GTR a better predictive model than Newtons theory of gravitation for example? Why are it's predictions more accurate?Proximity to the truth of objective reality is the only explanation? Do you have another?Is it conceivable that there could be a theory that could predict every gravitational interraction completely accurately? Would this be a perfect model or a "true" theory? is there a difference?

I don't think its impossible, especially when supernatural, by definition, isn't constrained by natural laws.

I think you have very narrow view of what science is.Why do we study the beginnings of the universe? The beginings of life? The nature of cosciousness?
Simply to make useful predictions? No.
These are deep scientific questions which we may may not provide any predictive power at all. We may never know the answers to these questions .
But that won't stop us asking.
Science is ultimately driven by human desire for knowledge not just predictive power (useful a tool as that may undeniably be).Whether in a matrix or not the ultimate aim of science, whether achievable or not is, understanding not prediction.Prediction is a useful tool for testing the accuracy of your theories and a boon to technology but not the ultimate aim of science.

this is the problem.Photons, energy etc. are physical phenomenon. You cannot sweep aside all we know about them to claim that "supernatural" phenomenon use them in some ways but not others as they see fit.Eyes detect light. So do cameras. If the eyes can detect ghosts but not cameras then it is not "seeing" in any physical sense and is not due to light. This implies the vision has more to do with something internal to the brain than anything physical. In short the subject is imagining it.

Well don't let my posts convince you of what views I actually have. Maybe you should have said I am using a narrow view of science instead of having one. But anyways.... There is a difference between theoretical science and applied science. That depends on wht you are trying to acheive by employing science. That is too broad of a statement, sometimes prediction is more important than understanding. I'd say that you are correct that the ultimate aim is a more theoretical one. But still, does it really require an objective reality to have a basis? From a more theoretical standpoint it seems like it does, from the predictive standpoint it doesn't.

That really depends on how strong your supernatural powers are.Lets drop this though, its off topic anyways and kindof a dumb discussion.

What do you mean by "objective reality"? What other kinds are there? If whatever we have behaves like an "objective reality", why bother with the difference?

We are almost at the point of splitting hairs.I would argue that without the theoretical foundation there would be no applied science. Without an understanding of the underlying theroetical principles there can be only limited prediction possible.We can predict how chemicals will interact because we have a theory of atoms. We can predict how satellites will orbit because we have a theoretical understanding of gravitation etc.Does engineering presume or require an objective reality? No probably not. Just a consistent one.However science in it's deepest form, the form that enables us to understand as well as predict does presume and require an objective reality to exist.