Supernatural and undiscovered means of detection

Message 16 of 47 (609459) 03-20-2011 2:22 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by ringo 03-20-2011 11:20 AM

Continuing with your book analogy, think of all those books that existed over the centuries that never got catalogued and possibly lost for ever.

Skepticism isn't about saying no to everything. That's republicanism, not skepticism. Scientific skepticism isn't about sitting on your high horse passing judgement whether something exists or not and labeling things "supernatural" if you don't like it. The standards are much higher than that.

I'm not saying you can't just use the logic "supernatural doesn't exist, ghosts are supernatural, therefore ghosts don't exist". Just don't pretend like you're speaking for the scientific community or the skeptics. Call it modernism or post-modernism or whatever. I don't care.

Message 17 of 47 (609469) 03-20-2011 3:24 PM

Reply to: Message 16 by Taz 03-20-2011 2:22 PM

Ghosts don't exist as part of our body of scientific knowledge until they can be fitted into the general framework.

Message 18 of 47 (609552) 03-21-2011 12:01 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric 03-18-2011 9:47 AM

These two claims seem inconsistent. If we can prove they exist then we can detect them.

"Hard" is an exaggeration. Hearing words in EVP is like seeing faces in clouds.

And if it is real, why should it be evidence of ghosts in particular? Maybe it's people from the future trying to perfect their transtime communicator ... or bits of the cosmos spontaneously becoming conscious through [make up something involving the word "quantum" and insert here] ... or leakage from a parallel universe ... or Carl Sagan's invisible dragon trying to let us know that it does exist after all ... or the same race of mischievous pixies that puts all those pictures in clouds. Just because for some reason believers in ghosts are particularly interested in listening to this aural goop doesn't mean that it is particularly likely to be in fact produced by ghosts.

Message 19 of 47 (609590) 03-21-2011 2:58 PM

Reply to: Message 14 by Taz 03-20-2011 2:44 AM

The belief in ghosts is like the belief in creation science. People that believe in both take the existence of both as a fact then try to shoehorn the evidence to fit. Why is it ghosts? How about aliens, sprites, gnomes. leprechauns or any other supernatural entity?

Message 20 of 47 (609613) 03-21-2011 5:07 PM

Reply to: Message 11 by Taz 03-19-2011 12:40 AM

However, we can both accept the possibility of ghosts while pointing to the lack of evidence for the reality of ghosts. Skepticism deals with claims made about reality, not possibility.

The lack of prediction does not evidence that something is real, either. Positive claims require positive evidence. Until such evidence is given there is no reason to accept something as real. This is NOT the same as rejecting the idea outright.

Message 21 of 47 (609643) 03-21-2011 9:13 PM

Reply to: Message 19 by Theodoric 03-21-2011 2:58 PM

Just because I am being skeptical of the skeptics doesn't mean I believe in fairy tales. I've only been merely pointing out that if you're going to discuss about ghosts or other nonsense at least don't help propagate the misconception that skeptics say no to everything.

For decades, James Randi have tried to explain this to people, that skeptics don't just say no to everything. What skeptics do is insist on examining the evidence before making any decision.

The OP made it clear that since ghosts aren't predicted by science then therefore they can't possibly exist. This is about the worst way at approaching this issue.

Message 23 of 47 (609650) 03-21-2011 10:09 PM

Reply to: Message 21 by Taz 03-21-2011 9:13 PM

Edited by ringo, : Speling.

Message 24 of 47 (609654) 03-21-2011 10:37 PM

Reply to: Message 21 by Taz 03-21-2011 9:13 PM

Try reading it then try producing a post that actually deals with it.

Message 25 of 47 (609661) 03-22-2011 1:28 AM

Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric 03-21-2011 10:37 PM

quote:

---

I have tried to explain that a basic difference here is that quarks are something that science predicted and then were later explained in a more concrete manner. For ghosts there are no scientific predictions.

---

It's pretty clear to me. You're trying to disprove your friend by saying there are no scientific predictions. And it's clear from later posts that you're trying to conclude they don't exist.

Again, in no way am I saying ghosts exist. What I am saying is that by saying such thing to your friend you're only propagating the misconception that skeptics say no to everything. Please understand that as a skeptic I have to deal with this misconception everyday.

Message 26 of 47 (609679) 03-22-2011 9:21 AM

Reply to: Message 25 by Taz 03-22-2011 1:28 AM

The concept exists without any evidence. The concept of quarks exists with evidence.

Are you agreeing with my friend that we just may have not found a means of detection that will prove ghosts exist?

Someone once said that one should not be so open minded that their brain falls out.

I think you are making lots of assumptions of me and the OP. Just because you infer something does not mean that it was implied.

Message 27 of 47 (609690) 03-22-2011 11:36 AM

Reply to: Message 22 by Taz 03-21-2011 9:16 PM

In a previous post you wrote:

"The point is just because something wasn't predicted by conventional science doesn't mean it can't exist."

Fair enough. I responded that not being predicted does not make it real either. You still need to show that something exists in order to conclude that it exists. Simply saying that something could be real, even if not predicted by current theories, does not make it real.

What fallacy am I committing here?

Message 28 of 47 (609692) 03-22-2011 11:41 AM

Reply to: Message 25 by Taz 03-22-2011 1:28 AM

The problem is that no evidence would disprove the existence of ghosts due to the fact that no predictions can be made about the phenomenon. No matter what happens someone will still say "'But ghosts could still be real".

Message 29 of 47 (609727) 03-22-2011 4:52 PM

Reply to: Message 27 by Taq 03-22-2011 11:36 AM

*add* I agree there would be a millionaire somewhere if they could show evidence that verified the existance of the supernatural at Dr. Randi site.

Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

Message 30 of 47 (609728) 03-22-2011 5:04 PM

Reply to: Message 29 by 1.61803 03-22-2011 4:52 PM

That is not my argument. Taz originally stated, "The point is just because something wasn't predicted by conventional science doesn't mean it can't exist." I added the additional statement that a lack of a prediction does not mean it necessarily exists, either. I went on to say that positive claims require positive evidence to further clarify my statement. IOW, I was pointing out that ignorance neither confirms nor disconfirms the existence of something.