Are ghosts real?

[Syne]

^No, any real progress in science relies on not accepting things that have not been reliably demonstrated to be true. It's never wrong or incomplete to wait for evidence before believing things, otherwise science would just be another word for religion or fantasy.

What's to wait for? There are probably thousands of photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts of ghosts and paranormal incidents all over the world. Why not go into the abandoned asylum or prison at 1 in the morning with the investigators and see for themselves if there is evidence? Maybe it's not worth science's time if the phenomenon doesn't repeat itself and is unpredictable. But if that's the nature of it, why not accept that and give it some time to manifest itself? It would certainly transform science as we know it if the paranormal turned out to be real.

Again, like your previously demonstrated ignorance about the null hypothesis, you repeatedly illustrate your complete ignorance of what constitutes evidence in science. Even law enforcement knows that eye witness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence, as shown by all the people convicted by such testimony later exonerated by DNA evidence. Photos and videos can be poor quality, manipulated, and offer no evidence of the actual nature of the images captured.

Only crackpots and grifters have the time to just go stakeout haunts in the hope that something may randomly happen while they're there. But tell you what, if you fund my travel, food, and stay at any supposed haunted location of your choosing, I'll make as much time for it as you've got money. Just for you, buddy.

Oh wait, it always seems to be people who can't afford to fund any actual scientific investigation who whine about what others should be doing with their own time, money, and funding (usually granted for other, specific purposes). Why don't you start a GoFundMe or a Kickstarter? If you want others to be proactive, lead by example.

It would certainly transform forums such as this if people ever accepted that the paranormal is nonsense. But those people don't believe there's anything that could prove them wrong...hence their problems comprehending the null hypothesis and scientific evidence.

[Magical Realist]

Again, like your previously demonstrated ignorance about the null hypothesis, you repeatedly illustrate your complete ignorance of what constitutes evidence in science.

And here we go with the insults and adhoms, demonstrating your total inability to carry on a civil discussion. Snip remaining lame excuses not to research the paranormal.

[Syne]

Again, like your previously demonstrated ignorance about the null hypothesis, you repeatedly illustrate your complete ignorance of what constitutes evidence in science.

And here we go with the insults and adhoms, demonstrating your total inability to carry on a civil discussion. Snip remaining lame excuses not to research the paranormal.

Since you've repeatedly demonstrated said ignorance, it's not an ad hominem, it's well-established fact. Don't like it? Quit repeating such uneducated garbage. And no one is fooled by your usual ploy to get out of discussions that aren't going your way. Regardless of how civil, you always find something to take offense at as an excuse to quit the conversation. We all know you can't refute my post, which is the only reason you're whining about ad hominems.

[confused2]

A brief comparison of The Scientific (S+) method and the Synetific (S-) method.

While a Wikipedia article may not be the greatest source of enlightenment I am assuming it was written by people with at least some education.

So from Wikipedia 'Scientific method'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method is of necessity also an expression of an opposition to claims that e.g. revelation, political or religious dogma, appeals to tradition, commonly held beliefs, common sense, or, importantly, currently held theories, are the only possible means of demonstrating truth.

The S- method is practically the opposite of the S+ method - relying on revelation etc etc to reach the conclusion that, for example, ghosts are not real.

Both methods involve a hypothesis - S+ starts by assuming the hypothesis is correct and seeks to demonstrate this whereas S- assumes the hypothesis is false and places the burden on the S+ method to contradict the result derived from (say) religious dogma.

Both methods have the stated intention that (ultimately) we should be better able to distinguish between fact and fiction.

The technology to prove ghosts are or are not real would likely be very similar to the technology that would, once and for all, show that god does or does not exist.

Possibly to be continued - probably not.

[C C]

[...] While a Wikipedia article may not be the greatest source of enlightenment I am assuming it was written by people with at least some education.

So from Wikipedia 'Scientific method'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method is of necessity also an expression of an opposition to claims that e.g. revelation, political or religious dogma, appeals to tradition, commonly held beliefs, common sense, or, importantly, currently held theories, are the only possible means of demonstrating truth.

[...]

Richard Lewontin: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot [or demons, ghosts, etc] in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." --Billions and Billions of Demons, NY Times Book Reviews, January 9, 1997

Immanuel Kant (1783): Natural science [...does not...] require this for its physical explanations. Nay, even if such grounds should be offered from other sources (for instance, the influence of immaterial beings), they must be rejected and not used in the progress of its explanations. --Prolegomena To Any Future Metaphysics

[Syne]

A brief comparison of The Scientific (S+) method and the Synetific (S-) method.

And right there you've already proven you don't understand the scientific method.

So from Wikipedia 'Scientific method'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method is of necessity also an expression of an opposition to claims that e.g. revelation, political or religious dogma, appeals to tradition, commonly held beliefs, common sense, or, importantly, currently held theories, are the only possible means of demonstrating truth.

Absolutely. Believing in things based on poor quality pictures, video, and eyewitness accounts is, at best, "common sense", and at worst, a pseudo-revelation that you somehow "know" the origin of such things without any concrete, testable evidence.

The S- method is practically the opposite of the S+ method - relying on revelation etc etc to reach the conclusion that, for example, ghosts are not real.

If you think you've read that into anything I've said, you're just illiterate. More likely, you're just a troll, lying because you can't quote anything I've said to support your nonsense.

Both methods involve a hypothesis - S+ starts by assuming the hypothesis is correct and seeks to demonstrate this whereas S- assumes the hypothesis is false and places the burden on the S+ method to contradict the result derived from (say) religious dogma.

And again, you prove that you don't comprehend the scientific method at all. Science assumes a hypothesis, knowing it needs to be tested to be accepted. Until it is tested and accepted, only the null hypothesis is accepted. Otherwise, science would be assuming every crackpot theory out there, which quite obviously is not the case. The null hypothesis has nothing to do with religion. It's based solely on previously demonstrated facts, already accepted by science. So how you're shoehorning religion in is anyone's guess.

The technology to prove ghosts are or are not real would likely be very similar to the technology that would, once and for all, show that god does or does not exist.

No, because most religious people do not make claims that god does things that can be independently observed from the goings on of the natural world (like EVP, apparitions, EM, and other ghost hunter claims). And any who do are being logically inconsistent, as a god who created the natural world would never need means other than those indistinguishable from nature. Otherwise such a god would be negating its own creation.

[confused2]

.. a god who created the natural world would never need means other than those indistinguishable from nature.

I think we are starting to understand each other better. When we lived in the forest the forest would have been alive with the same natural spirit(s). We may be programmed to 'hear' and respond to the spirit(s) of the forest. In the absence of the forest the dark places where the tigers hunted become the haunted places of the 21st century. Churches have replaced the safe places in the forest where there are enough people around for people to feel safe.

You can take the child out of the forest but you can't take the forest out of the child.

[Syne]

^ Quit being a troll, moron.

[confused2]

^ Quit being a troll, moron.

[to Leigha]Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I think there's a decent guy hiding in there but he hasn't been seen for a while.

How do you want to play?

[Syne]

^Well, I'd love to play with people who had an ounce of intellectual honesty, so that leaves you right out.