You are completely wrong about that. Competent scientific reasearch HAS proved the existence of a few “supernatural” phenomena. Of course, the instant they were proved, they ceased to be supernatural, and instantly became normal, everyday scientific phenomena.
Consider meteorites. At one time they were thought of as being supernatural. Some people thought of them as Godly wrath. Many scientists dismissed them as a delusion. Antoine Lavoisier (one of the greatest figures in scientific history) famously declared that “Stones cannot fall from the sky, because there ARE no stones in the sky.” He investigated a particular sighting of a meteorite fall, tested the rock itself and concluded that it was an ordinary Earth rock that had been struck by lightning. Other scientists thought that meteorites were rocks that had been thrown into the air by volcanoes here on Earth. Some people who claimed to have actually seen meteorites fall were dismissed as cranks, liars, woos, etc.
I have no doubt that if you’d been around at the time, you’d have sneered at the idea of meteorites, you’d have called it woo, declared yourself superior to anyone who considers them. Suppose there had been a SDMB at the time, there might have been someone posting a thread, asking how we could test scientifically for the existence of meteorites. And you’d have been there, shitting over the thread, with your statements that it’s already been tested, and proved to be a delusion, how it’s woo, and woo is always false. You’d have just got in the way of sensible, intelligent discussion of how to perform such a test.
The topic is ghosts, not meteorites-please don’t change the subject. Thorough investigation by the JREF and many others over many years have come up with NO scientific evidence that supports the existence of ghosts.
The subject is how to perform a scientific test of a paranormal claim. And the point is that your type of comments never help the question. Instead of actually answering the question you threadshit.
This is specious and it actually represents an example of debunking woo, not confirming it. An observed phenomeon was shown to have a natural explanation, not a magical one, just like always with woo.
ETA, the existence of meteorites was not in question, only their origin. We had tangible, physical objects that did not yet have an explanation. With ghosts, we don’t even have that much. People start with the magical conclusion and then try to look for physical evidence. The ghost hypothesis is an explanation without a phenomenon.
If ghosts exist, they have a natural explanation. If scientists prove their existence, you will be saying the same thing. You would then claim that i8t’s an observed phenomenon shown to have a natural explanation, and therefore isn’t woo after all.
What do you mean by “ghost,” and what would constitute their “existence?” What observed phenomenon would they explain, because so far there IS no observed phenomenon. Rocks from the sky were a real phenomenon. We have no equivalent for “ghosts.” There is nothing to examine or explain. You actually need a question first before you posit an answer.
ETA I’m not interested in the pedantic, semantic arguments over the usefulness of words like “supernatural” and “paranormal.” We all know what we mean. If a “ghost” is defined as any kind of surviving, individual consciousness or personality after death, then we have never seen evidence for any such thing and there is no way to test for it.
Way back then, some people claimed to have seen rocks fall from the sky. Their claims were usually dismissed as delusions or lies. It was not a case of disputing where meteorites came from, it was a case of disputing that they existed at all. Lavoisier investigated a meteorite, and concluded that ithad not fallen from the sky at all, it had always been there, right where it was found.
Ask Robert A Baker and Joe Nickell: Ghosts certainly do exist.
Not in the sense of ‘orbs’ on camera shots, whispy shapes on tape, moving chairs & curtains, or other such ghost hunter nonsense, but rather ghosts do exist in the minds of many, many people who have a minor mental issue of one kind or another.
For fun, read “Missing Pieces” by those two. What is interesting is that in many cases the ‘ghosts’ were exorcised more often with theater than with explanations. I think that was the book where he described ‘ghostbusting’ where Baker used strobe light and loud music to cover the fact that he was caulking a large gap that was the source of ‘cold spots’ and poltergeist activity.
I believe the topic is how to perform a scientific test of a particular paranormal claim in such a way as to put future claims to rest. I think meteorites are off-topic in a thread about haunted houses, but even if you don’t I would appreciate it if you would take your personal attacks on me to The BBQ Pit.
There are all sorts of things that would count as ghosts if they existed.
Just for instance, some people have claimed that certain locations have the ability to capture images from the past, and replay them like a videotape. I would call that a ghost. There have been many ghost stories based upon the concept. The authors call it a ghost. The readers agree it’s a ghost.
I suppose that if such a thing were proved to exist, you would say that it isn’t a ghost, but just a recording, and the authors of ghost stories are all wrong to call it such.
Yes. And it would help if you left the thread to people capable of answering the question. Instead of which you declare that there’s no point in testing because you already know it doesn’t exist. And you continue to shit all over people trying to actually answer the question.
I’m with Peter Morris on this one. No such thing as supernatural. All things are natural.
In the large view the Wright brothers shouldn’t have even bothered because it had already been proven time and again for millenia that man would never be able to fly around the world. Or to the moon!
I’d say a scientific mind is always one step ahead of the impossible. Has anyone read Michio Kaku’s Physics of the Impossible? Parallel universes? Invisibility? Let’s have a good laugh at his expense.
The possibilities are endless to those who keep an open mind. Once we close the door, all answers exposed and certain, the scientific method is dead.
Imagination, that weird, elusive rascal, is the parent of discovery.
Imagination, divorced from reason and science, and freely associating with ignorance, brings forth the bastard children Superstition, Mythology and Woo.
OK. But that does not mean that every unexplained phenom has to have a new explanation when the ones we have in place are perfectly acceptable to explain the evidence given.
Not accurate. Despite the modern mythology of claiming science said ‘Man will Never Fly’ in the era of the Wrights the fact was that many people were accepting powered, controlled flight as a possibility if not a probability.
The meteorites analogy fits.
Before there was a large meteorite shower, carefully studied, the phenomenon was mocked. And not just to say “there are stones of indeterminate origin, but they aren’t from outer space”, the line was actually “there are no stones of indeterminate origin”.
And I think his other point stands up fine too. The fact that some people define ghosts as being supernatural is of no consequence. Some would have defined meteorites as supernatural, it didn’t stop us studying them (the meteorites).
I think really the response to followers of woo should be “Hauntings / ghost sightings / seances have been studied extensively for centuries. In all this time no data suggestive of a new phenomenon has been found, let alone convincing evidence”.
The response should not be “It is impossible for us to ever confirm this phenomenon” because that makes skeptics sound closed-minded.
How about “Since the totality of investigation so far has brought forth nothing of substance, we are not going to waste precious time continuing to investigate-however, if something of substance is ever brought forth we should investigate that”?
