[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There are only two explanations for meenie’s claims which conform to the known laws of physics: deception or delusion. The simple assumption that physically impossible hypotheses are physically impossible is not something that has to be proven. It is the rational default. If you can’t assume the impossible is impossible then you can’t do science. You can never prove anything wasn’t magic.
[/QUOTE]
The only reason you can claim the first sentence is true is because you put the word “known” in it - obviously, if Marcus and/or other ghosts were suddenly shown beyond doubt to be objectively real, the laws of physics would of course change.
As for the rest, the rational default is to not believe it. Which is not the same as knowing beyond all doubt that it’s false. And that garbage about not being able to do science unless you assume that your guesses about what’s impossible are right? Do you know what science is?
In real science, as opposed to the fallacy-riddled mess that is your position in this thread (I count false dillemma, ad hominem, and assuming the conclusion just at first glance), you don’t go around casually proving the negative. You refrain from believing the extraordinary claim, but the intellectually honest scientist always keeps a crack open, a recognition of the sliver of possibility that there might be something unseen until it’s actually proved false (which ghosts in general and Marcus in specific of course have not been). You then go through life ignoring that sliver until someone brings actual evidence, but the sliver of unlikely possibility nonetheless remains.
In real science, that is.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
As for testing, what reasonable test has been proposed? How are we even defining the word “ghost?” what test would distinguish a “ghost,” from say, an invisible goblin who’s lying and saying he’s a ghost?
[/QUOTE]
The dice tests so far are reasonable. And who gives a shit whether Marcus is technically a ghost or a goblin or an invisible troll or a trickster god? Science would rename the phenomenom themselves if they determined it was real. And can we say, ‘grasping at straws’, anyone?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Wrong. There are those that are logically inconsistent, or those that the claim makers refuse to produce any evidence to make such tests, or to permit reliable tests to be made. Scientists declare absurd, baseless claims to be impossible on a regular basis, or simply ignore them as not worth bothering with.
[/quote]
Conceded on the logically inconsistent, which is utterly irrelevent to the current issue. I already said that scienists regularly ignore claims that don’t back themselves up. But your claim that scientists declare the unproven to be impossible is a load of steaming shit. It’s becoming clear that you don’t have a clue how science works, and merely cite it where it appears to support your position like a somewhat educated creationist.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
There’s room for an immense amount of things; such as everything we know to exist, and much that’s only theoretically possible. And the alterations or extensions of the rules require evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Ghosts are theoretically possible (though entirely unsupported by evidence). And I wholly agree with your second sentence as well. Congratualtions, we agree!
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Ah, yes, I’m “dogmatic” for dismissing the wild claims of people who deny known physics with no evidence to support their claims. I’m not flatly denying such nonsense as ghosts because I’m dogmatic; I’m doing so because the known laws say it can’t happen, and the people who claim otherwise can’t or won’t produce any evidence.
[/QUOTE]
No, you’re dogmatic because you’re asserting a negative with no evidence to support your claims. You have presented not a speck of objective evidence proving that Marcus is either a lie or a delusion. And (again) you have a poor grasp of how physics and science are kept aligned with reality, so that part’s codswallop. And the lack of evidence is compelling reason not to believe, but it’s not a god-given writ of knowledge against. Come back when you can recognize the difference between those two concepts.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
There isn’t going to be “argument between reality and physics” over this sort of thing, because it isn’t real. Just as with religion, the believers have had thousands of years to produce evidence, and failed utterly. Why ? Because they are fools, lunatics, and liars.
[/QUOTE]
So pronounceth the prophet Der Trihs, lone seer of truth, prover of negatives, and all around infallible omitient prophet (which is the only way he can justify pulling these assertions out of his ass).
Or do you have positive proof that it’s not real? Absence of evidence actually isn’t evidence of absence, you know. And no matter how many you prove to be frauds it doesn’t prove there’s isn’t a real one somewhere - it just means the nobody should believe in them until they prove it.
At the moment, nobody’s proved anything. Not meenie7, not you. But of the two she’s not the one ranting like a demented young-earth creationist. So we don’t believe either of your claims, but at least we don’t think she’s acting like an ignorant dick.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
A silly statement. I don’t need to test every insane, evidence free claim that I come across to know that they are garbage. Not only do I have plenty of evidence that the world works in a way that forbids such phenomenon, but the people making those claims never provide the evidence for me to make a judgement on anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, to know they are garbage, you do have to prove it. Or do you have the same sloppy definition of the word “know” that all the theists who “know” that god is real do?
And yes, the people making those claims never provide the evidence for you to make a judgement on. That includes a firm judgement that they’re wrong. (Unless they try and fail, which meenie7 doesn’t seem to have gotten around to doing yet, or at least we can’t prove she has.) We don’t believe her claims because all testable claims for ghosts in the past tested false. Precedent counts. But it doesn’t preclude the possiblity that me might finally have a live one…not entirely anyway.
Now let’s see if I got past that faith-based certainty in your own god-given rightness… I won’t hold my breath, though.
)
