Supernatural and undiscovered means of detection

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.

Let's unravel this, shall we?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?

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".

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.

So where do we draw the line? EM waves outside of the visible range can not be directly observed, so is your radio collecting signals from the supernatural? Is an x-ray image supernatural?If something has a predictable effect on the natural world and is potentially describable through some sort of scientific law then I would include it as natural, not supernatural. As of the moment, dark matter appears to have predictable effects on the natural world (e.g. gravitational lensing, rotation of galaxies) and seems conducive to being described by scientific laws.