Supernatural and undiscovered means of detection

I'll be frank. Speaking as a skeptic, I have to accept the possibility of the existence of ghosts. Your 'excuse' about quarks is unfounded. Not every discovery made by science is previously predicted. In fact, many discoveries go unnoticed until they were needed. Take anti-biotics, for example. It was discovered by accident and lightly tossed aside. Some 20 years later, people had to look for a way to fight bacterial infections because soldiers were dying left and right in the trenches of WW1. Someone discovered the notes from the biologist years before and made use of it.The point is just because something wasn't predicted by conventional science doesn't mean it can't exist.Personally, I think your friend is a loon. But by denying outright the existence of ghosts for absolutely no valid reason, you are little better than the loons you're trying to disprove.

Ok, let me get this straight. Are you saying that anything that has never been previously predicted by mainstream science cannot possibly exist? (1) If we truly follow this statement of yours, science would never make any progress whatsoever. One of the strongest basis of science is that it allows for things we haven't thought of or haven't discovered yet to exist.(2) It seems to be a popular thing nowadays to label something as supernatural or label someone as a conspiracy theorist in order to discredit them.(3) Do you have anything to say at all beside "it's supernatural, therefore it must not exist"? Do you see the problem here? First, you assume that anything that is supernatural must not exist. Then you assume that ghosts are supernatural. Do you see a problem with your conclusion here? And what would this pseudoskeptic argument be? I'm vastly interested to know.You, sir, are the reason why so many people misunderstand science and it's skeptical nature.

And in no way am I saying science should accept the existence of ghosts or the supernatural. What I am saying is that just because something hasn't been catalogued into the library doesn't mean it doesn't exist.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.

I have said no such thing. I'm beginning to feel like I'm in the twilight zone here. Either I deny completely the possibility of the existence of ghosts without a second thought or I believe fully in ghosts? This does not sound at all what the OP said. And my responses have so far been to the OP. But that's not my point, is it? I'm saying the OP made a conclusion out of 2 assumptions. Again, this sounds nothing like the OP. Again, this sounds nothing like the OP.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.

You know, for years we (the evilutionists) have been accusing the creationists at consistently using logical fallacies. You do realize that you just committed one of the most commonly used fallacies by creationists, yes? You know, the one that goes "either... or..."

I know the op didn't specifically say that. But it did specifically imply it.

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.