Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,422 Year: 6,679/9,624 Month: 19/238 Week: 19/22 Day: 1/9 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supernatural and undiscovered means of detection
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 47 (609397)
03-19-2011 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric
03-18-2011 9:47 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2011 9:47 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by pfrankinstein, posted 03-19-2011 9:20 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 13 by Theodoric, posted 03-19-2011 8:50 PM Taz has replied
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 5:07 PM Taz has replied
 Message 35 by DominionSeraph, posted 03-23-2011 1:34 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 47 (609432)
03-20-2011 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Theodoric
03-19-2011 8:50 PM


You miss a huge point. There was a scientific concept of medicine and the development of new medications. The discovery of anti-biotics was based on previous scientific knowledge.
Ok, let me get this straight. Are you saying that anything that has never been previously predicted by mainstream science cannot possibly exist?
Show me any existing scientific knowledge that shows that anything supernatural exists.
(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?
You seem to be buying into the psuedoskeptic argument.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Theodoric, posted 03-19-2011 8:50 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 03-20-2011 11:20 AM Taz has replied
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 03-21-2011 2:58 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 47 (609459)
03-20-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
03-20-2011 11:20 AM


ringo writes:
A library allows for new books to be brought in but they aren't really a "part of" the library until we can predict where they will fit into the cataloging system.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 03-20-2011 11:20 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 03-20-2011 3:24 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 47 (609643)
03-21-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Theodoric
03-21-2011 2:58 PM


Theodoric writes:
Not at all. Your argument seems to be that we should find things that are outside of the scientific method.
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?
EVP, ghostly photos, and all other means of "ghost" detection ahve not stood up to scientific inquiry. When something does I then will consider the possibility, until then I have no reason to have a belief in ghosts. Why would it have to be ghosts?
This does not sound at all what the OP said. And my responses have so far been to the OP.
Non sequitor. Can you show me any evidence of the suprnatural or not?
But that's not my point, is it? I'm saying the OP made a conclusion out of 2 assumptions.
I did not say that. I said that until there is evidence there is no reason to even consider. Show me some evidence for ghosts and I will consider the concept.
Again, this sounds nothing like the OP.
Science should rely on evidence. I am skeptical until there is evidence. If there is no evidence I am not willing to consider a belief in the supernatural.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 03-21-2011 2:58 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 03-21-2011 10:09 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 03-21-2011 10:37 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 22 of 47 (609645)
03-21-2011 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Taq
03-21-2011 5:07 PM


Taq writes:
The lack of prediction does not evidence that something is real, either.
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..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 5:07 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 03-22-2011 11:36 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 25 of 47 (609661)
03-22-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric
03-21-2011 10:37 PM


Re: Try reading the OP
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 03-21-2011 10:37 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2011 9:21 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 03-22-2011 11:41 AM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024