Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,448 Year: 6,705/9,624 Month: 45/238 Week: 45/22 Day: 12/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supernatural and undiscovered means of detection
Taq
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 20 of 47 (609613)
03-21-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
03-19-2011 12:40 AM


Speaking as a skeptic, I have to accept the possibility of the existence of ghosts.
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 point is just because something wasn't predicted by conventional science doesn't mean it can't exist.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 03-19-2011 12:40 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 03-21-2011 9:16 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 27 of 47 (609690)
03-22-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taz
03-21-2011 9:16 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 03-21-2011 9:16 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by 1.61803, posted 03-22-2011 4:52 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 28 of 47 (609692)
03-22-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taz
03-22-2011 1:28 AM


Re: Try reading the OP
You're trying to disprove your friend by saying there are no scientific predictions.
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 03-22-2011 1:28 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 30 of 47 (609728)
03-22-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by 1.61803
03-22-2011 4:52 PM


Confusion of the inverse.
Because science does not predict X, therefore X could exist.
X exist because science does not predict X does not exist.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by 1.61803, posted 03-22-2011 4:52 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by 1.61803, posted 03-22-2011 5:16 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 38 of 47 (609819)
03-23-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by GDR
03-22-2011 6:38 PM


Re: Is This Where the Supernatural Is?
IF this is true, then there is a whole universe out there that currently we are unable to perceive. Could that be construed as a supernatural universe?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 03-22-2011 6:38 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by GDR, posted 03-23-2011 1:55 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2011 8:09 PM Taq 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