Supernatural and undiscovered means of detection

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.

Until a book is cataloged and shelved, it doesn't exist as part of the circulating collection. You have to make predictions about its contents and confirm those predictions before you can fit it into the rest of the collection.Ghosts don't exist as part of our body of scientific knowledge until they can be fitted into the general framework.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

These two claims seem inconsistent. If we can prove they exist then we can detect them. "Hard" is an exaggeration. Hearing words in EVP is like seeing faces in clouds.And if it is real, why should it be evidence of ghosts in particular? Maybe it's people from the future trying to perfect their transtime communicator ... or bits of the cosmos spontaneously becoming conscious through [make up something involving the word "quantum" and insert here] ... or leakage from a parallel universe ... or Carl Sagan's invisible dragon trying to let us know that it does exist after all ... or the same race of mischievous pixies that puts all those pictures in clouds. Just because for some reason believers in ghosts are particularly interested in listening to this aural goop doesn't mean that it is particularly likely to be in fact produced by ghosts.

Not at all. Your argument seems to be that we should find things that are outside of the scientific method. I am saying that using the scientific method we have found no evidence of the supernatural. 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?The belief in ghosts is like the belief in creation science. People that believe in both take the existence of both as a fact then try to shoehorn the evidence to fit. Why is it ghosts? How about aliens, sprites, gnomes. leprechauns or any other supernatural entity? Non sequitor. Can you show me any evidence of the suprnatural or not? Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying ghosts would not be supernatural? 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. 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.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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.

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 don't see anything in the OP that remotely resembles that.Edited by ringo, : Speling.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

It seems you haven't even read the OP.Try reading it then try producing a post that actually deals with it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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.

Ghosts are a concept with no scientific predictions or evidence. Correct?The concept exists without any evidence. The concept of quarks exists with evidence.Are you agreeing with my friend that we just may have not found a means of detection that will prove ghosts exist? In no way am I saying that. I am saying that unless there is evidence there is no need to believe or consider.Someone once said that one should not be so open minded that their brain falls out.I think you are making lots of assumptions of me and the OP. Just because you infer something does not mean that it was implied.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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".

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.*add* I agree there would be a millionaire somewhere if they could show evidence that verified the existance of the supernatural at Dr. Randi site. Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

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.