dsheinem wrote:
Ok, well I believe your stories because A) I find you to be credible and trust you and B) I know of the provable existence of those things you claim to have experienced. If you told me you saw a flying fire-breathing dildo monster I would not believe you because it doesn't meet condition B.
I assure you that I am a liar.
But now you're to the point of believing my stories because you trust me. I could lie to you just as easily about something that exists as I could something that does not exist, or something which may or may not exist. You still can't put any of my claims to any sort of scientific test. My claims are not observable, testable, or repeatable. Yet you apparently trust me. I don't see how this is enough for you to reach a positive conclusion in either case, if you claim to follow the scientific method.
Limewater wrote:Nothing in science is provable.
Now we are dealing in semantics. The scientific method is essentially a method of proving a hypothesis (e.g. genetic mutation occurs, nipple chafing is a phenomena of damaged skin, George Bush lives, dildos dont fly and breathe fire, etc.). This is what I mean by proof.
No, it's not just semantics. This is actually a pretty big deal, imo. Something a scientist believes to be observable is just kind of accepted by fiat. It's probably apparent at this point, but I'm not completely comfortable with this. However, it is generally accepted as a practical concern. This is extremely relevant to our discussion, but I can see it derailing everything else, so I'll shut up about it for now.
The scientific method does not prove hypotheses, though. The closest it come is failing to disprove a hypothesis. They do this enough times, and let enough cantankerous old people die off, and whatever the hypothesis was becomes generally accepted. I don't know how or why, but it seems like we place science and scientists up on a pedestal as models of objectivity.
Limewater wrote:I still don't see how you can make the claim that ghosts should leave behind evidence, or should allow for repeatable observation.
Because for a being to "exist" - which is what we are debating - it requires these conditions should be met.
What? I'm no expert, but as far as I know, this only holds if you subscribe to materialism. I'm guessing that this is true for you, based on most of what you've said. But I'm actually less interested in your philosophy and beliefs than your commitment to it in exclusion of all others, and rejection of the possibility that others are valid.
The last paragraph may not make any sense. I'm a bit short on time at the moment.
There are also instances where supernatural phenomena have been proven to be non-existent through the use of science.
Can you give an example or two of this? Are you just talking about sketchy ghost photos?
This next bit is not directed at Limewater or anyone in particular, it is just a general observation that I'll use to clarify why I am engaging in this debate:
The problem, for me, is that the people who believe in ghosts, angels, etc. are often (not always) the same people advocating that my kid needs to be taught intelligent design along with evolution, advocating for more religious influence in government, and advocating that we ignore "bogus" scientific warnings about things like climate change or food safety research.
Really? This is your reason for engaging in this discussion? I can see the connection with angels, but I'm not so sure about the ghost bit. I could be wrong on this, and I don't mean to get personal, but I think that people tend to think that others who are ideologically aligned with them are generally smarter, more objective, et cetera.
Ignorance may be bliss for them, but their insistence of ignorance for all causes real material problems. So believing in ghosts is not "fine" - our "personal beliefs" often carry with them political consequences that we can't just choose to ignore in the name of "let's all get along."
Do you really think there is a causal relationship here? Do you think that believing in ghosts will directly affect how someone votes? Do you have observable, repeatable, falsifiable science to back this belief?
I do not see on what basis you can call belief in ghosts "ignorance." If one were to be purely logical, he could not reach a conclusion either way on the existence of ghosts.
Systems: TI-99/4a, Commodore Vic-20, Atari 2600, NES, SMS, GB, Neo Geo MVS (Big Red 4-slot), Genesis, SNES, 3DO, PS1, N64, DC, PS2, GBA, GCN, NDSi, Wii
