Science and its boundaries

[Yayo]

I know I am not involved in this conversation but Kekerusey, you're focusing too much on theoretical possibilites, I always try to keep assumptions to a minimum and maybe everyone else should too.
Please note: I am not "having a go at you", I am merely just offering advice from past experience, as wisdom is gained through failure.

[Human No More]

Ma smuktu, can we try to keep the tone here civil please?  If people can manage to be polite in the thread on homosexuality, i'm confident we can do the same in here.

What was uncivil about it ... quite apart from the grinning smiley it was a quote from Star Wars Episode V. I thought it was fairly appropriate

Personally, i don't believe that ghosts are wayward souls wandering the Earth, but i'm sure there is "something" going on that we've not yet fully explained that accounts for why across cultures people have highly consistent "paranormal" experiences.

Consistent? In what way? Only with hindsight ... under proper test conditions these things tend to be anything but. Of course such phenomena (if they can even be demonstrated to occur which they usually can't) may be explained in time but until then it is, as I have been saying, nothing but unsupported claims. Of course the Catch 22 is that when such phenomena are demonstrated (the phenomena themselves, at that point, being validatable one presumes) they then automatically become a part of the natural world and no longer supernatural which is why I agree so much with Dawkins ...

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence"

... and let's be honest here this is just another form of faith.

Also, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.  You can't prove a negative.  My $0.02.

Don't you think the "can't prove a negative" argument is kinda ludicrous? If we went by that kind of logic then we would also have to accept as seriously credible the claims that Santa Claus, leprechauns, Superman and faeries at the bottom of the garden are all real, that there is a teapot floating between the orbits of Earth & Mars and that the moon is made of green cheese. Sure I can't prove them wrong but that's because the "phenomena" in question don't make themselves available for study and it is notable that the amount of evidence supporting such claims is exactly equivalent to the amount of evidence required for them to not be at all.

Why not (and I stress this isn't aimed at you specifically) take the rational view and assume that such things don't exist until actual evidence demonstrates them to be real?

Keke

Exactly. If there is no evidence to support something, it should be discarded UNLESS new evidence then proves it. There's a reason there are many hypotheses but less facts, and that the entire basis of an experiment is to DISPROVE a hypothesis (admittedly, generally a null hypothesis, but still completely different from attempting to prove something), rather than prove it.

Many people claim to have seen 'ghosts' and similar often because others already have and, no matter how subconsciously, they want to as well. The mind is a powerful thing, as shown by people who recover from severe diseases when given a placebo and told it was a cure.

[Kekerusey]

wisdom is gained through failure.

Yes, I am aware of that ... science is about investigating options, alleyways if you like, to see which ones are blind. Science, as taught (or at least as it was taught to me in Catholic secondary school) is portrayed as a history of success and advancement but in reality it's what we learn from the things we got wrong and it is that that gives us the confidence that we are "right"

Keke

[Kekerusey]

Exactly. If there is no evidence to support something, it should be discarded UNLESS new evidence then proves it. There's a reason there are many hypotheses but less facts, and that the entire basis of an experiment is to DISPROVE a hypothesis (admittedly, generally a null hypothesis, but still completely different from attempting to prove something), rather than prove it.

I think hypotheses are still fact based just less so than theories (i.e. more "experimental" if you get my drift) but yeah, you're right

Many people claim to have seen 'ghosts' and similar often because others already have and, no matter how subconsciously, they want to as well. The mind is a powerful thing, as shown by people who recover from severe diseases when given a placebo and told it was a cure.

Indeed ... I suppose it (in part) comes from the way the human brain is "designed" to see order in chaos where often none really exists. Also, when you think about it (and I gather this is becoming a more serious hypothesis now), we must navigate through the world by means of an internal model, we don't actually see anything directly at all so if mental artefacts appear in that model then that could very easily explain visions, hallucinations and ghosts (along with the human wish to see what others supposedly do).

Keke

Keke

[Kì'eyawn]

As promised, i've finally gotten a chance to respond.  I apologize that i've not replied to each individual comment; if we keep doing that we'll have tens of sub-conversations all running in parallel, which will eventually get quite confusing.

I mean consistent in that, across times and cultures, people describe the experience of encountering ghosts.  These generally include visions of semi-corporeal, recognizably "human-shaped" things that then vanish without explanation, often in a way suggesting that the apparition in question could not be a normal human body (e.g., dissolving into thin air or appearing to pass through walls).  That's fairly consistent to me.  Compare, by contrast, culture-bound syndromes like "running amok," which are far less universal.

I think it is very, very hard to say that because these things are being looked at with hindsight, being re-interpreted by the "witnesses" to fall in line with what they think they know (we all do it) and so on ... IOW, this kind of popular argument (sometimes referred to as the "argumentum populum" or the argument from popularity) has exactly as much to do with fact as the same kind of view did when virtually everyone alive thought the world was flat. That's why we need proper, objective, validatable data upon which to base our understanding of the universe around us ... that's why we need science!

Hmm...  I would certainly concede that when someone has, let's say, an ambiguous experience, given the "culturally-bound option" to label that experience a ghost, that's probably what they're gonna go with as an explanation.  And after i wrote this, i remembered reading about an African culture that resolutely says there is no such thing as ghosts, which led to an interesting reading of Shakespeare's Hamlet...  

But you misunderstand me; i'm not saying, "Lots of people believe in ghosts, so there must be non-corporeal spirits wandering the earth."  What i meant is, it's enough of a cross-cultural universal to suggest that there is something inherent to human existence that makes this experience so common.  You know, kinda like most humans have two functioning eyes, so most humans have depth perception.  I don't mean anything more profound than that.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence"

... and let's be honest here this is just another form of faith.

As far as i can tell, that quote succeeds in expressing your disdain for faith as you define it.  You're entitled.  but that's not an argument.

I could as easily argue the same of your response especially as I believe that quote is largely fair ... I'm not saying that one cannot be a scientist and have faith, I am saying that it is irrational for an intelligent person to believe in something without evidence, that somehow things like "god" get excepted (a "get out of jail free card" as Dawkins calls it) from the normally accepted standard of reasoning and I do not see why that should be. I'll give a simple example ...

I hope you don't mind, i ellipsed out your bit about the "god of the gaps," etc., as it was tangential to the original topic.  I can assure you, though, i'm very familiar with it.

First of all, why are we talking about faith in this discussion?  I don't remember advocating—or even bringing up—anything of the kind.  No, coming from a background in science i absolutely insist that these sorts of claims, to be respected, need to be submitted to some kind of empirical study.

Secondly, the point i was going for with my statement, and which i stand by, is that the quote you offered, as near as i can tell, is a dismissal of the religious person's propensity to say something to the effect of, "I don't need evidence to support my beliefs because i have faith."  Which, it's fine, if you have such a strongly negative, visceral reaction to such "reasoning" (it kind of makes my head spin, too); but coming from our original discussion re people's beliefs about paranormal experiences, i had no intention of dragging anything resembling faith into the discussion, so it's at the very least tangential if not a complete non sequitur.  

We could get into a very lengthy and probably boring discussion about exactly how to define and use the word "faith," but since it's the antithesis of scientific reasoning, i vote we can air out our grievances against such head-in-the-sand thinking some other time

If i thought the statement were ludicrous, i wouldn't have made it.  I think it's a foundational assumption of proper science.  You cannot prove the null hypothesis; you can only fail to reject it.

You cannot theorise (in the scientific sense) on that which does not make itself available for testing it's true but science works wholly on probability, nothing in science is ever 100% proven (nothing is held to be absolute) therefore nothing (in principle) is impossible but that also means that some things can be highly unlikely, can be so unlikely as to cause science a *serious* problem if they turned out to be true and non-corporeal existence would, for reasons already stated, be one of them.

Good point.  Yes, if scientific reasoning can't come up with a way to test a phenomenon, then science has no real way to weigh in on the matter.

And yes, you're absolutely right.  Hypothesis-testing is fundamentally probabilistic; science can never definitely prove something wrong, only highly unlikely.  No arguments with any of this.

The point i was trying to make with my statement is that a little less certainty in one's right-ness often goes far in the free pursuit of knowledge.

You're reflecting on open-mindedness and, in your view, my lack of it ... I think it was Dawkins who said that there's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out. So no, I do not accept your assertion (implied or otherwise) ... in science the proper attitude to adopt is one of scepticism (skepticism to you Yanks, LOL)

You're very fond of Dawkins, aren't you?  I have a very complicated love/hate relationship with him, but that's really tangential to this conversation, and will have to wait for another time.

I don't mean to suggest that you need to be open to the possibility that, at any moment, all manner of paranormal phenomena will be revealed to be real and whole portions of scientific thought will have to be rewritten.  What i'm saying is that you should remain open to the possibility that things like experiences of ghosts do not arise merely from wishful and/or ignorance (you will recall that earlier in the conversation you stated that most people who believe in ghosts are uneducated); but that there is something (likely biological, physiological, psychological, or some combination thereof) that is the underlying cause of these phenomena.

Why not (and I stress this isn't aimed at you specifically) take the rational view and assume that such things don't exist until actual evidence demonstrates them to be real?

To call this view rational is to imply that anyone who believes in the supernatural is, by extension, irrational.  If i may, i would advise you to take the route that one of my philosophy profs recommended:  Assume that all human beings are usually rational beings who make decisions based upon the evidence they have encountered in their personal lives.  I do not believe in spirits walking the earth; but obviously some people do.  But i never assume that therefore they are playing with a less than full deck; instead, i will assume that they have had experiences in their lives such that they are working from a very different data set, if you will, from mine.

No, it is EXACTLY the view someone of science should take ... as I say above the proper stance to adopt in science is one of scepticism.

Skepticism yes—but there's a difference between being skeptical of another's beliefs about the world and disparaging that person's education and/or intellect because of that difference in beliefs.  I'm sure i don't have to tell you what an ad hominem argument is.

With the greatest respect to your professor I would have to say that modern day philosophy (alone) is not science ...

But science is forever indebted to philosophy as the basis of its logic.

Please note that the word "bastard" (which I suspect you're going to pick me up on as some form of uncouth or loutish behaviour) is, in addition to being a swear word, actually a real word and entirely appropriate within the context of the idea I am trying to advance.

I may not speak the King's English (i suppose it would be "Queen's" right now, actually, wouldn't it?), but i can assure you i have a very thorough grasp on the language.  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's only the disembodied mode of communicating via the internet that makes this comment seem patronizing, and assume you weren't actually attempting to insult my intelligence.

As for people with full decks or otherwise to some degree I agree ... intelligent people defend stupid ideas intelligently. But here's the thing, such beliefs are anti-rational because the rational stance is to adopt the most parsimonious explanation and sceptically assume such things don't exist. So no, it's not an indictment per se but, I've debated a lot of people over a lot of years some of them advancing the most whacky ideas (including non-corporeal existence) and it is my considered opinion that, even if it isn't inherently stupid, the belief in such things is a step towards the irrational.

Hmm...  Well, i suppose if parsimony is your metric for determining rationality...  But single-minded adherence to parsimony can sometimes backfire in science, and when examining complicated phenomena even deciding which of two possible explanations is the most parsimonious isn't always straightforward.  This gets particularly hairy when you try to debate parsimony with someone whose background is very different from yours.

Take, as a hypothetical example relevant to the original topic:  A person tells you he saw the ghost of his grandfather.  You ask him how he knows what it was.  He tells you it looked, moved, and talked just like his grandfather.  To a layperson, that it therefore was his grandfather seems fairly parsimonious—especially if that person comes from a background of belief in souls, or a similar kind of indestructible "personhood."  Whereas to you (i'm assuming), an explanation grounded in psychology would be the most parsimonious.

Do you see what i mean?  Parsimony is a great benchmark, but it can have its pitfalls.  Still, i understand what you're saying.

...when such phenomena are demonstrated (the phenomena themselves, at that point, being validatable one presumes) they then automatically become a part of the natural world and no longer supernatural which is why I agree so much with Dawkins...

Sorry, i know i took this quote out of context, but i wanted to save it for last, because i wanted to point out that this is thin ice to tread upon, dividing up the world into "natural" and "supernatural."  I think it might be best to avoid these loaded terms and instead say this:

There is only the natural world; and within that natural world, there are the phenomena which we have encountered and believe we understand completely (like the fundamentals of inheritance), the phenomena we have encountered but do not yet understand completely (the experience of ghosts would fit here, as would less "spooky" things like some of the details of certain animal behaviors), and phenomena we have not yet encountered (there are, after all, innumerable things out there in the cosmos still waiting for us, i think).

I don't believe in the supernatural world at all, I don't accept Gould's non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) which he designed to heal the rifts between science and religion and that's exactly why I am the way I am. I think ghosts (true experiences) are simply mental aberrations (hallucinations, temporary or permanent to be determined).

I...think we're saying the same thing here?  I don't talk about natural vs. supernatural because i think it's a false dichotomy, with absolutely nothing on the one side of it.  As i said, there is only the natural world; the divisions lie between that which science has already been able to weigh in on and that which it has not.  And that line continues to shift.

Incidentally, i mostly agree with you; i disagree with Gould on his "non-overlapping magisteria," although i don't agree that he posited the idea to "heal the rift" between science and religion—my impression what his intention was to try to get the two to just leave each other alone.  I suppose that might be splitting hairs, though.

I don't think we're actually that far apart (except possibly on philosophy), I just think you're slightly less willing to be "up front" (or in-yer-face) as I am about it.

I found graduate school to be humbling.  After the first year of the neuroscience PhD, i began to know how much i don't know.  And no, i'm not "in-your-face" about much of anything, except when i'm grading papers

Since the advent of modern day creationism, when it became clear that science had taken its eye off the ball, people like me have had to defend science...

I don't know that i'd put it this way.  Scientists have distanced themselves from laypeople and avoided public discussion.  But i think, at least in the U.S., they're seeing now the cost of that "ivory tower" mentality.  But that we are a woefully science-illiterate nation doesn't help, either.

Also, creationism/religious fundamentalism of the stripe we're seeing today isn't really all that new—at least in the U.S.  Biblical literalism and all the interesting things it's begotten have been over here for centuries.  As i'm sure you know, this sort of fighting with scientists and philosophers started even long before they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake.  

But i would say the stakes may never have been higher.  While at least in the West religious institutions can no longer kill you for disagreeing with them, because government policy (and therefore funding) hugely affects the course of science and education, it is deeply important that scientists not hide in their labs and try to "just stay out of it."

There's more i could say about religion and science (as it's one of my favorite topics), but i think we'll save that for another time, ma tsmukan.

[Kekerusey]

But you misunderstand me; i'm not saying, "Lots of people believe in ghosts, so there must be non-corporeal spirits wandering the earth."  What i meant is, it's enough of a cross-cultural universal to suggest that there is something inherent to human existence that makes this experience so common.  You know, kinda like most humans have two functioning eyes, so most humans have depth perception.  I don't mean anything more profound than that.

So you're saying there's a global phenomenon to (potentially) be investigated? If so yes I agree but I reject outright the notion that ghosts exist until such time as there is actual validatable evidence in support of such beings.

I hope you don't mind, i ellipsed out your bit about the "god of the gaps," etc., as it was tangential to the original topic.  I can assure you, though, i'm very familiar with it.

Me too!

First of all, why are we talking about faith in this discussion?  I don't remember advocating—or even bringing up—anything of the kind.  No, coming from a background in science i absolutely insist that these sorts of claims, to be respected, need to be submitted to some kind of empirical study.

I don't think there's significant difference between belief in ghosts (or even UFO's) and belief in gods ... to my mind it's all taken on faith, on imagination.

... i had no intention of dragging anything resembling faith into the discussion, so it's at the very least tangential if not a complete non sequitur.

I disagree for the same reason I just gave.

We could get into a very lengthy and probably boring discussion about exactly how to define and use the word "faith," but since it's the antithesis of scientific reasoning, i vote we can air out our grievances against such head-in-the-sand thinking some other time

I guess but it's likely to raise its ugly head again because I think these kind of things are believed on faith, with an evangelistic fervour.

Good point.  Yes, if scientific reasoning can't come up with a way to test a phenomenon, then science has no real way to weigh in on the matter.

Well yes ... and no! You may not be able to disprove something that isn't there (disprove a negative) but you can (and should) dismiss it if there is no real reason for it to be ... as I understand it there is no real evidence for "dark matter" but there is reason for something we call dark matter to exist because it effectively explains a number of things we observe about the universe. To my mind the utter lack of evidence for something and the fact that the similar claims have been made and sometimes explained (fraud, lack of evidence, flawed reasoning, appeals to authority etc.) or otherwise dismissed does count against certain types of claim and does go some way towards disproof. 

You're very fond of Dawkins, aren't you?  I have a very complicated love/hate relationship with him, but that's really tangential to this conversation, and will have to wait for another time.

Personally I think he's awesome and I agree with almost everything he says ... he is, however, a very bad advert for positive atheism quite simply because he winds so very many people up (part of why I think he's so marvellous) and most people appear to be either religious or believe that religions deserve some kind of respect.

What i'm saying is that you should remain open to the possibility that things like experiences of ghosts do not arise merely from wishful and/or ignorance (you will recall that earlier in the conversation you stated that most people who believe in ghosts are uneducated); but that there is something (likely biological, physiological, psychological, or some combination thereof) that is the underlying cause of these phenomena.

In the sense that they could be mental artefacts possibly but, as I say above, until such point as actual evidence (validatable evidence) is supplied I remain utterly sceptical.

With the greatest respect to your professor I would have to say that modern day philosophy (alone) is not science ...

But science is forever indebted to philosophy as the basis of its logic.

No, I think science (in essence a rigorous form of trial & error) came first inasmuch as the very first caveman might have wondered why a heavier stone might better kill the animals he hunted.

When it comes to philosophy I am in the late Professor Asimov's camp regarding science as the true philosophy (which translates literally "to seek knowledge") and modern day does not do this, science does.

I may not speak the King's English (i suppose it would be "Queen's" right now, actually, wouldn't it?), but i can assure you i have a very thorough grasp on the language.  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's only the disembodied mode of communicating via the internet that makes this comment seem patronizing, and assume you weren't actually attempting to insult my intelligence.

Point taken and I apologise ... I'm fairly WYSIWYG, "in-yer-face" & tend to get up people's noses so I have encountered that kind of reaction before.

Take, as a hypothetical example relevant to the original topic:  A person tells you he saw the ghost of his grandfather.  You ask him how he knows what it was.  He tells you it looked, moved, and talked just like his grandfather.  To a layperson, that it therefore was his grandfather seems fairly parsimonious—especially if that person comes from a background of belief in souls, or a similar kind of indestructible "personhood."  Whereas to you (i'm assuming), an explanation grounded in psychology would be the most parsimonious.

I would regard that (the person who sees the ghost as the most simple explanation) as the result of ignorance because, to my mind, it is obvious that a ghost of necessity must be a complex phenomena since it somehow has to be maintained, a non-corporeal being, without any visible/physical support mechanism.

Do you see what i mean?  Parsimony is a great benchmark, but it can have its pitfalls.  Still, i understand what you're saying.

I think it depends on your POV ... once you train yourself to think rationally and sceptically it's hard to do otherwise. I'm no scientist (just ask Dr. Augustine, HRH) and I often get things wrong but I try hard not to and trying to stay sceptical & rational gets easier and more natural over time (in many ways I think we were built to believe) ... unfortunately it also tends to irritate people.

I...think we're saying the same thing here?  I don't talk about natural vs. supernatural because i think it's a false dichotomy, with absolutely nothing on the one side of it.  As i said, there is only the natural world; the divisions lie between that which science has already been able to weigh in on and that which it has not.  And that line continues to shift.

Agreed.

Incidentally, i mostly agree with you; i disagree with Gould on his "non-overlapping magisteria," although i don't agree that he posited the idea to "heal the rift" between science and religion—my impression what his intention was to try to get the two to just leave each other alone.  I suppose that might be splitting hairs, though.

Yeah ... I think I read something on that that suggest you're right. My bad

I found graduate school to be humbling.  After the first year of the neuroscience PhD, i began to know how much i don't know.  And no, i'm not "in-your-face" about much of anything, except when i'm grading papers

A PhD in neuroscience huh? ... cool!

I don't know that i'd put it this way.  Scientists have distanced themselves from laypeople and avoided public discussion.  But i think, at least in the U.S., they're seeing now the cost of that "ivory tower" mentality.  But that we are a woefully science-illiterate nation doesn't help, either.

Yet the most technologically advanced!

Also, creationism/religious fundamentalism of the stripe we're seeing today isn't really all that new—at least in the U.S.  Biblical literalism and all the interesting things it's begotten have been over here for centuries.

Yes ... isn't "Inherit The Wind" a great film?

There's more i could say about religion and science (as it's one of my favorite topics), but i think we'll save that for another time, ma tsmukan.

Mine too that's why I have formed all the websites I have

Keke

[Kì'eyawn]

Kaltxì nìmun ma tsmukan. 

Just a couple things for now, as i have to digest further.

When it comes to philosophy I am in the late Professor Asimov's camp regarding science as the true philosophy (which translates literally "to seek knowledge") and modern day does not do this, science does.

Last i checked, it was Greek for "love of wisdom"    And while i agree with you that this questioning of the world and seeking knowledge is as old as the mind, i think you'll find that, when empirical study was highly limited, most truth-seeking was done by way of mind experiments—which is very much the domain of philosophy.

Although, of course, the line between philosophy and science is blurred in places.  To my mind, theoretical neuroscience (and this is probably true of theoretical physics too, but i don't know) is as much classical philosophy as it is science simply because the burden of proof falls largely not on measurable data but on pure logic.  Evolutionary science is often like this, too.  But yes, since science branched off from philosophy (which itself branched off earlier from theology), the two have grown in somewhat different directions.

Point taken and I apologise ... I'm fairly WYSIWYG, "in-yer-face" & tend to get up people's noses so I have encountered that kind of reaction before.

No worries, ma tsmukan.  I tend to stay out of debates in most places, as the anonymity of the internet seems to embolden people in often ugly ways.  But we are all smuktu here 

A PhD in neuroscience huh? ... cool!

Oh, feel free to talk about brains as much as you want—don't ever assume i know what's going on    And actually, after the first year i decided it wasn't really the right program for me.  So, it was a bit of a detour, in the grand scheme.

The very brief version of my educational history is that i started out in psychology and zoology for my bachelor's wanting to study animal behavior, worked at zoos for a bit and ended up doing a master's in evolutionary psychology, through a series of strange events found myself working in a neuroscience program that focused on theoretical stuff (lots and lots of mathematics, fractals and similar craziness) in a lab focused on music and the brain, and decided to go into science writing—since, as i'm sure you've noticed, there's a serious communication disconnect between scientists and the public, and i'd like to work on fixing that.  I'm actually in the process of applying to a program at MIT, so *fingers crossed* we'll see what happens.

[Vawm tsamsiyu]

I think it's interesting how similar ghosts and holograms are both can show up as human shape appear to pass through solid objects if you try to touch them you just pass through but they both can move things
I just find it odd how similar they are. If I met an alien with an advanced ship and he said the ghosts are just prank holograms other aliens put here to mess with us I'd believe it

[Kekerusey]

Last i checked, it was Greek for "love of wisdom"    And while i agree with you that this questioning of the world and seeking knowledge is as old as the mind, i think you'll find that, when empirical study was highly limited, most truth-seeking was done by way of mind experiments—which is very much the domain of philosophy.

Wisdom is gained from experience i.e. learning from it which again brings us back to science ... the only philosophy that genuinely works (teaches us about the world we see around us), math excepted, is science.

Although, of course, the line between philosophy and science is blurred in places.  To my mind, theoretical neuroscience (and this is probably true of theoretical physics too, but i don't know) is as much classical philosophy as it is science simply because the burden of proof falls largely not on measurable data but on pure logic.  Evolutionary science is often like this, too.  But yes, since science branched off from philosophy (which itself branched off earlier from theology), the two have grown in somewhat different directions.

As said earlier I don't agree that science truly branched from philosophy ... arguably it owes something to it but, at heart, science is simply a rigorous from of trial and error and owes more to the way learning animals evaluate their surroundings than to a bunch of guys throwing hyper-intellectualised BS around. My best guess is that you'll think I am wrong but let me ask you this ... using philosophy you can (or there are those that say they can) prove the existence of "god" yes? No need to answer, that's rhetorical but here's the thing ... using the same (or similar) reasoning you (others) can prove there is no "god", yes? If that's so (and I know it is as it's been my misfortune to "be there", in forums, whilst such debates play out), if philosophy can be used to "prove" utterly opposing points of view, then exactly what use is it?

As far as I understand it (and, TBH, I don't despite watching many programs on the subject) the philosophy of physics is rather different from the kind of philosophy we're talking about.

A PhD & MIT? Yikes!

I think it's interesting how similar ghosts and holograms are both can show up as human shape appear to pass through solid objects if you try to touch them you just pass through but they both can move things

I just find it odd how similar they are. If I met an alien with an advanced ship and he said the ghosts are just prank holograms other aliens put here to mess with us I'd believe it

True holograms (as in ghost-like images that move through the air, remotely rather than directly supported, aren't a reality yet are they?

Keke

[Vawm tsamsiyu]

Maybe not for us but we may not be the most advanced in the universe. And if I figured out how to make them I'd prank someone with them

[Kekerusey]

Maybe not for us but we may not be the most advanced in the universe. And if I figured out how to make them I'd prank someone with them

Sorry but I just don't see how that is relevant to a discussion about what we know.

Keke

[Vawm tsamsiyu]

Maybe not for us but we may not be the most advanced in the universe. And if I figured out how to make them I'd prank someone with them

Sorry but I just don't see how that is relevant to a discussion about what we know.

Keke

Sorry I'll shut up now 

[Kekerusey]

Sorry I'll shut up now 

Ma 'Eylan ... I'd genuinely like you to contribute, I just didn't see how a comparison between two fictional objects (albeit for different reasons ... I think holograms a far more likely possibility than ghosts/spirits) helped in a discussion on science and what, if any, boundaries it has

Perhaps (a suggestion) you could open a discussion about what science might one day bring us ... I certainly think holograms will happen, just not sure what form they will take.

Keke

[Tsamsiyu92]

I have never seen it firsthand, but orbs of light seemed to have scared my brother enough so he moved his bed to my room for two weeks. I never saw them, but thier end marked the end of anything I and my two brothers experienced.

My borthers and two of my friends back then (06-08) have had many more experiences and even more are to be told by others living on the island I live. Like the carpenter's hammer dissapearing, thus annoying him and the axe always finding its way to the stub when the woodcutter was away.

My only experince is when I was compiling a HL1 map and sitting on my bed practicing gutiar - compiling took 10 minutes. I was trying to shape a chord when I felt something on my back, like a gust of wind crossing, as i looked to the left I saw a light-gray cloud of something dissapear behind my door, no doors and windows were open or opened during the time.

You are required to do nothing, least of all believe, open one's arms wide or shut one's eyes tight, ether way, one's a fool. In nicer terms it means that you should not believe everything you hear, as well as ignoring the possibility for something's existance. Even I doubt what I saw and felt, and as I have experienced nothing after the summer of 2008, my belief for it also are fading.

But I do not deny it and neither do I care whether you belive it or not, I respect your beliefs, as I hope mine are respected.

What comes after death? Noone knows, as the ones experiencing it first-hand are dead, and if the dead can communicate or tries to with the living, remains a question of belief.

[Kekerusey]

I've seen/felt things too that I could not subsequently verify/explain ... the difference is that I always assume the observer (me) to be at fault.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and hearsay doesn't count ... to my mind that is the rational way!

Keke

[Human No More]

Such feelings are subject to confirmation bias. If someone claims something they don't understand, they generally don't talk about the 364 days per year where they don't feel anything unusual

[Kerame Pxel Nume]

I just skimmed over this thread, maybe it was already written here:

Science is based a fundamental idea: There's nothing supernatural. Everything we can observe happens withing the boundaries of natural laws. If something is observed that cannot be explained yet, then this is not a failure of science, but just something not yet understood and a new field for exploration.

[Yayo]

I just skimmed over this thread, maybe it was already written here:

Science is based a fundamental idea: There's nothing supernatural. Everything we can observe happens withing the boundaries of natural laws. If something is observed that cannot be explained yet, then this is not a failure of science, but just something not yet understood and a new field for exploration.

Brilliant; the intentions of Science could not be explained more thoroughly.

[Kì'eyawn]

I just skimmed over this thread, maybe it was already written here:

Science is based a fundamental idea: There's nothing supernatural. Everything we can observe happens withing the boundaries of natural laws. If something is observed that cannot be explained yet, then this is not a failure of science, but just something not yet understood and a new field for exploration.

Brilliant; the intentions of Science could not be explained more thoroughly.

Yes indeed.  At some point in the thread i think i said something about dividing the world not into "natural" vs. "supernatural" but into "that which is already explained" and "that which has not yet been explained"—yet being the operative word.  But yes, this quote sums up scientific thought very nicely.

[Brainiac]

Such feelings are subject to confirmation bias. If someone claims something they don't understand, they generally don't talk about the 364 days per year where they don't feel anything unusual

It's like thinking of someone, and then you hear the phone ring, and it's them.
How often do you think of the people that are most likely to call you? (parents, siblings, work, etc...)
People see this as proof for psychic powers :p

I've seen/felt things too that I could not subsequently verify/explain ... the difference is that I always assume the observer (me) to be at fault.

Me too