The Limits of Knowledge: Is John Edward Real?

[JaredJames]

[Edit by Ivan: Discussion moved from another thread]

This thread has been dead for almost a year.

First of all before I say if I think he is real or not I must tell you that I used to live for many years in a haunted house so I KNOW that spirits are real whether they come from dead people or not I am not sure.

Not to sound too harsh, but your "knowing they exist" is no different to me "knowing they don't exist". Do you have evidence to back up your claims or do we have to take your word?

With regards to John Edward, I really don't think that most of you who have commented below have actually watched his shows. He does not just give a letter for a name, he also gives the sound of the name and, as a mathematician, I can tell you that the chances of picking a very similar sounding name starting with the correct letter from a small area of the audience time and again is absolutely minute. Also to put people in the audience week after week would DEFINITELY be found out and spread all over the papers, so I think we can dismiss that as well. He also OFTEN tells people that the info. they are giving him is wrong and he gives them specific names and information that they have to go away and check up later. No other 'psychic does this.
As for the great Randi. He debunks but strangely enough with for example Yuri Geller, Randi can NEVER actually duplicate any of Geller's 'tricks' the same way that he does it which is why Geller has offered him 100,000 dollars if he can actually do any of his 'tricks' the same way that Geller actually does.
So, is John Edward the real thing? IF it is possible to contact the dead then he is the real thing. If not then he does not use any of the tricks mentioned below.

It's all trickery. Proven over and over by many people to be fraudulent. Cold reading and various other techniques are very apparent in all of these types of shows (if you know what to look for) and it isn't mystical. It only appears so when watched on TV (welcome to the world of editing).

If any of these people were real, they would claim Randi's million in a heartbeat. Why don't they?

Regarding the Yuri - Randi situation, there is a difference between being able to duplicate a magic trick and being able to debunk it. I know how various tricks are done but I can't perform them.

So far as these people go, they fail at even the simplest tests. There are countless videos out there showing this so I recommend youtube.

 

[FlexGunship]

<table border="2" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><tr><td border="1" align="center"><b>The following is my carefully reasoned opinion. Any resemblance to reality is absolutely coincidental and totally intentional. No offense is meant to anybody about anything!</b></td></tr></table>

The following is my carefully reasoned opinion. Any resemblance to reality is absolutely coincidental and totally intentional. No offense is meant to anybody about anything!

First of all before I say if I think he is real or not I must tell you that I used to live for many years in a haunted house so I KNOW that spirits are real whether they come from dead people or not I am not sure.

Unfortunately, your reliance on assertion by fiat doesn't do your argument justice. The value of eye-witness accounts as opposed to physical evidence is hotly debated in these forums. However, one thing seems to be certain, humans are not the bastions of observational prowess we feel we are.

Given (a) that spirits don't exist, and (b) that you assert their existence, you might find a very small audience here in the PHYSICS Forums.

With regards to John Edward, I really don't think that most of you who have commented below have actually watched his shows. He does not just give a letter for a name, he also gives the sound of the name and, as a mathematician, I can tell you that the chances of picking a very similar sounding name starting with the correct letter from a small area of the audience time and again is absolutely minute.

I suppose that depends upon your definition of "very similar." Judging from the material that made it to television, he's not even very good at that. I guess that means the stuff they cut is a magnitude worse. Seriously, if he's listening to spirit voices how come he can't tell the difference between "Mary" and "Marge?" Seems like that would be the difference between "I'm happy now" and "I'm crappy now."

Regardless, it's a null statement. Your credentials as a mathematician hardly outweigh your credentials as a human being. You are equally susceptible to being tricked as non-mathematicians. Perhaps your sense of "un-trickability" makes you even feel immune to being tricked, which makes you all the better target for tricks.

Also to put people in the audience week after week would DEFINITELY be found out and spread all over the papers, so I think we can dismiss that as well.

I hardly think you need a plant in the audience to perform this particular type of tom-foolery.

He also OFTEN tells people that the info. they are giving him is wrong and he gives them specific names and information that they have to go away and check up later. No other 'psychic does this.

Uhhhh... Rosemary Atlea was famous for it. She would be wrong all the time, but she was so gosh darn confident about it that people took her word for it. For those of you reading this that aren't familiar with the trick, it goes like this:

Psychic: Your grandfather was in a war.
Victim: Uh, no, actually.
Psychic: Um, your other grandfather?
Victim: No.
Psychic: (smugly) You should check up on your family history, you have new things to learn!

It's not impressive.

As for the great Randi. He debunks but strangely enough with for example Yuri Geller, Randi can NEVER actually duplicate any of Geller's 'tricks' the same way that he does it which is why Geller has offered him 100,000 dollars if he can actually do any of his 'tricks' the same way that Geller actually does.

Two things wrong here. Firstly, he has done Gellar's tricks: ().

Secondly, whenever Randi tries to claim the money (for charity, of course), Gellar claims he did the trick with REAL psychic powers, not sleight of hand. Given that psychic powers don't seem to exist (at all, for anyone), Gellar has created a prize that no one can win.

To recap: Gellar does a sleight-of-hand trick and claims it's magic. When Randi does the same thing, Gellar says: "Nope, you did it with sleight-of-hand."

Hardly compelling.

So, is John Edward the real thing? IF it is possible to contact the dead then he is the real thing.

Doesn't that just ring with weirdness?! Could you use that sentence on any other topic?

• "If it is possible to eat 100 apples, then he did it."
• "If it is possible to go inside that building, then he did it."

If not then he does not use any of the tricks mentioned below.

He's a cold reader. That's what he does. My assertion is as good as your's.

EDIT: Site doesn't support HTML in posts

 

[JaredJames]

Given (a) that spirits don't exist, and (b) that you assert their existence, you might find a very small audience here in the PHYSICS Forums.

Flex, I can see the infraction coming a mile off.

Again, you are asserting your opinion as fact.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (I thank DaveC for reminding me of the exact wording of that one).

I personally agree with you there, however, I cannot make a statement such as that to be fact without evidence to back it up. There is none.

I'm flagging this now, before anything happens. Please don't see this as a personal attack as once again, I'm just pointing out the issue and why it isn't allowed here.

EDIT: (I pointed out the same thing to the previous poster regarding asserting fact based on an opinion.)

 

[FlexGunship]

Flex, I can see the infraction coming a mile off.

Again, you are asserting your opinion as fact.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (I thank DaveC for reminding me of the exact wording of that one).

Look at the header to my post. It states that I'm spouting opinions. Clearly. Since Squishy set the trend, I'm only answering in kind.

Furthermore, absence of evidence certainly isn't evidence of existence. Just because no evidence exists for something doesn't make its existence and nonexistence equally likely. Russel's Teapot is all too often used to permit any kind of language in any discussion, that's not the point of the Teapot!

The point is that even when there is no proof either way, we can draw on our understanding of principle surrounding the Teapot's existence to come to a reasoned conclusion. Because we have no evidence of it does not mean we should seriously consider its existence. We can draw on our understanding of Lagrange points, modern rocketry, the history of China teapots, and political and economic motives to conclude that, almost certainly, there is no Teapot in orbit around Mars.

True, we cannot prove that ghosts don't exist, however, we can draw on our knowledge of human psychology, physics, and the history of China teapots to conclude that, almost certainly, there are no ghosts.

Anyone asserting the existence of ghosts must explain the mechanism by which they propagate. However, someone asserting their nonexistence must only explain how an individual could become confused. They are not equal hypotheses and should not be discussed as such.

 

[JaredJames]

I've never said that the lack of evidence against ghosts (or anything) is a reason to take their existence seriously.

You have to understand, if you make a claim, you must back it up with evidence, as per PF guidelines.

If you claim ghosts exist, you have to back it up. If you claim they don't exist, you have to back it up.

I honestly don't take ghosts seriously, but if I say "they don't exist", I have to provide some proof for that claim. That's the way it works, and at the moment, there is none.

This argument is identical to the time travel thread.

 

[FlexGunship]

If you claim ghosts exist, you have to back it up. If you claim they don't exist, you have to back it up.

Read that carefully.

If you follow those rules there is no way to disprove the existence of a non-existent thing. Ever. Under any circumstances

Allow me to further postulate:

The non-provability of the existence or non-existence of something is necessarily (though not exclusively) a property of non-existent things.​

Are we in agreement, at least to this point?

EDIT: for clarity and formatting

 

[JaredJames]

Read that carefully.

If you follow those rules there is no way to disprove the existence of a non-existent thing. Ever. Under any circumstances

Allow me to further postulate:

The non-provability of the existence or non-existence of something is necessarily (though not exclusively) a property of non-existent things.​

Are we in agreement, at least to this point?

Your bold and underlined statement is pretty much correct.

However I think I should add that I know what you're saying, but I'd say we can disprove the existence of a non-existent object.

A simple example would be someone making a statement such as "there is a planet between Earth and Mars". Now, we know what the non-existent object is and can disprove this as we a) have a definition of what constitutes a planet - we know what we're looking for and b) have the ability to check to see if something fitting that definition exists.

Once we know what we are proving/disproving the existence of, we can generate a conclusion based on evidence for/against it's existence.

Now I point these two out as different (albeit a rather poor example regarding planets) because we can provide evidence against one claim ("planet between Earth and mars"), and so we can back up said claim and come to a reliable conclusion.

We cannot provide evidence that ghosts do/don't exist. In just the same way we can't prove God doesn't exist. We can certainly make an educated guess. In this case, we can say that based on the number of 'ghostly' occurences being false or explainable and these explanations applicable many other occurences too, it is ok to assume ghosts do not exist.
But it is worth noting that you can't state that as a fact. Because we can't back it up with any evidence.

I would like to offer you the definition of fact as it applies to science:

a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

We cannot verify that ghosts don't exist, therefore we cannot claim it as fact. We can apply opinion and we can state hypothesis regarding ghosts, but we can't state it as factual. This is what your posts seem to be doing.

Like I've said countless times previously, I dismiss the whole notion of ghosts and the like, but that doesn't make me correct. It simply means I've made what I consider and informed decision based on available evidence (which is nowt).

 

[FlexGunship]

I would like to offer you the definition of fact as it applies to science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

We cannot verify that ghosts don't exist, therefore we cannot claim it as fact. We can apply opinion and we can state hypothesis regarding ghosts, but we can't state it as factual. This is what your posts seem to be doing.

I will give this more consideration. You have a good point, but I believe you are painting with too broad a brush. Where claims of pseudo-science (or non-science) are concerned, it seems premature to simply judge them as "out of bounds" for science.

Let me elaborate:

Statements about the existence of things are within the realm of science. That is to say: either ghosts DO exist or they DO NOT. The correct answer is a factual statement (even if we don't know what the correct answer is). To say that there are some truths which cannot be known by science seems to negate the idea of a truth (or the idea of science).

Lastly, we can all agree that there exists some body of evidence which COULD prove the existence of ghosts. Right? It doesn't seem justified to say that there is no body of evidence which could disprove ghosts. Otherwise, you are left with an open set of all things non-disprovable as being possibly existent.

I, for one, am in the camp that SOME things must not exist.

 

[JaredJames]

Statements about the existence of things are within the realm of science. That is to say: either ghosts DO exist or they DO NOT. The correct answer is a factual statement (even if we don't know what the correct answer is).

Yes, I agree. Ghosts either DO or DO NOT exist. The correct answer may be a factual statement, but that doesn't mean we have it. There are a lot of topics (such as in the time travel thread) which we can only speculate about and produce our own hypothesis on. This does not make our hypothesis correct, and it certainly doesn't make it factual. To be a fact, it must be verifiable. We cannot verify the non-existence of ghosts. We can only judge how likely their existence is.

To say that there are some truths which cannot be known by science seems to negate the idea of a truth (or the idea of science).

Science may want to explain everything, but that doesn't mean it will.

Lastly, we can all agree that there exists some body of evidence which COULD prove the existence of ghosts. Right?

Agreed

It doesn't seem justified to say that there is no body of evidence which could disprove ghosts. Otherwise, you are left with an open set of all things non-disprovable as being possibly existent.

It may not seem justified, but if we cannot prove it, it can't be considered factual.

I, for one, am in the camp that SOME things must not exist.

Me too, this doesn't mean I can prove they don't exist though. This is the key here.

 

[FlexGunship]

It may not seem justified, but if we cannot prove it, it can't be considered factual.

This is just itching to be a fallacy...

Things which lack the quality of existing cannot be shown to lack this quality?

EDIT: Wouldn't that mean that science could say nothing about things that do not exist? Or do you disagree?

 

[Opus_723]

Where claims of pseudo-science (or non-science) are concerned, it seems premature to simply judge them as "out of bounds" for science.

That's exactly the point. You have just defined the topic as "non-science." Therefore science cannot make any judgement on the matter.

I think the idea is that spirits are by definition not subject to any known physical laws, therefore we cannot make observations related to them with current instruments. We can prove the non-existence of a planet because our definition of a planet places it firmly within the constraints of physical science. A spirit does not share this characteristic.

It's all about how you define a thing. The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "spirit" as

"a supernatural being or essence."

Now we need the definition of supernatural. Here we get:

"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"

I believe that very effectively places spirits outside the realm of current science.

Both a spirit and a planet could be subject to undiscovered properties of the universe. We could discover that spirits are composed of some previously unobservable material, eventually producing instruments that can observe them. Or a "planet" could be found between Earth and Mars, but made of some previously unobservable material.

I put "planet" in quotation marks there because this new planet would most likely fall outside of our previous definition of planet. It would be, essentially, a "spirit planet," in this category of currently unobservable objects.

My point is that some things are currently not in the realm of science because they are defined as unobservable to begin with. They cannot be proved because they are unobservable, and they cannot be disproved because they could at any time become observable. Things can be proven not to exist, but only if they are defined as being currently observable.

 

[squasher]

In reply to jarednjames. When you say 'Not to sound too harsh, but your "knowing they exist" is no different to me "knowing they don't exist". Do you have evidence to back up your claims or do we have to take your word? Knowing they do not exist cannot be said. what you mean is that you have had no proof. However in my case I was a sceptic like yourself until I moved into the house in question. I am not a stupid person - I am a physiologist and have an IQ of 146 and used to be a government statistician so I am used to hard facts. However when you are in a house where lights switches flick on and off by themselves, doors open and close by themselves, things get moved from room to room, clothes get taken from one area and appear in another neatly folded and ironed (we did not possesses an iron at the time) I consider this proof. I have had visitors stay who have 'met' the ghost. One person was a HUGE sceptic before staying at the house. Many many more things happened. It was only after leaving the house that I discovered its history.
It is true that even though I have absolute proof I cannot show it to you but you are welcome to go to the house and do whatever tests you wish.
With regard to Randi and his debunking. To debunk something you must be able to do the same thing under EXACTLY the same circumstances to prove it is a fake. I can make a car drive at 50 miles an hour without any engine. No magic. I just push it down a steep hill, but that is not the same as doing it on the flat, and that is where Randi falls down on occasions. He has offered a large sum of money to anyone who can prove they are not fake. Geller has offered a large sum of money to anyone who can prove he is a fake. He may well be a fake but no one as yet can prove it and that is where the problem lies.
With regards Geller and John Edward I cannot give proof one way or another but with regards 'ghosts' then I can categorically state that something does exist, and so can visitors and people who lived in my old house. Even if you did go to my house and found that I am correct then what would you say to people who don't believe you afterwards?

 

[JaredJames]

Things can be proven not to exist, but only if they are defined as being currently observable.

All of that response and you finish with this line.

This is key. Regardless of why it is so, we can't prove it so we cannot state it as fact.

I'm not saying they do exist. I'm not saying it's likely they exist. Just that you cannot make a statement that X does not exist without backing it up.

There are some things we can prove exist / don't exist, but there are others (as you outline above) which by their very nature cannot be.

As previously stated, facts have to be verifiable. Ghosts are neither verifiable for or against and so the best we can do is say they might exist or they might not.

Belief in ghosts is a personal thing and strictly based on opinion. They are not factual and as I've said countless times before, that means you can't state it as such.

 

[FlexGunship]

My point is that some things are currently not in the realm of science because they are defined as unobservable to begin with. They cannot be proved because they are unobservable, and they cannot be disproved because they could at any time become observable. Things can be proven not to exist, but only if they are defined as being currently observable.

Hardly seems like the topic for a Physics Forum, then.

 

[JaredJames]

Knowing they do not exist cannot be said. what you mean is that you have had no proof. However in my case I was a sceptic like yourself until I moved into the house in question. I am not a stupid person - I am a physiologist and have an IQ of 146 and used to be a government statistician so I am used to hard facts.

Yeah, I don't like IQ tests. They don't indicate intelligence in any way. According to Mensa I have an IQ of 156. If you've ever met me you'd know I'm distinctly 'normal' of slightly above average intelligence.

You made a claim that ghosts exist. That is a big claim and one which can only stand up with evidence to back it up.
Yes, I mean I've "had no proof" which is why I asked for it.

However when you are in a house where lights switches flick on and off by themselves, doors open and close by themselves, things get moved from room to room, clothes get taken from one area and appear in another neatly folded and ironed (we did not possesses an iron at the time) I consider this proof.

This sounds really interesting. But, as I've said countless time before regarding 'wierd' occurences, if something like that happens (especially clothes moving and being neatly ironed and folded) why wouldn't you set up cameras straight away? One way or another, you'll either get videos of this stuff happening or it will stop (as most 'ghost' issues do on camera - and the problem is solved).

I have had visitors stay who have 'met' the ghost. One person was a HUGE sceptic before staying at the house. Many many more things happened. It was only after leaving the house that I discovered its history.

Witness testimony is unreliable at best, especially if they know the sort of things that occur within the house.

It is true that even though I have absolute proof I cannot show it to you but you are welcome to go to the house and do whatever tests you wish.

See statement regarding cameras above.

With regard to Randi and his debunking. To debunk something you must be able to do the same thing under EXACTLY the same circumstances to prove it is a fake. I can make a car drive at 50 miles an hour without any engine. No magic. I just push it down a steep hill, but that is not the same as doing it on the flat, and that is where Randi falls down on occasions.

Claiming "I can make a car go 50mph without an engine" is different to claiming "I can make a car go 50mph down a steep hill without an engine". It is a significant difference.

If you make the first claim, it is right of Randi to ask you to do it on the flat. That way he eliminates any issues with you using a hill to assist in the challenge. It is called a controlled test. You eliminate all outside influences so that only the claimant is able to affect the car and get it to go 50mph.

He has offered a large sum of money to anyone who can prove they are not fake.

Correct. If you claim you can dowse for water, then you should be able to identify which of the 50 buckets the cup of water is under.

Geller has offered a large sum of money to anyone who can prove he is a fake. He may well be a fake but no one as yet can prove it and that is where the problem lies.

There's no problem. It is not up to Randi to disprove his claims. If he claims he can do something it is up to him to prove it. If Randi sets up a controlled experiment and asks him to perform, why shouldn't he be able to?

It's a fallacy he is extending to request people debunk him. As above, it is not up to people to prove you are fake, it is up to you to back up the claims you have made. He can't do that so he simply says "ah well, prove I'm fake then". Something which can't be done without testing such as Randi's.

In a previous post someone mentioned Randi did replicate what Geller does but Geller dismissed it. If this was truly how it worked, I could simply dismiss every single attempt to debunk what I do leaving only the paranormal.

With regards Geller and John Edward I cannot give proof one way or another but with regards 'ghosts' then I can categorically state that something does exist, and so can visitors and people who lived in my old house. Even if you did go to my house and found that I am correct then what would you say to people who don't believe you afterwards?

If I went to your house and experienced it, I would immediately want to setup some controls. Put cameras in every room, check for possible explanations.

With regards to the bolded statement, I'll take that as your opinion. But as in previous posts, without proof you can't state it as fact.

 

[JaredJames]

Hardly seems like the topic for a Physics Forum, then.

Agreed.

 

[FlexGunship]

I am not a stupid person - I am a physiologist and have an IQ of 146 and used to be a government statistician so I am used to hard facts.

No comment.

However when you are in a house where lights switches flick on and off by themselves, doors open and close by themselves, things get moved from room to room, clothes get taken from one area and appear in another neatly folded and ironed (we did not possesses an iron at the time) I consider this proof.

Clothes folding: I will pay you $1000 for every time you can reproduce this event under repeatable, observable conditions. (EDIT: i.e. ghostly folding. I'm not interested in burglars folding your clothes, or you forgetting that you folded them. If you could demonstrate what you are talking about, you'd win the Nobel prize for physics.)

EDIT: As a metric for discussion, perhaps topics the author declares as "outside of science" or "un-disprovable" should be classified as non-existent until proof does surface. This will provide a stop-gap for the constant inclusion of all things non-existent but conceivable in discussion.

 

[JaredJames]

Clothes folding: I will pay you $1000 for every time you can reproduce this event under repeatable, observable conditions. (EDIT: i.e. ghostly folding. I'm not interested in burglars folding your clothes, or you forgetting that you folded them. If you could demonstrate what you are talking about, you'd win the Nobel prize for physics.)

I know for verification we'd need it repeatable and observable, but let's go with it for now.

If your clothes were ironing and folding themselves, enough times to cause concern, why would you not setup some sort of camera? These claims are all well and good, but the solution is keep things simple and go with the obvious. Stick a camera on the wall.

Put one in every room if you have to. If things are actually moving around the house by themselves the cameras will catch it.

There have been countless times I've done something and then forgotten I've done it. This problem is amplified when there's more than one of you at the location.

Person A moves the phone from the kitchen to the dining room. Person A then forgets they did it. Person B goes to get the phone from the kitchen only to find it's not there, but is now in the dining room. B questions A regarding it's moving. A denies ever touching it. Obvious conclusion is not "it must be ghosts". But that is what most people go to for some reason.

I have a terrible memory. I've walked up the street (100yds) to my grandparents and forgot why I went there. I'm not saying that everyone is like this, but it's something I factor in when looking at stuff like this.

EDIT: As a metric for discussion, perhaps topics the author declares as "outside of science" or "un-disprovable" should be classified as non-existent until proof does surface. This will provide a stop-gap for the constant inclusion of all things non-existent but conceivable in discussion.

Personally, I don't believe anything is "outside of science". Although if it's going to be declared as such it doesn't belong here.

I personally don't accept any of these claims of existence until I see proof to back them up.

 

[DaveC426913]

"I used to live for many years in a haunted house so I KNOW that spirits are real..."
"...It was only after leaving the house that I discovered its history..."

"...when you are in a house where lights switches flick on and off by themselves, doors open and close by themselves, things get moved from room to room, clothes get taken from one area and appear in another neatly folded and ironed (we did not possesses an iron at the time) I consider this proof..."

"I am not a stupid person - I am a physiologist and have an IQ of 146 and used to be a government statistician so I am used to hard facts."

Which one of these would you like us to believe? They are not both true.

Either way, you have demonstrated sufficiently that your reputability is highly subjective and is to be regarded with a shaker of salt.

 

[FlexGunship]

Personally, I don't believe anything is "outside of science".

Certainly claims of physical events (closing of doors, ironing of clothes, etc.) are scientific claims. It would be hard to convince anyone that clothes, themselves, are paranormal.

Science really does have a say when it comes to claims of the paranormal. Any paranormal claim is based on an observation of some sort, and any observation is within the realm of science. Even if we agree the cause may be paranormal.

Here's the deal. Science, as a tool, has acknowledge it can't prove negatives (Squishy as pointed this out). You can't, for example, prove there are no unicorns. Oddly, however, it is always possible to prove they do exist.

Therefore, one of the properties of all things that don't exist is that you can never prove they don't exist. Likewise, since they don't exist, you can never prove that they do exist.

Anything non-existent that you can postulate as existing can never be shown to exist or not to exist. Thusly, it has permanent residence on the list of things that "might exist." If we are entirely unwilling to rely on scientific knowledge in related areas to deal with this scenario, then we are permanently crippled.

Example: ants wearing homemade top hats.

We can all agree that there are no ants wearing top hats. We know this because ants lack the skills to devise the most basic means by which to even build the tools to merely MAKE a top hat, let alone the cognitive faculties to then WEAR it. However, there are no ways to prove they don't exist and we are forced to conclude that they might exist. If anyone checks all of the ants in the world, one could simply postulate that hat-wearing ants are devilishly good at hiding, or worse, that the hats makes them invisible.

Still, there is good news, we can rely on our knowledge of ants and top hats to come to a solidly scientific conclusion that ants can neither make nor wear top hats. Perhaps someday this will change, but everything we know about ants and top hats points towards this conclusion. Is it a proof? Not technically, but it is a viable scientific conclusion.

Likewise, everything we know about conservation of energy, and neural physiology tell us that there no way to survive your own death (and become a spirit). Our understanding of human psychology, cognitive biases, and fear of death help us to explain why we might expect to see spirits or ghosts.

It is not un-scientific to draw the conclusion that ghosts do not exist. Of course, perhaps someone will discover evidence to the contrary, but that particular piece of evidence has eluded scientists and non-scientists alike.

The default claim of non-existence stands. The burden of proof is squarely on the claimant.

 

[DaveC426913]

Personally, I don't believe anything is "outside of science".

Of course there is.

Who we are in the dark - our character - our personal beliefs about how Right and Wrong plays out in the larger picture - whether we believe there is a larger picture.

These are all things that scientific inquiry has nothing to say about.

Perhaps what you are thinking of is not science but logical inquiry.

 

[JaredJames]

1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

I'd say that covers everything. Perhaps I'm being too broad with the definition?

I firmly believe that everything can (or at least has the potential to be) explained by science.

 

[DaveC426913]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

I'd say that covers everything. Perhaps I'm being too broad with the definition?

I firmly believe that everything can (or at least has the potential to be) explained by science.

Explain ghosts as understood by the spritiually adept.

Science has this to say: "OK, well, um, I can't tell you that you are not seeing the lost souls of the dead, but that is an awfully nice opinion you have there. Did someone say 'cake'?"

 

[FlexGunship]

Who we are in the dark - our character - our personal beliefs about how Right and Wrong plays out in the larger picture - whether we believe there is a larger picture.

These are all things that scientific inquiry has nothing to say about.

Surely science has something to to say about personality, behavior, personal beliefs, and morality.

Our behavior (and personality, by extension) are direct results of chemical reactions in the brain. The stage upon which these chemical reactions play out has been formed by both previous chemical reactions and genetics. Certainly autism research has much to say about the behavior of an individual (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/7/786). Even violence has a strong neurochemical link (http://umbral.uprrp.edu/files/The%20Biology%20of%20Violence.pdf ).

Morality is an area of deep philosophical discussion, but that doesn't mean that science has nothing to say about it. Some people (not I, of course) find homosexuality to be a question of morality. However, science tells us that there could be a strong genetic and chemical link here (http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~mboyle/COGS11/COGS11-website/pdf-files/LeVayHamer-sexual-dimorphism-sci-am-1994-debate.pdf ). Here, science and morality intersect at right angles; this is not a glancing blow.

And finally, as personal beliefs go, there is still active research into the idea that susceptibility to religion is actually a genetic trait. This is not a new idea (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147-genes-contribute-to-religious-inclination.html). Certainly there are no conclusions, but to call this "non-scientific" is wrong in the highest degree.

If it is real, science has something to say about it. Even if the reality of the matter at hand is nothing but a "feeling" we have when we are alone at night in bed.

 

[JaredJames]

Explain ghosts.

I've already said I dismiss the whole concept of ghosts in exactly the same way I dismiss a god(s).

So as far as I'm concerned there's nothing to explain.

However, I do believe that the experiences people have, which are described as ghostly experiences are fully explainable, and that there is nothing magical/mystical about them.

Put simply, I think they can all be debunked.

EDIT: You edited your post after I typed this and responded. Although even with your additions, I still think this applies. I dismiss the whole "talking to the dead" stuff and the like in exactly the same way. If you believe you have paranormal powers (or make any claims for that matter), prove it. If it can be proven to exist, under experimentally controlled conditions, I will amend my opinion. Until such a time, it stands.

 

[FlexGunship]

Explain ghosts as understood by the spritiually adept.

Explain the spiritually adept as understood by clinical psychologists.

Joking aside, there's nothing here to explain. In fact, the challenge is a null statement. Until something surfaces that suggests the existence of non-corporeal entities there's really nothing to explain.

What we could work on explaining are all of the documented cases where something is mistaken for a ghost (or the like). In fact, in other threads, some members of this forum are already doing it.

Thus far, for every claim of the paranormal an equally likely (or significantly more likely) explanation has been available which does not rely on pseudo-science or the paranormal.

 

[mugaliens]

Your bold and underlined statement is pretty much correct.

I concur.

I'd say we can disprove the existence of a non-existent object.

However, now you're contradicting yourself.

A simple example would be someone making a statement such as "there is a planet between Earth and Mars". Now, we know what the non-existent object is and can disprove this as we a) have a definition of what constitutes a planet - we know what we're looking for and b) have the ability to check to see if something fitting that definition exists.

Qualifier: Only if the object in question adheres to the principles by which it's existence is being tested, i.e. "we know what we are looking for." In your example, we'd be looking for a planet made of ordinary matter and existing in normal space-time.

We cannot provide evidence that ghosts do/don't exist. In just the same way we can't prove God doesn't exist.

Particularly when both have long been said to exist on a plane beyond the physical realm.

We cannot verify that ghosts don't exist, therefore we cannot claim it as fact. We can apply opinion and we can state hypothesis regarding ghosts, but we can't state it as factual. This is what your posts seem to be doing.

Like I've said countless times previously, I dismiss the whole notion of ghosts and the like, but that doesn't make me correct. It simply means I've made what I consider and informed decision based on available evidence (which is nowt).

I find this reasonable.

 

[DaveC426913]

I've already said I dismiss the whole concept of ghosts in exactly the same way I dismiss a god(s).

Yes, you do. As do almost all of us here. But that is not the scientific method talking; that is an opinion talking.

Science does not say 'you did not experience a ghost', science says 'I have nothing to say about your personal experience'.

Put simply, I think they can all be debunked.

Certainly. But again, you did not arrive at that through any scientific method.

If you believe you have paranormal powers (or make any claims for that matter), prove it. If it can be proven to exist, under experimentally controlled conditions, I will amend my opinion. Until such a time, it stands.

Precisely. Again, science does not say 'there are no ghosts or no paranormal powers'. Science says 'until such time as there is objective evidence to be examined, I have nothing at all to say'.

Joking aside, there's nothing here to explain.

Yup. In other words: I have nothing to say.

Science does not claim that someone did not experience something. It cannot; it has no knowledge of what someone experienced. Science simply remains silent until such time as there is evidence to examine.


i.e there are many things about which science has nothing to say.

 

[JaredJames]

However, now you're contradicting yourself.

Agreed, I was trying to make a point which didn't come out well.

In this case, the claim is made regarding an object existing. We can prove it is non-existent.

Qualifier: Only if the object in question adheres to the principles by which it's existence is being tested, i.e. "we know what we are looking for." In your example, we'd be looking for a planet made of ordinary matter and existing in normal space-time.

Again agreed, however that is why I did the whole "definition of a planet". It has to fall within a very specific definition.

 

[JaredJames]

Dave, for the record I have never said science says ghosts do not exist.

I have said that I dismiss ghosts and the like.

I have said however, that a scientific fact requires evidence and as we don't have any, we cannot say one way or another whether or not ghosts exist.

 

[FlexGunship]

Science does not say 'you did not experience a ghost', science says 'I have nothing to say about your personal experience'.

In fact, all 5 of our senses are rooted in the physical realm. The claim that you "experienced a ghost" is a hard scientific claim. It presumes the existence of ghosts and more importantly it defines a ghost as something that can ineract with the physical universe. This is well within the realm of science.

Precisely. Again, science does not say 'there are no ghosts or no paranormal powers'. Scinece says 'until such time as there is obejctuive evidence to be examined, I have nothing at all to say'.

However, science does have something to say if you claim something about the existence of ghosts or their interaction with air, doors, hair, or laundry.

 

[JaredJames]

In fact,...

Agreed.

 

[DaveC426913]

In fact, all 5 of our senses are rooted in the physical realm. The claim that you "experienced a ghost" is a hard scientific claim. It presumes the existence of ghosts and more importantly it defines a ghost as something that can ineract with the physical universe. This is well within the realm of science.

Our 5 senses are but a small subset of our experiences. What goes on in our mind and thoughts is no one's purview but our own.

Demonstrate scientifically that I* did not have the experience I had.

However, science does have something to say if you claim something about the existence of ghosts or their interaction with air, doors, hair, or laundry.

Good thing I made no such claim...



* Devil's Advocate here... I do not claim to have had any ghostly experiences, "I" simply refers to the hapless victim.

 

[JaredJames]

Demonstrate scientifically that I did not have the experience I had.

Dave, you yourself keep saying that it is the claimants responsibility to prove what they claim. Not us to disprove it.

If you claim to have experienced a ghost, it is not up to us to disprove it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, you yourself keep saying that it is the claimants responsibility to prove what they claim. Not us to disprove it.

If you claim to have experienced a ghost, it is not up to us to disprove it.

That is all correct. Because this is a science forum.

But making claims and proving them with evidence is not the only form of communication about the world. There are ways of communicating that have nothing to do with the scientific method.

I could talk about my hurt feelings, my fear, my crisis of faith, my horrible nightmare, my vision of a ghostly figure of my dead grandmother, parallel universes, time before the Big Bang, the universe's First Cause.

Science does not have anything to say about these things.

None of these things are claims, none of them need objective evidence to discuss and none of them can be dismissed as not existing using any scientific method.

Science says "How hard it must be for you. Here, talk to this priest."