The truth is out there. Or is it?

[Trogdor]

Lol Luvian, sounds like you have had your fair share of run in's with the loony people!

However, maybe with that many "crazy" people out there, maybe we are the crazy ones for not believing the same thing?


Or not... I choose to believe what I see in front of me, not what's written down, and not what i'm told.

[JrKASperov]

So you believe that when a long object is partly submersed in water, it bends?

[Iron Greasel]

Originally Posted by Trogdor I choose to believe what I see in front of me, not what's written down, and not what i'm told.

Originally Posted by JrKASperov So you believe that when a long object is partly submersed in water, it bends?

I think he might have been using a slightly extended definition of "see". Closer to "observe" or maybe "discover".

Luvian: Oh, yes, there are lot of those people around. I'm guessing some just find it more pleasant to live in a world where an omnipotent and immortal Big Brother watches and judges your every move and danger lurks behind every corner and you're maybe a wizard or something. I think the sales of fictive movies, books and computer games are at least partially based on this.

Re the science can/cannot explain everything argument:
I have yet to hear of a single occurence that was impossible to explain without resorting to magic. Please, share yours.

[JrKASperov]

Originally Posted by Iron Greasel I think he might have been using a slightly extended definition of "see". Closer to "observe" or maybe "discover". Re the science can/cannot explain everything argument: I have yet to hear of a single occurence that was impossible to explain without resorting to magic. Please, share yours.

Using "observe" instead of "see" makes no difference. You still observe your arm being bent when partly submersed in water, any explanation why we observe it so is simply that: an explanation or theory. The point is that most people do not go on observation alone and use their ratio more than they suspect, just like in this case. It is exactly this ratio which depends highly on what "is written down" or "what other people told us".

Re your second point, explain why the velocity of light (in vacuum) is constant using current physics.

[Iron Greasel]

Originally Posted by JrKASperov Using "observe" instead of "see" makes no difference. You still observe your arm being bent when partly submersed in water, any explanation why we observe it so is simply that: an explanation or theory. The point is that most people do not go on observation alone and use their ratio more than they suspect, just like in this case. It is exactly this ratio which depends highly on what "is written down" or "what other people told us".

I meant using other sensory input and possibly even logic in addition to sight. You can see your arm bend when in water, but you can't feel it. If you have ever badly broken any major bones, you know that having a body part twist in a place that is not a joint hurts like hell. You can also, if you want, submerge a stick in a glass or plastic container you can see though and look at it from different sides. You will note that the stick seems to bend differently depending on the relative position of your eyes. Any waves or ripples in the surface of the water will also affect the stick. If you are still convinced that the water makes the stick alive and frightened, so that it tries to flee your gaze; and very, very soft, so that it is affected by tiny surface currents in the water; you can don some swimming goggles and place your head underwater.

In conclusion, you can test whether something is true. And see patterns in the things you have already tested to deduce whether something as of yet untested is true. All this you can do yourself, with no help from textbooks. The human brain seems to be somewhat well equipped for detecting patterns.

Originally Posted by JrKASperov Re your second point, explain why the velocity of light (in vacuum) is constant using current physics.

Touché, I suppose. I don't know why constants are constant or why the formulae are as they are, and don't think anyone else knows either. But I don't think I could explain it even with magic, without ultimately resorting to an "it just is"-argument. Addition of ghosts or pixies or wizards or demons or similar personal forces still does not explain why the world is made by the aforementioned to work as it does.

[JrKASperov]

Originally Posted by Iron Greasel even logic in addition to

Here lies the problem. Even using an ounce of logic is using theory. As I believe van Fraassen has put it: "our language is theory-infected". I would like to add that you can test something to be true as long as it's observable. It is important because science often has theories about unobservables.

Touché, I suppose. I don't know why constants are constant or why the formulae are as they are, and don't think anyone else knows either. But I don't think I could explain it even with magic, without ultimately resorting to an "it just is"-argument. Addition of ghosts or pixies or wizards or demons or similar personal forces still does not explain why the world is made by the aforementioned to work as it does.

Yes and this is exactly what I like to point to: science doesn't explain everything. This in conjunction with the hard reality that we often don't know whether something is true leads to the conclusion (in my opinion) that we cannot simply rule out these "ghost" things, as scientists. As a person I can have several judgements, however.

[Jaradu]

Originally Posted by JrKASperov Yes and this is exactly what I like to point to: science doesn't explain everything. This in conjunction with the hard reality that we often don't know whether something is true leads to the conclusion (in my opinion) that we cannot simply rule out these "ghost" things, as scientists. As a person I can have several judgements, however.

Of course science hasn't explained everything. That in no way disproves what has already been explained. From heliocentrism and beyond to modern medicine and beyond, science is advancing and we are slowly beginning our journey of understanding the strange universe we live in.

"The most important discoveries will provide answers to questions that we do not yet know how to ask and will concern objects we have not yet imagined."

And of course we can't rule out that ghosts exist. Any scientist would be mad to assert something, anything, 100%. Similarly, we can't rule out the existence of pixies, leprechauns, unicorns, or that the universe is the imagination of a brain sitting in a jar in another dimension. Just because something has not or cannot be disproved, that says nothing of the likelihood of it being true.

I am very fond of Occam's Razor - "...the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory..." "...entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity..." "...selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities..."

[Luvian]

Sure, maybe the supernatural really does exist and we just don't know it. But it doesn't change the fact that all these people that had "encounters" are either deluded or crazy. Just like there might actually be a secret world government, but my father's old girlfriend still was just crazy and they weren't after her.

[Ivelliis]

Maybe this is just a deception tactic to put us off the scent for your super secret thieves guild, eh Luvian. I'm on to you! *gives evil eyes*




*lowers voice* Can I join?

[Iron Greasel]

Originally Posted by JrKASperov Here lies the problem. Even using an ounce of logic is using theory. As I believe van Fraassen has put it: "our language is theory-infected". I would like to add that you can test something to be true as long as it's observable. It is important because science often has theories about unobservables.

That is not a problem. Trogdor simply stated that he does not believe things solely because someone else says they are. He did not say that he disbelieves everything he can't touch. At least that is how I interpreted his post. Trogdor, please correct me if I am wrong.

What do you mean with "theories about unobservables"? Unobservables like what? I was under the impression that scientific method basically meant acquiring new information by testing.

Originally Posted by JrKASperov (...) science doesn't explain everything. This in conjunction with the hard reality that we often don't know whether something is true leads to the conclusion (in my opinion) that we cannot simply rule out these "ghost" things, as scientists. As a person I can have several judgements, however.

Indeed, the existence of ghosts cannot be disproven. In my initial post I said that "All ghost stories can be explained with science and everyday physics can be explained with magic". It is impossible to say, with perfect certainty, if gravity is caused by trade of gravitons between objects with mass, or invisible unicorns pushing everyone down, or something else. Or, to pick another example, whether a person who claims to have seen a ghost actually saw the ghost, saw something else, just imagined the whole thing or is lying.