Is it conceptually possible to find scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts?

(I am not asking if it is likely, or believable, or true, or whatever. I am simply asking if it is conceptually possible to find scientific evidence of ghosts.)

fat girlfriend said:

---

Is it conceptually possible to find scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts?

(I am not asking if it is likely, or believable, or true, or whatever. I am simply asking if it is conceptually possible to find scientific evidence of ghosts.)

---

Can these ghosts interact with the natural world?

ghost = spirit = life

You are a ghost.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Is it conceptually possible to find scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts?

(I am not asking if it is likely, or believable, or true, or whatever. I am simply asking if it is conceptually possible to find scientific evidence of ghosts.)

---

Can these ghosts interact with the natural world?

---

Yes.

fat girlfriend said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Is it conceptually possible to find scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts?

(I am not asking if it is likely, or believable, or true, or whatever. I am simply asking if it is conceptually possible to find scientific evidence of ghosts.)

---

Can these ghosts interact with the natural world?

---

Yes.

---

If ghosts exist and can interact with the natural world, I see no reason why we couldn't find scientific evidence for ghosts. . . .But, it should be noted that we haven't really done anything here. We've only defined ghosts as being able to interact with the natural world and then concluded that they can interact with the natural world.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

ghost = spirit = life

You are a ghost.

---

BUT THERE'S A SPIRIT CAN NE'ER BE TOLD!

Absolutely, it's also why it's so telling that ghosts, aliens, angels, Bigfoot and demons suddenly we're nowhere to be found once everyone had a camera on their pocket.

fat girlfriend said:

---

Is it conceptually possible to find scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts?

(I am not asking if it is likely, or believable, or true, or whatever. I am simply asking if it is conceptually possible to find scientific evidence of ghosts.)

---

Have you never seen Ghostbusters?

If anything beyond the natural world exists, then we are back in Plato's cave.

Would it be possible to find evidence of something supernatural interacting with the natural world? Sure.

Could you ever form a testable scientific hypothesis about something that exists beyond the natural world? Nope.

I thought science was defined by a commitment to methodological naturalism? If science demands a commitment to methodological naturalism, then how could "a ghost did it" possibly pass muster as a scientific explanation?

fat girlfriend said:

---

I thought science was defined by a commitment to methodological naturalism? If science demands a commitment to methodological naturalism, then how could "a ghost did it" possibly pass muster as a scientific explanation?

---

Didn't we just decide that ghosts are part of the natural world or that at least they interact with it? It's hard to know what ghosts can and can't do since. . . You know . . . They are make believe.

Quote:

---

Didn't we just decide that ghosts are part of the natural world

---

No

Quote:

---

at least they interact with it?

---

Also no. Although we did ask whether is conceptually possible for science to provide evidence that a ghost is interacting with the natural world.

Seems to me like the answer is, "no."

kurt vonnegut said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

I thought science was defined by a commitment to methodological naturalism? If science demands a commitment to methodological naturalism, then how could "a ghost did it" possibly pass muster as a scientific explanation?

---

Didn't we just decide that ghosts are part of the natural world or that at least they interact with it? It's hard to know what ghosts can and can't do since. . . You know . . . They are make believe.

---

Is love part of the natural world? What about math or logic?

Here's the upshot:

One can insist, contra the ID crowd, that science is committed to methodological naturalism. If one does this, however, one must admit that it's conceptually impossible for science to uncover evidence in favor of the existence of ghosts or any other non-natural entities. But surely if it's conceptually impossible for science to find evidence in favor of the existence of non-natural entities, then it's impossible for science to find evidence against the existence of non-natural entities. Hence, if one maintains that science is committed to methodological naturalism, one should hold that science offers no evidence either in favor of or opposed to the existence of God.

Alternatively, one can deny (like the ID guys) that science is committed to methodological naturalism. Only then can one claim that science has any bearing at all on whether or not we should believe in God.

Quote:

---

It's hard to know what ghosts can and can't do since. . . You know . . . They are make believe.

---

By the way, it's not surprising that you have such a certainty that ghosts don't exist, since you are committed to a way of coming to know truth that makes it impossible that we could ever come to know that ghosts exist. The claim that ghosts don't exist is unfalsifiable for you. There is no evidence that could be provided to you that could cause you to change your mind. (At least, to the extent that you are really committed to the idea that science is how we come to know about the world, and the idea that science is committed to methodological naturalism.)

I suggest you might take care that you don't become like the flat-earthers...willing to re-interpret any evidence in order to fit your unfalsifiable commitment.

fat girlfriend said:

---

I thought science was defined by a commitment to methodological naturalism? If science demands a commitment to methodological naturalism, then how could "a ghost did it" possibly pass muster as a scientific explanation?

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific explanation"

Evidence isn't scientific or non-scientific, it's any fact or observation. Science is a method that uses facts and observations to form testable hypotheses.

Could you observe a ghost? Sure. Could you make a testable hypothesis about a ghost? No.

Again, the supernatural may exist. That science is unable to test or affirm this has zero bearing on whether or not it's true.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Absolutely, it's also why it's so telling that ghosts, aliens, angels, Bigfoot and demons suddenly we're nowhere to be found once everyone had a camera on their pocket.

---

amercer said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

I thought science was defined by a commitment to methodological naturalism? If science demands a commitment to methodological naturalism, then how could "a ghost did it" possibly pass muster as a scientific explanation?

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific explanation"

Evidence isn't scientific or non-scientific, it's any fact or observation. Science is a method that uses facts and observations to form testable hypotheses.

Could you observe a ghost? Sure. Could you make a testable hypothesis about a ghost? No.

Again, the supernatural may exist. That science is unable to test or affirm this has zero bearing on whether or not it's true.

---

Some of our evidence involves observations that are intrasubjectively verifiable, and that are repeatible. I call that evidence "scientific evidence." But some of our evidence does not. I call the evidence that is either not intrasubjectively verifiable or not subject to testing non-scientific evidence.

For example, I have a very strong sense of God's love for me and his forgiveness of my sins. What to make of this fact? Surely it counts as evidence for something, but surely it would be a mistake to call such evidence "scientific evidence."

fat girlfriend said:

---

Quote:

---

Didn't we just decide that ghosts are part of the natural world

---

No

Quote:

---

at least they interact with it?

---

Also no. Although we did ask whether is conceptually possible for science to provide evidence that a ghost is interacting with the natural world.

Seems to me like the answer is, "no."

---

Earlier in the this thread when I asked if these ghosts can interact with the natural world and you said "Yes." Are you saying that ghosts can interact with the natural world, but are not part of the natural world? How does that work? Again, sorry . . . . I don't know how the non-existent make believe things that you haven't defined in any meaningful way actually work.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

I thought science was defined by a commitment to methodological naturalism? If science demands a commitment to methodological naturalism, then how could "a ghost did it" possibly pass muster as a scientific explanation?

---

Didn't we just decide that ghosts are part of the natural world or that at least they interact with it? It's hard to know what ghosts can and can't do since. . . You know . . . They are make believe.

---

Is love part of the natural world? What about math or logic?

---

What does that mean? Are love, math, and logic purposeful entities imposing a will on the natural world the same way fat's ghosts apparently might be?

fat girlfriend said:

---

Hence, if one maintains that science is committed to methodological naturalism, one should hold that science offers no evidence either in favor of or opposed to the existence of God.

---

I agree. Of course, if religion makes a claim like "the universe was made in 6 days", then science could be used to examine the claim from a naturalist perspective.

fat girlfriend said:

---

Quote:

---

It's hard to know what ghosts can and can't do since. . . You know . . . They are make believe.

---

By the way, it's not surprising that you have such a certainty that ghosts don't exist, since you are committed to a way of coming to know truth that makes it impossible that we could ever come to know that ghosts exist. The claim that ghosts don't exist is unfalsifiable for you. There is no evidence that could be provided to you that could cause you to change your mind. (At least, to the extent that you are really committed to the idea that science is how we come to know about the world, and the idea that science is committed to methodological naturalism.)

I suggest you might take care that you don't become like the flat-earthers...willing to re-interpret any evidence in order to fit your unfalsifiable commitment.

---

Hahaha! Yes, I hold it dogmatically true that ghosts don't exist. Its a defining characteristic of who I am.

Look, I think unicorns are make believe. And leprechauns and fairies and Zeus. If someone captures one of these creatures and studies it and this new information is provided to me, I am willing to update these things.

We should all take care to be willing to accept new evidence. I don't think that I'm in danger of that by calling something with zero evidence for it and for which you still have not defined in any meaningful way a piece of make believe.

So Zak is wasting all that money on his ghost boxes and IR scan equipment?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Hence, if one maintains that science is committed to methodological naturalism, one should hold that science offers no evidence either in favor of or opposed to the existence of God.

---

I agree. Of course, if religion makes a claim like "the universe was made in 6 days", then science could be used to examine the claim from a naturalist perspective.

---

Sure. Of course, if a non-natural being did create the universe, science by definition could never see that truth. Methodological naturalism us blind to any truth that involves the causal influence of a non-natural entity. Science as so defined refuses to even consider the possibility.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Quote:

---

It's hard to know what ghosts can and can't do since. . . You know . . . They are make believe.

---

By the way, it's not surprising that you have such a certainty that ghosts don't exist, since you are committed to a way of coming to know truth that makes it impossible that we could ever come to know that ghosts exist. The claim that ghosts don't exist is unfalsifiable for you. There is no evidence that could be provided to you that could cause you to change your mind. (At least, to the extent that you are really committed to the idea that science is how we come to know about the world, and the idea that science is committed to methodological naturalism.)

I suggest you might take care that you don't become like the flat-earthers...willing to re-interpret any evidence in order to fit your unfalsifiable commitment.

---

Hahaha! Yes, I hold it dogmatically true that ghosts don't exist. Its a defining characteristic of who I am.

Look, I think unicorns are make believe. And leprechauns and fairies and Zeus. If someone captures one of these creatures and studies it and this new information is provided to me, I am willing to update these things.

---

You keep missing the point. To the extent that you insist that science entails methodological naturalism, and to the extent that you think science is how we come to learn truth about the world, then you manifestly will NOT be open to any evidence in the existence of non-natural causes or non-natural entities.

AstroAg17 said:

---

How are you using the word natural?

---

The natural world is the world of particles and the laws of nature, like gravity and the strong nuclear force.

Your premise is flawed and seems to be an attempt to excuse the utter dearth of evidence for the supernatural. Science may not be able to explain such phenomena but we could see it. If you are a happy Potter wizard we could put you in a lab and verify the ordinary rules if the universe appear broken, even if we couldn't develop a working hypothesis.

fat girlfriend said:

---

You keep missing the point. To the extent that you insist that science entails methodological naturalism, and to the extent that you think science is how we come to learn truth about the world, then you manifestly will NOT be open to any evidence in the existence of non-natural causes or non-natural entities.

---

What would constitute evidence of the supernatural?

I live in the natural world and my experiences, so far as I can tell, are natural. It's not that I'm not open to the non-natural so much as I think that if it is defined as being beyond my natural observation of reality, I should, by the very definition of what supernatural means, NOT expect to see evidence for the supernatural.

In other words, if we had evidence of something supernatural, that something would not be considered supernatural.

Quote:

---

What would constitute evidence of the supernatural?

---

There is a lot of evidence for the supernatural, in my view, and some of it is intrasubjectively verifiable. For example, that the physical constants of the universe had to be finely tuned in order for a life-permitting universe to come into existence is evidence of a causal influence that extends beyond that of particles and laws of nature. The wide-spread belief in the supernatural itself constitutes some evidence for the supernatural. The evidence we have in the occurrence of miracles is evidence in the existence of the supernatural.

Other evidence in the existence of the supernatural is not intrasubjectively verifiable. For example, I often have strong experiences as of God loving me, or forgiving me, or otherwise being present. Those experiences themselves are evidence (available to me, but not to you) of the existence of the supernatural.

Quote:

---

In other words, if we had evidence of something supernatural, that something would not be considered supernatural.

---

That makes sense. That's just what you should think, given your commitment to naturalism.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

I thought science was defined by a commitment to methodological naturalism? If science demands a commitment to methodological naturalism, then how could "a ghost did it" possibly pass muster as a scientific explanation?

---

Didn't we just decide that ghosts are part of the natural world or that at least they interact with it? It's hard to know what ghosts can and can't do since. . . You know . . . They are make believe.

---

Is love part of the natural world? What about math or logic?

---

What does that mean? Are love, math, and logic purposeful entities imposing a will on the natural world the same way fat's ghosts apparently might be?

---

No. I don't believe in dead people's spirits returning to earth. I'm just wondering what you consider natural. Is logic part of the natural world even though we can't see or measure it?

A naturalist thinks love and logic are reducible to the natural world. Everything is reducible to the natural world. Ultimate, all that exists is either a particle, a law of nature, or explicable given only particles and laws of nature.

fat girlfriend said:

---

A naturalist thinks love and logic are reducible to the natural world. Everything is reducible to the natural world. Ultimate, all that exists is either a particle, a law of nature, or explicable given only particles and laws of nature.

---

How much does a law of nature weigh? What does it taste like?