[QUOTE="kneeha"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Those proponents of the existence of ghosts do not use falsification science to support their assumptions. They have an idea, "ghosts exist" and find "evidence", no matter how shaky or vague it is, to support that assumption. They don't go out of their way to find evidence that proves ghosts do NOT exist, and then by process of elimination, find a piece of evidence that suggests they do. The existence of things "preternatural" is not a problem. Ghosts fall into this category... but by definition, have not be proven beyond a shadow of doubt (anything that suggests they do not exist has to be considered especially if it has not been falsified yet) to exist on any way. Ockham's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the correct one. "Ghosts are a figment of people's wild imaginations" is the simplest explanation, and the one best supported by the lack of concrete, non-falsifiable evidence in ghosts' favor.frannkzappa

you do realize what Occams razor is right?

it should be read as "a razor owned by Occam"

not as a name like Occam Razor(who isnt a person btw)

this leads me to believe you have no idea what Occams razor is.

[QUOTE="kneeha"]You made some valid points but I disagree in your definition/standard of scientific evidence. If you stick to that strictly The Theory of Evolution specifically species to species transitions would not be counted as science, because it is niether measurable, testable, reproducible, and in my mind(probably diffrent in others) observable. But it is science, and investigating the supernatural is not, simply because they come from different philosophical backgrounds(in my mind at least).Zeviander

I also disagree with your last statement, the Miler- Urey experiment proved that if you add electricity, water, and create a vacuum you get amino acids. But it is promoted as if it proves abiogenesis. Seems like clever word play to me. And this is stated in every biology class in America. Also look at psychology, we would definitely call it a science right? Only because it's popular opinion that it is science, but in truth the majority of it is not empirical at all. See what I mean by the biased?kneeha

[QUOTE="kneeha"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Those proponents of the existence of ghosts do not use falsification science to support their assumptions. They have an idea, "ghosts exist" and find "evidence", no matter how shaky or vague it is, to support that assumption. They don't go out of their way to find evidence that proves ghosts do NOT exist, and then by process of elimination, find a piece of evidence that suggests they do. The existence of things "preternatural" is not a problem. Ghosts fall into this category... but by definition, have not be proven beyond a shadow of doubt (anything that suggests they do not exist has to be considered especially if it has not been falsified yet) to exist on any way. Ockham's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the correct one. "Ghosts are a figment of people's wild imaginations" is the simplest explanation, and the one best supported by the lack of concrete, non-falsifiable evidence in ghosts' favor.wis3boi

Might wanna learn more about what pseudo science is. Astrology is pseudoscience. Feng Shui is pseudoscience.

[QUOTE="kneeha"]What makes the test to find Ghosts a pseudo-science?Zeviander

ITT; stupid people thinking they understand science

LostProphetFLCL

"Evidence" by scientific standards is not only observable, but measurable, testable and most importantly, reproducible. An "eyewitness account" is meaningless to science. Science demands hard evidence that can be reproduced and verified by anyone able to recreate the scenario/experiment. Naturalism/materialism is not an assumed position, it is the default position. Falsification, doing everything in one's power to prove something false, is how modern science works. No longer do we assume something to be the case and try to find something to support it. Sir Francis Bacon was a philosopher, not a scientist, so his position on the matter of "natural" and "real" are quite irrelevant to science. Scientists observe and study the natural world as it exists in front of them... they don't posit a hypothesis and support it with clever wordplay.Zeviander

You made some valid points but I disagree in your definition/standard of scientific evidence. If you stick to that strictly The Theory of Evolution specifically species to species transitions would not be counted as science, because it is niether measurable, testable, reproducible, and in my mind(probably diffrent in others) observable. But it is science, and investigating the supernatural is not, simply because they come from different philosophical backgrounds(in my mind at least).

I also disagree with your last statement, the Miler- Urey experiment proved that if you add electricity, water, and create a vacuum you get amino acids. But it is promoted as if it proves abiogenesis. Seems like clever word play to me. And this is stated in every biology class in America. Also look at psychology, we would definitely call it a science right? Only because it's popular opinion that it is science, but in truth the majority of it is not empirical at all. See what I mean by the biased?

The tests used to find ghosts are based on psuedo science and not real science. They make far too many assumptions. If you disagree with something that has been scientifically tested you can repeat the test and find out for yourself if it's true or not. People also believed in succubus/incubus for years but there is a more reasonable answer for sightings of these that has less assumptions and makes more sense. Ghost hunting makes a lot of assumptions without having any physical evidence to back it up. There very well could be ghosts and they have magic powers that stop us from seeing them, but what makes more sense? That somebody saw a shadow and thought it was a ghost?or that magical ghosts actually exist?

Bane_09

What makes the test to find Ghosts a pseudo-science? All scientific theory/hypothesis makes certain assumptions in creation and changes the formula of testing to make it more accurate. Evolving in a sort. Again your philosophy that the super natural is unlikely that materialism/naturalism is what is rea;, and not empirical science is the reason you believe that "magical ghosts" is unlikely. Again I don't believe in Ghosts. I just think the scrutiny of it's investigation is not based on science but bias.

nobody interested?

I'm doing some humanities homework and I came across Sir Francis Bacon. One of his main points was that in order to do proper science you must leave all preconcieved notions and biased behind. But I realize we assume so many things when we come to the scientific table nowadays based on philosophy, and not science. Mainly I mean naturalism (everything that is here arrived naturally) and materialism(only matter exists). Like ghosts for example. There are millions of eyewitness accounts of Ghosts, but, since they can't be explained materialistically or through naturalism anyone who believes in them are seen as fools, or tries to do scientific research into them are seen as quacks. Not based on the fact that it spits in the face of some real observational science, but the fact that it craps on some biased philosophy. Now I don't even believe in ghosts, but do you get my point?

What do you think?

[QUOTE="kneeha"]A better defenition of micro would be a change within a single species wich normally equates to a loss of genetic information or so ive read._Tobli_

What i meant was that phrasing it like that gives the wrong impression.

What are your thoughts on the speciation that has been observed?

I believe in rapid speciation and in short and very simplistic turns heres why in a video.

Link here