Thread: Science vs. Your Cracked-out "Theory"

A hypothesis only has insufficient evidence if it cannot be proven. But that does not make one invalid. The person hearing noises at night is enough "observational data" to come up with a hypothesis, or x number of them.

But now that you say evidence... I think you should go back an re-eval hypothesis formation (again) because evidence does not come until after the hypothesis in the scientific method.

My point was that not only was the hypothesis illogical, but that it wasn't enough to have it by itself. A simple test would have exposed the hypothesis to be nonsense. At this point the hypothesis would be rewritten to be a break in. This would be consistent with the evidence and a proper theory could be formed.

Now answer my question:

Where does the conclusion of a spirit of a dead person causing the noise come from? What reasoning supports that?

Originally Posted by blade5x

I think you should go back an re-eval hypothesis formation (again) because evidence does not come until after the hypothesis in the scientific method.

Not true. There is a hidden step.

The hypothesis is not a wild guess based on nothing. The hypothesis is a possible explanation which is built around the experimenter's past experiences - these are, in a way, evidence for the hypothesis. They do not make it true, but they make it valid.

If your hypothesis is not supported by reasoning or past experience, it is generally worthless - like hypothesizing that a shiny orb is a dead human being, for example.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Now answer my question:

Where does the conclusion of a spirit of a dead person causing the noise come from? What reasoning supports that?

Conclusions as in scientifically, or conclusion as in that's what the person decides is true for themselves?

Scientifically, there is none because it never makes it passed the hypothesis stage, or is disproven by a burglar caught on camera - and only then does the hypothesis become invalid.

The own person's conclusion - depends on their mindset in my opinion. We're all human, but we all think differently. Given a subject that cannot be proven, if asked to come up with our best conclusions, or which conclusion sounds most true to you, you'd see a wide variety of conclusions.

Not true. There is a hidden step.

The hypothesis is not a wild guess based on nothing. The hypothesis is a possible explanation which is built around the experimenter's past experiences - these are, in a way, evidence for the hypothesis. They do not make it true, but they make it valid.

I pretty much stated that, except I don't like to call it evidence. I quoted "observational data" in my previous past, which actually aren't exactly the right words either, I'd say more like "initial observation of an event taking place". - and that's what will lead to a hypothesis. Evidence in the scientific method is proof. I see where you are coming from - for that one person, what they experienced is evidence for them. But for the rest of the world, it's just the foundation of the hypothesis, the initial observation, which to everyone else, is not evidence.

Originally Posted by blade5x

Conclusions as in scientifically, or conclusion as in that's what the person decides is true for themselves?

Scientifically, there is none because it never makes it passed the hypothesis stage, or is disproven by a burglar caught on camera - and only then does the hypothesis become invalid.

The own person's conclusion - depends on their mindset in my opinion. We're all human, but we all think differently. Given a subject that cannot be proven, if asked to come up with our best conclusions, or which conclusion sounds most true to you, you'd see a wide variety of conclusions.

There is no distinction. There are conclusions that are based on reasons and those that are not. "I have a different mindset" does not justify non-sequitur.

Mindset was used a very vague term.

Take a look at all the religion that exists. People are born into, and believe in it because they were raised to believe in it. Maybe not for you, but that is enough to justify their beliefs for me. I may not agree with what they believe, but I'm not going to bother questioning them about it, or call them stupid for believing in it. As long as they keep to themselves, and don't try to force their beliefs onto me or tell me I'm wrong for having my own beliefs - then I really don't give a shit.

Some random forum user tells me they saw someone levitate - whatever, I really, really don't care. However, in real life, I'd actually question them because I'd want to see something like that for myself... but for an online forum... you take other people's beliefs way to seriously.

I think you and I are proof enough that people have different mindsets and see the world differently - which would justify non-sequitur. Maybe not justify the conclusion, but like I said earlier, I don't call them conclusions, I call them theories. To the one person alone, it is a conclusion for them, and for them only - for the rest of us, it is a theory, and will only be a theory until disproven. I've said that again and again. If you can't view their personal truth as a theory presented to you, and nothing more than a theory, I can't really say much more if that is the case. And again, a theory is never wrong until disproven - no matter how stupid it may sound.

This is what I see the main between you and me...

Person: Hey, there's a ghost in my house!
Me: Really, and how did you come up with this idea?
Person: I keep hearing weird things all the time.
Me: Can you scientifically prove to me the existence of this ghost?
Person: I doubt it.
Me: Ok, than I really don't care about your idea. (where you decide to attack the person)
Person: But I swear there's one there!
Me: What's true to you, is not true to me, but only a suggestion of truth.

Since you're using a non-sequitur to justify non-sequitur, you are clearly lost beyond all help. You may now uninstall your web browser.

Since you're using a non-sequitur to justify non-sequitur

Are you saying my justification that 'a person being brainwashed into believing something' is illogical? Are you saying the fact that we think different giving rise of different beliefs is illogical?

The best advice I can give you is just to go out (forums don't count), and meet people. Get to know people, get to know where they come from. I really don't know what else to advise. Maybe a few semesters of psychology as well. I really don't know. You go that while I get rid of IE (which I've been wanting to get rid of for a long time).

"I think you and I are proof enough that people have different mindsets and see the world differently - which would justify non-sequitur."

I'm talking about this. Do you even know what non-sequitur means?

"I think you and I are proof enough that people have different mindsets and see the world differently - which would justify non-sequitur."

Are you saying the fact that we think different giving rise of different beliefs is illogical?

*You got me with the non-sequitur* - I though it meant illogical-theory or idea, not illogical-*conclusion*

I've repeated myself so much at this point... what is true for one person is not always true for everyone else. That, IMO, is enough justification for anyone's beliefs as illogical as they may sound to me (it may be a logical belief from the person's point of view) unless proven wrong. I'm like just looping over and over. I've edited this post like 5 times because I don't even know what to say anymore.

I'm just beginning to think we're viewing the word 'justify' differently. I view 'justify' as 'I understand where they are coming from even though they may be completely wrong' where as you seem to view 'justify' as '100% proving' or something like that.

Justification, again, varies from person to person.

Are saying unproven theories are illogical conclusions. Or what are you saying?

Originally Posted by blade5x

what is true for one person is not always true for everyone else.

That is not true for me.

Originally Posted by blade5x

I've repeated myself so much at this point... what is true for one person is not always true for everyone else. That, IMO, is enough justification for anyone's beliefs as illogical as they may sound to me (it may be a logical belief from the person's point of view) unless proven wrong. I'm like just looping over and over. I've edited this post like 5 times because I don't even know what to say anymore.

Logic is not affected by anyone's "point of view". It either makes sense or it does not. An illogical belief is inherently not justified (see below). If we aren't to use logic, then all that is left is simply picking whatever the hell we feel like. You want it to be ghosts? Bam! It's ghosts. Maybe you'd prefer neon-green spoons reciting Shakespeare in Pig Latin? Bam! It's neon-green spoons reciting Shakespeare in Pig Latin.

Originally Posted by blade5x

Are saying unproven theories are illogical conclusions. Or what are you saying?

I'm saying ideas that just come from no where. Ones that are simply made up. I mean "justify" as in "follows logically and can support with reason". Basically, I was using it as an antonym for non-sequitur. This definition does not vary from person to person. No one is inexplicably given stricter or looser requirements. Either it makes sense, or it does not.

I can't even tell what your argument is anymore.

Is anyone having fun?

Originally Posted by Mark75

You're a moron if you honestly think it works like that. There's a pretty simple and very well supported theory on burglars. For ghosts there is no such thing.

Well ghosts are real to me. Do radios launch themselves across rooms? Does your smoke alarm go off at every anniversary of your daughters death?

Ghosts haven't been disproved altogether.

I'm saying ideas that just come from no where. Ones that are simply made up. I mean "justify" as in "follows logically and can support with reason". Basically, I was using it as an antonym for non-sequitur. This definition does not vary from person to person. No one is inexplicably given stricter or looser requirements. Either it makes sense, or it does not.

I either agree with you here or partly agree with you - ideas that come from no where - ones that are simply made up without personal experience, or some kind of logic that does not require that..

I mean "justify" as in "follows logically and can support with reason".

And I go back to personal experiences. How can anyone follow with support or reason when trying to prove something like Astral Projection, or claiming they saw a ghost, saw someone levitate, and etc? They can't. They can claim it true, but I realize that is the truth only for that person, not for me, and if they can't prove it to me, than I won't believe it. I'll try and convince that person otherwise, but if I see I can't change their mind, than whatever - I'll consider the slight possibility that maybe what they did experience was the truth, but I won't 'their truth' that as my conclusion - only the possibility.

Scientific proofs too began as theories either based off personal experience, or some kind of logic that did not require it.

Cracked out but true: The observer effect - all we have is personal experience that this happens, but no logical reasoning as to why it does.

Originally Posted by wer

*sighs*

You are blinded by society and blinded by you own ability not to be able see past what has been programmed into your brain as "logical" and "acceptable".

You are blinded because you can't think outside the box. Think about it, the only way we've gotten where we are now is when some brilliant thinker thought outside the box and spread ideas that were generally thought of as crazy at the time. The theories I speak of don't go against science in any way, no, not at all. You are the one who is blindfolded my friend.

Science is evolving, catch up.

You probably are one of the most un-scientific, deluded, hypocritical, stubborn person I saw on DV all month.

So you don't really have my vote. Saying you are open-minded doesn't make you open-minded. Actually, the more you claim you are, and the more you say others are not, the more likely it is that you are Not open-minded.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Logic is not affected by anyone's "point of view". It either makes sense or it does not. An illogical belief is inherently not justified (see below). If we aren't to use logic, then all that is left is simply picking whatever the hell we feel like. You want it to be ghosts? Bam! It's ghosts. Maybe you'd prefer neon-green spoons reciting Shakespeare in Pig Latin? Bam! It's neon-green spoons reciting Shakespeare in Pig Latin.

Logic is not universal. I can give many examples of its relative nature if you'd like but for now I'm just going to make that statement, since to most people it should seem pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by Mark75

I'm saying ideas that just come from no where. Ones that are simply made up. I mean "justify" as in "follows logically and can support with reason". Basically, I was using it as an antonym for non-sequitur. This definition does not vary from person to person. No one is inexplicably given stricter or looser requirements. Either it makes sense, or it does not.

I can't even tell what your argument is anymore.

The idea of ghosts does not come from nowhere. It is not something that has been just made up. Certain people have had experiences that have led them to this conclusion. The fact that you deny their conclusion and espouse it as illogical does not invalidate it. Perhaps those people are wrong, but your explanations, most likely, would not be any better than theirs if you were to experience the same events. Perhaps you would claim aliens. Perhaps you would decide extra dimensional beings. Perhaps you would think Astral projection. Regardless of what it is you believe, there are instances in which you really don't know what is happening and you make a guess based on what you have learned in the past. Some people have learned there are ghosts, and have experienced things that fit the description.

Originally Posted by really

Is anyone having fun?



Well ghosts are real to me. Do radios launch themselves across rooms? Does your smoke alarm go off at every anniversary of your daughters death?

Ghosts haven't been disproved altogether.

They also haven't been proven at all. The two examples you list, though strange indeed, are not at all indicative of the influence of the spirits of the dead. This is a huge leap of faith and nothing more, unless you'd like to provide some reasons to support your conclusion. Otherwise it's a blatant non-sequitur, in which case I would ask that you never post in one of my threads again.

Something is not real "to someone" but not to others. Your belief in their presence does not mean that they are there anymore than my disbelief means they are not.

Originally Posted by blade5x

I either agree with you here or partly agree with you - ideas that come from no where - ones that are simply made up without personal experience, or some kind of logic that does not require that..



And I go back to personal experiences. How can anyone follow with support or reason when trying to prove something like Astral Projection, or claiming they saw a ghost, saw someone levitate, and etc? They can't. They can claim it true, but I realize that is the truth only for that person, not for me, and if they can't prove it to me, than I won't believe it. I'll try and convince that person otherwise, but if I see I can't change their mind, than whatever - I'll consider the slight possibility that maybe what they did experience was the truth, but I won't 'their truth' that as my conclusion - only the possibility.

Scientific proofs too began as theories either based off personal experience, or some kind of logic that did not require it.

Cracked out but true: The observer effect - all we have is personal experience that this happens, but no logical reasoning as to why it does.

You are confusing truth with belief. Truth is that which is reflected in reality. Belief is what someone thinks is reflected in reality. Belief requires proof. Since none of us can ever truly be sure that what we believe is true, we must make a constant effort to ensure we're as close as we can be. "Personal experiences" prove nothing. Let's take Really's example of the radio flying across the room. He might find that strange. Then he notices the smoke alarm going off on a regular, yearly basis. Since he saw the radio fly across the room, this is obviously ghosts due to that experience?

Which brings me to your example of Astral Projection. If one cannot develop a theory on how something as spectacular as that functions, then I'd suggest letting the scientists study you and do that for you.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The fact that you deny their conclusion and espouse it as illogical does not invalidate it.

Actually, that's exactly what it does.

If you honestly believe yourself the source of all logic and knowledge than this entire argument can be written off as adolescent egotism and delusions of grandeur and we can just leave it at that. If you'd like to have a conversation with adults, perhaps you should wait until you are capable of thinking like one.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If you honestly believe yourself the source of all logic and knowledge than this entire argument can be written off as adolescent egotism and delusions of grandeur and we can just leave it at that. If you'd like to have a conversation with adults, perhaps you should wait until you are capable of thinking like one.

Forgiveness. I thought you meant "exposed". I didn't realize espoused was a word.

That said, what I meant is that if I've demonstrated it to be illogical, rather than simply claiming that it is so, then that is no act of egotism. Just basic reasoning.

Originally Posted by Mark75

The two examples you list, though strange indeed, are not at all indicative of the influence of the spirits of the dead. This is a huge leap of faith and nothing more, unless you'd like to provide some reasons to support your conclusion.

So what makes them strange? I gave a good enough reason, if you read my entire post; main part being:

Originally Posted by really

Does your smoke alarm go off at every anniversary of your daughters death?

And this is not really a huge leap of faith at all for me, it is quite easy to believe - if you consider someone else's viewpoint, which you don't seem to be doing in this thread. It would be strange to someone like you.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Otherwise it's a blatant non-sequitur, in which case I would ask that you never post in one of my threads again.

You really don't care do you? Forums are for everyone, not for your precisely picked favorites. Take this for an example of your respect:

Originally Posted by Mark75

You're blinder than I am.
I didn't read that.

I mean seriously, here you admit that you are both blind AND ignorant.

Originally Posted by Mark75

You are confusing truth with belief. Truth is that which is reflected in reality. Belief is what someone thinks is reflected in reality. Belief requires proof. "Personal experiences" prove nothing.

Truth IS your belief - if not, have we found truth yet? Belief does not require proof either, take most religions for example, they do not have full proof. Personal experiences don't need any proof, in most cases.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Since none of us can ever truly be sure that what we believe is true, we must make a constant effort to ensure we're as close as we can be.

Is this your ego-motive for the topic?

It's not neccissarily, anyway. You're using blanket statements again. Some people have found the Ultimate truth, others still find the need to keep looking for it.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Let's take Really's example of the radio flying across the room. He might find that strange. Then he notices the smoke alarm going off on a regular, yearly basis. Since he saw the radio fly across the room, this is obviously ghosts due to that experience?

Like I said, it doesn't look like you've read my whole post.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Regardless of what it is you believe, there are instances in which you really don't know what is happening and you make a guess based on what you have learned in the past. Some people have learned there are ghosts, and have experienced things that fit the description.

Yes, that's right. Take my post for example. To another person, ghosts may not be suggested, because they know that the smoke alarm has an annual timer (yeah weird ). Or someone starts a fire every year on this particular date. Or that the radio was situated in a humid room and simply experienced a large electrical shock.

Originally Posted by really

Truth IS your belief - if not, have we found truth yet? Belief does not require proof either, take most religions for example, they do not have full proof. Personal experiences don't need any proof, in most cases.

I believe that entire post was a load of garbage, beliefs are truth, therefore this is true, therefore your post was a load of garbage.

Originally Posted by really

Yes, that's right. Take my post for example. To another person, ghosts may not be suggested, because they know that the smoke alarm has an annual timer (yeah weird ). Or that the radio was situated in a humid room and simply experienced a large electrical shock.

So if you have perfectly logical explanations and didn't chalk them up to ghosts, then what exactly was your point?

Originally Posted by Mark75

I believe that entire post was a load of garbage, beliefs are truth, therefore this is true, therefore your post was a load of garbage.

Yes, correct, from your perspective. But your belief is not mine, so my truth is not yours.

Even in saying that my post is garbage, you contradict yourself by saying that beliefs are truth.

Originally Posted by Mark75

So if you have perfectly logical explanations and didn't chalk them up to ghosts, then what exactly was your point?

That two people can perceive the same situation differently, and even so when there are given different reasons for its outcome. The examples in the last post were hypothetical, not evident.

Originally Posted by really

Yes, correct, from your perspective. But your belief is not mine, so my truth is not yours.

Even in saying that my post is garbage, you contradict yourself by saying that beliefs are truth.

Doesn't matter, it's not like logic has anything to do with it. My experiences show that you're full of crap, so it's true anyway.

Originally Posted by really

That two people can perceive the same situation differently, and even so when there are given different reasons for its outcome. The examples in the last post were hypothetical, not evident.

It seems more like what your point really shows is that some people jump to illogical conclusions, where others would find the annual timer and the electric shock, highlighting the contrast in the abilities to form a logical hypothesis (and subsequently discover evidence that affirms it) between the two.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Forgiveness. I thought you meant "exposed". I didn't realize espoused was a word.

That said, what I meant is that if I've demonstrated it to be illogical, rather than simply claiming that it is so, then that is no act of egotism. Just basic reasoning.

The point is, unless you can invalidate every case of a ghost siting with irrefutable proof, you can't really say that it is illogical or made up, at best all you can do is show it to be improbable.