Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

Smooth talkers are unimpressive to myself and many others. A good con man spins a convincing tale.
Scientific skeptics can be accused of being closed-minded, inhibiting scientific progress by rejecting new ideas without adequate investigation.
 
Scientific skeptics can be accused of being closed-minded, inhibiting scientific progress by rejecting new ideas without adequate investigation.
Ghosties have been investigated up one side and down the other for eons, with dead zero evidence of their existance. That's not being closed minded; that is reaching the only conclusion a skeptic can scientifically reach.
 
Ghosties have been investigated up one side and down the other for eons, with dead zero evidence of their existance. That's not being closed minded; that is reaching the only conclusion a skeptic can scientifically reach.
Although many studies have been conducted on phenomena associated with ghosts, the absence of concrete evidence does not mean that the issue is completely resolved or that the investigation is worthless. Scientific research is dynamic and can evolve with new technologies and methodologies.
 
Do what I did, go back to school, do some pseudoskepticism in college, and learn to ask better questions.

You're just moving the goal posts because you are intellectually lazy. You believe what you believe, and everyone else is wrong because your beliefs have no factual foundation.

I've been on this board for a long time. Nobody has given me a hard time because I don't make claims that I can't back up. I understand - and respect - the difference between anecdotal evidence, and factual evidence. It's not about what I believe, only what I can prove, and I'm happy with the system as is. It forces me to up my game, do my homework, and accept the fact that while many aspects of science are beyond me those aspects of science are backed up with data. That means that I either accept the science I don't fully understand, or I pursue the multiple PhDs required just to get into the arena to attempt to challenge the science, and even then the odds are that with that education I will just accept the science once I completely understand it.

The difference between you and I is I've done the work. I logged the hours physically investigating the phenomenon. I have a few cool ghost stories, but the bulk of my work suggests natural-but-obscure causes behind what people interpret as spirit contact, and activity. Keeping an open mind swings both ways.
 
Although many studies have been conducted on phenomena associated with ghosts, the absence of concrete evidence does not mean that the issue is completely resolved or that the investigation is worthless. Scientific research is dynamic and can evolve with new technologies and methodologies.
You've got two radically different posting styles there, ducky.
 
Although many studies have been conducted on phenomena associated with ghosts, the absence of concrete evidence does not mean that the issue is completely resolved or that the investigation is worthless. Scientific research is dynamic and can evolve with new technologies and methodologies.
Fun Fact: scientists don't tend to socialize with other scientists who are not in their discipline. Geologists don't hang with geophysicists. Geophysicists don't hang with physicists. Physicists don't hang with physicians, and so on. Out here MBARI tried to design a workspace where the various scientists would comingle and it has mostly failed. The result is the information that can move geology forward might already be possessed by geophysics, but geologists are unaware of the data because it never makes its way down the hall.

Take the iPhone. Apple didn't invent LCD touch screens, or cellphones, or data transmission. They just put it all together in one package. Rubber had been around for a while, but vulcanization took rubber to the next level. It's not about new discoveries, it's about using the science that's already available. And with spirits the answer will likely be very unparanormal.
 

Back
Top Bottom