Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
The Dunning-Kruger effect might also be a reasonable explanation for why people try to use science to support their lack of belief in ghosts.
For instance, it seems like the overconfidence you have in your grasp of the scientific method has led you to draw an erroneous conclusion about the general nature of all supernatural experiences. The dancing lady can be made to turn different ways because she lacks definition. Sure, it speaks to the possibility that things can be misinterpreted. But everything can be misinterpreted. This doesn't mean that you can just assume that you can chalk every instance of implausibility up to human error. Arguably, the Dunning-Kruger effect is responsible for the assumption that a lack of scientific corroboration is proof that certain phenomena can't occur.
|
I think we’re on the same page here. You are especially right to point out that the D-K effect influences people on both ends of the debate - myself certainly not excluded.
A collection of quotes from this thread:
Quote:
|
It can't be proven, because you are asking for physical evidence of non-physical entities.
|
Quote:
|
Essentially, if non-physical entities exist, they perhaps communicate by non-physical means. In humans, this communication is focused on the mind. The problem, however, is that we are sensory beings and tend to "physicalize" experience (think imagination, memory, music, scent, imagery, etc., and how they're all interconnected).
|
Quote:
|
Ghosts may or may not have a physical "real" side, but either way, they're certainly a part of our reality. Whether every person experiences them or not.
|
Quote:
|
so you mean proof in a kind of vaguely scientific-ish sense of the term…
|
I'm addressing the validity of above statements. Please correct me if I’m wrong…
Science and paranormal are very compatible. Our problem isn’t lack of instruments…we have our minds and that’s a start. The issue is that people claiming the existence of ghosts lack a hypothesis; fail to come up with conclusions based on that hypothesis and flail to come up with data which supports those conclusions.
“Science” is not an instrument with flashing lights; it’s a process for obtaining truth. Science embraces the paranormal. Every scientific discovery was once an unknown. Evolution, quantum mechanics and astrology are all huge leaps for the human mind which involved much poking in the dark before instruments for adequate exploration existed. To say that something which cannot be explained by current scientific theories is incompatible with the scientific process is absurd.
There are several poor arguments that always come up in these discussions:
"We cannot detect ghost by any current means. "
Firsthand observation of ghosts by individuals will do just fine as a source of data. Many social and psychological concepts were investigated using the same source. We have a means of detecting ghosts and collecting data about them which can be perfectly scientific when combined with proper techniques: the mind.
"Ghosts are simply beyond our comprehension."
Everything, at some point, was beyond our comprehension. This never stopped us from exploring the unknown. Experiences of ghosts are no exception. We can collect the data and begin to derive ideas on the nature of these entities. From there we can begin to draw conclusions and make predictions about where ghosts might appear, who can see them and under what circumstances.
"Scientific minds are incompatible with paranormal experience. Therefore they will never see ghosts and never be able to prove their existence."
Think of all the great minds (Galileo, Copernicus, Hawking, Newton, Einstein, Darwin) who had to not only think outside the box but challenge preconceived notions of reality in order to take make their ideas work. Pigeonholing data into neat formulas is the end process of scientific pursuit - the final spellcheck – not to be confused with the whole process which involves creativity and an open mind above all else.
Science and logical thinking are perfectly compatible with exploration of paranormal events; which leaves us with the very interesting question of
why can't anyone prove ghosts?
I stand with twistedmosaic’s point of view on this. This isn't about denying possibilities but seeing the absurdity in chasing ducks with trunks.