So, YOU can offer empirical proof for everything that is in existence? Even things that we don't fully understand yet? The entire realm of science is constantly trying to explain things for which we don't yet have any empirical proof. So until empirical proof is offered, what does that mean? The things that are actually being studied throughout science aren't real??? You're lazy and vulgar, and if you don't have something more convincing to reply with than cussing, why don't you give us all a break and spin your crap somewhere else and let those who really want to discuss using arguments and counter-arguments a place to do it without wading through your inane, sloppy postings.
I think you missed what he was saying. He was saying that there is a gap in time between scientists choosing to focus on something and the accumlation of evidence that makes them feel it is real. He is saying that, therefore, even in science, it is clearly acknowledged that real things do not yet have empirical evidence for them or what would be the point of many specific kinds of research. Like looking for a new particle, for example, or seeing if in fact there are so far unseen species high up in the jungle canopy that are nowhere else. Or to put this in the negative. It would be unscientific to say things do not exist only because there is no evidence for them. So many fruitful projects and of course many (nevertheless possibly useful) duds would never have been carried out.
Well said, Pineal. And here, I don't mean to lump every bump-in-the-night superstition to the ad hoc committee of "undiscovered science." Some of these phenomenon are totally weird and the undeniable product of irrational minds, but there are others that may actually be explained by science... one day. The anecdotal evidence for the existence of ghosts alone is tremendous. That doesn't mean every account in history has validity, but how do you simply discount literally millennium-worth of accounts by saying that all of them are simply hogwash?
Er, but that's not quite how it is, is it? They look for the particles because there is evidence to suggest that they're there. A gap where there "shouldn't" be one is a form of empirical evidence. That's the whole point: the evidence leads to the search. Of course in some cases it may turn out that the actual particle being searched for does not exist, therefore science has another look at the evidence to see what else it suggests.
What is a ghost? A dead human being that is alive in a "spirit form" with the same body roaming around making noises? Atleast let there be a theory for the pro-ghosts about forms going through dimensions and being stuck here or something, ghosts dont make any sense to me.
Your terminology: "going through dimensions" makes no sense scientifically. You appear to be using it in the science fiction/ Hollywood/ woo woo sense.
Okay if were going to take the statement out of context lets examine what it implied. "The many world interpretation" and an implication thereof would better explain the concept of ghosts in oppose to the traditional concept of ghosts roaming earth to complete something so they can rest in peace. How are the concept of dimensions woo-woo'ish ?
Um, the many world interpretation is nothing to do with "dimensions". They are separate universe. The use of "dimension" (which has a specific meaning) is the woo woo shorthand (due to lack of knowledge). There also (at least) two problems with using MWI - 1) the majority of physicists don't actually claim that there are many worlds in actuality (although a small number do). It's simply a way of interpreting (hence the name) the results. 2) even if they did exist it's almost certain that they are cut off from us irrevocably.
That the idea of ghosts are absurd and the pro-ghost supports should come up with a more creative premise for the concept.
In other words you were waffling just as inanely as the woo woos. Okay. In short, you don't know what you meant, therefore your claim to be using the word "properly in your context" is erroneous.
