What qualifies as science?

What? The Earth being round was based on reproducible observation and then measurement (by Eratosthenes in about 300BC).

The chief defining characteristic of pseudoscience, zombie or otherwise, is the absence of reproducible observations in support of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In science, no hypothesis or theory is ever proven.

No, science is not just a matter of observation, physical or non-physical. It is a matter of reproducible observation, allowing the development of predictive hypotheses about the physical world that can be tested by further reproducible observation.

That rules out:
- non-reproducible observations,
- hypotheses that make no testable predictions, and
- hypotheses that are not about the physical world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was pseudo of it's day, but I suppose you're also correct. I was just trying to point out that pseudo does not mean in the grave

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're just pinpointing your preferable personal category of science. What if I wanted to study ghosts, there's enough video and photographic evidence out there. It would be downright ignorant to say I couldn't do a scientific study into the paranormal

 

No, my criteria above are axiomatic to the practice of science. ALL science.

I fully agree there is nothing to stop you mounting a further scientific study of these phenomena. That means you will have to search for reproducible evidence and if you find some, perhaps come forward with a theory that predicts what further reproducible observations can be expected.

But it has been done before and got nowhere, which means that, as of now, there is no scientific evidence for these things and no scientific theory about them. People that claim otherwise are peddling pseudoscience.

Bear in mind that a collection of anecdotes does not qualify as reproducible evidence in science. "Reproducible" means something can be observed not just by one person in one place, but by other people in other places. It is the way that science strives to be objective about nature, rather than subjective, given the propensity of individual human beings to see what they are hoping to see.

 

To be sure it would be totally ignorant for anybody to say you couldn't do a Scientific study into the paranormal

You could do a scientific study into ghost and all the photographic video evidence out there no problem at all

Interview eyewitnesses - compile data - draw up charts - publish papers - have others go over your work - have them reproduce your findings

Oh no it can't be. Nobody can reproduce my findings. I wonder where I went wrong?

Oh well forget about ghost and the paranormal let's study something much better - UFOs

So it is ignorant to say you cannot do a scientific study on the paranormal

It is NOT ignorant to say, in fact it is positively knowledgeable to say, you won't find anything scienceie in any of them

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So I can do a scientific study, but it's not science

 

You can do a scientific study on any subject. That's not the problem

The problem is there in no science in the subject

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are doing science provided you do it according to the criteria I outlined.

It is however pseudoscience if you ignore those criteria and claim to have evidence, or a theory, without respecting them.

It is making claims that are not supported properly that make something pseudoscience.

 

So even if there was a ghost standing in front a thousand scientists, any study would be a pseudo until there was a formula to understand the ghosts existence. Essentially, the ghost would not be real until it could be scientifically understood?

Reminds me of the time my dad got spooked after he ejected a johnny cash cd from the car stereo and it kept playing for about a minute. I just put it down to an anti skip mechanism of the stereo, though I couldn't reproduce the initial observation. The idea of having a johnny cash possessed stereo is pretty cool. I can see where people get a little bit too excited but I believe it would foolish to rule out all paranormal activity as rubbish

 

If a ghost were standing in front of a thousand scientists you would have reproducible evidence, because you would have a thousand independent observations of the event. That would already put ghosts on a scientific footing, by demonstrating there really is something requiring a scientific explanation. So then you, or they, would need to develop a testable theory, by which they could propose circumstances under which more ghosts could be observed. And then you would have a scientific theory of ghosts.

But of course, these thousand scientists would have to agree that what they all observed was indeed a "ghost", rather than something already known to science.

(I am afraid, however, that anyone doing this would probably be crucified as a spoilsport, because my cynical suspicion is that believers in ghosts WANT there to be something out there beyond science. What they want is woo: pseudoscience, in other words.)

 

Indeed it would - but that's an argument against ghosts. There are a lot of attention-hogs (not necessarily Johnny Cash specifically) who would seek the limelight even after death - if they could.

 

Your going to hang in there aren't you?

The new heavyweight champion of Woo Woo went down still believing

"there's something out there I tell you if only we could understand it"

Alas there was not

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There are many things beyond science, I want nothing to be beyond science.
Mathematics and science are my favourite day dreams.

I caught a ghost on tape once. It was extremely convincing. I was very drunk, walking home from a friends house. I decided to record my journey home so I could observe my behaviour later.
A week later I pulled up the video on my computer. There was a transparent girl standing on the other side of the road staring at me. She put her arms out and started to walk towards me and disappeared. It gave me chills like no other. I couldn't dispute it.
I showed a few people but I somehow accidentally deleted the video.
It doesn't matter yet but this is how I knew that one day we'll know the unknown.

I'm sure many traditional scientists have seen things beyond science, the best option would to be patient and not say a peep.
Others may be so stuck in a way they decide to un see what they saw.
Or he can act upon it only to be crucified by others.
There is peer pressure in science which only makes the case 10x harder to solve.

 

But wouldn't it be exciting if you were proven wrong

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hahaha let the dead bury the dead

 

What equipment have you used to make me excited?

I am waiting with breathless antisapation for the breakthrough moment you assuredly will have in the near future

Will SciFor members be invited to your acceptance of the Nobel Prize ceremony?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sure, if it ever happens. More interested in carving my new table out the back

 

I'm busy making a plastic bench/table from plastic milk crates

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting. Are you going traditional or a little bit outside the box?