Ivan Seeking said:
People claim to do this every day. How many scientists are willing to run out and do field testing?
Are you?
Is every scientist responsible for investigating every single claim that every made by anyone?
Ivan Seeking said:
If scientists aren't willing to show up, there is nothing the believers can do about that. The scientific position seems to be: ?
I haven't seen any data sets in an attempt to prove correlation. Where's the data? If they make the claim that their EM detectors can detect ghosts, then they *have* to have EM detectors available, right?
Ivan Seeking said:
It isn't true and I refuse to look. Nor will I accept any field data or videographic evidence. ?
Why should the standard scientific criteria be changed?
By its nature, photography and videography produce artifacts on a routine basis.
Ivan Seeking said:
You are assuming that the evidence is repeatable.
if its not repeatable, what is to distinguish one's person's "ghost" from another person's "imagination"? Why should the claimant automatically get the benefit of the doubt? it isn't that way in any other aspect of science (or life).
Ivan Seeking said:
What about the claims that related to transient effects over which the observer has no control?
If the claimant stats that "sometimes my EM reader detetcs ghosts", then I would expect for him to investigate under exactly what conditions does it function as described.
If a correlation between the EM detector and presence of ghosts can't be identified, then I would *expect* him to say. "Em detector does not seem to have the ability to detect ghosts."
I have not seen this happen.
Ivan Seeking said:
I have asked this many times and am still awaiting an answer. What sort of evidence for "ghosts" would be acceptable.
The same evidence you would accept for the invisible pink unicorn on my wall.
Ivan Seeking said:
The scientist seems to demand that anything real be reproducible in the lab.
Equipment can be taken to the field. Furthemore, no one is talking about requiring ghosts to appear in the university laboratory. Where is this train of thought coming from?
(Dr. Doom got expelled from university for this very offense, dontchaknow.)
Ivan Seeking said:
There is no reason to believe this is true especially when we don't understand a phenomenon.
Ivan Seeking said:
How is one to produce something we don't understand in the first place?
Even claimants are not postulating the ability to "create" a ghost (that I know of). Are you proposing athat a ghost would not/could not appear in a laboratory?
Ivan Seeking said:
No one can produce ball lightning in a lab either but it is considered to be real. Why? The evidence for ball lightining is no better than the evidence for ghosts. I think the answer is that we can at least imagine an explanation for ball lightning, so it is a bias of convenience.
Your example supports my position not yours.
The phenomenon you describe was observed. It was compared to other natural phenomenon and theorized that it was a form of lightning, due to its characteristics and similarity to other aspects of electricity. Hence the term "ball lightning". Scientific studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning. Note, we do not claim that ball lightning is really pixies zipping around. We didn't justthrow darts at a dartboard.
In a similar vein, ghost sightings can be analyzed and found to be similar in nature to other types of sighting, namely hallucinations.
To answer your question in a direct manner.
What sort of evidence would be acceptable.
A: The same sort of evidence you require for every other theory. Evidence, whose existence or nonexistence would prove a concept or theory true or false.