(Atheism = no belief in god) -Vs- (Atheism = naturalist outlook)

Yossie

Some people here, despite being some of the best proponents and most eloquent expressers of atheist beliefs, hold that the word “atheism” can only be used as a label for one issue - “not believing in god”.

Hence there is no contradiction in the idea of an “atheist clairvoyant” for them, (which is strictly true).

I on the other hand hold that it is more useful (and appropriate) for the modern version of the word “atheism” to convey more than this; namely a naturalist outlook (i.e. nothing supernatural). Most committed atheists I’ve met would fall under this view.

So what do people think?

[P.S. "Come back The Atheist all is forgiven - if you do, I swear I won’t mention trekkies again. It’s just so quiet without you".:( ]

samb

I'm an athiest and a naturalist. No need to change either's meaniing

Stephen

i'd be of the naturalist persuasion too. I don't believe in any of that superstitious/supernatural malarkey. The paranormal forum on these boards makes me die a little inside every time I see it.

btw, what's the story with yossie and the atheist?

giddyup

Strictly speaking Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. I'd be a stickler for the pluralisation there. There's no reason to tie it to naturalism. You can relate the two I guess but they are different things.

I consider myself a borderline anti-theist in the sense that in some senses I am antipathetic to those who have theistic beliefs of any kind although I'm generally quite polite about it!

lostexpectation

do you mean can someone claiming to be an atheist believe in ghosts or esp?

Asiaprod

Nice post Yossie, Very interesting question. For Agnostics its no problem, for atheists I would imagine they do not believe in any kind of superstitious/supernatural issues. Esp, however, I think is a seperate issue But I could be wrong, I often am:(

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote:

do you mean can someone claiming to be an atheist believe in ghosts or esp?

Sure, why not? I would accept a whole lot of weird stuff - prophecy for starters (no, not Nostradamus).

As long as a subject has not been investigated scientifically (and found to be false or true), there's no more reason to disbelieve than believe.

Before anyone says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", let me draw your attention to a little problem with the phrase - what constitutes 'extraordinary', and in whose judgement?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yossie wrote:

Come back The Atheist all is forgiven - if you do, I swear I won’t mention trekkies again. It’s just so quiet without you".:(

Heh - trust me Yossie, my comparitive absence is due to ongoing work commitments! Apart from a recent thread in humanities I've had to curb my posting time... (while keeping an eye out for troublemakers!)

Yossie wrote:

I on the other hand hold that it is more useful (and appropriate) for the modern version of the word “atheism” to convey more than this; namely a naturalist outlook (i.e. nothing supernatural). Most committed atheists I’ve met would fall under this view.

While this is probably true for the most part, atheism is not our word to define. But definition and perception are different things - and the idea of an atheist having a naturalistic outlook is usually correct.

That said as scofflaw suggests, belief in supernatural event(s) can be compatible with atheism, once said supernatural event is not traced back to a god-figure. Of course it's a very grey area - the definitions of a god and what constitutes supernatural are very much open for debate.

I would suggest it's what you would classify them to be yourself, is what is important.

I also think it interesting there's been so much debate about what constitutes atheism, when agnosticism is so much greyer.

Morbert

Yossie wrote:

Some people here, despite being some of the best proponents and most eloquent expressers of atheist beliefs, hold that the word “atheism” can only be used as a label for one issue - “not believing in god”.

Hence there is no contradiction in the idea of an “atheist clairvoyant” for them, (which is strictly true).

I on the other hand hold that it is more useful (and appropriate) for the modern version of the word “atheism” to convey more than this; namely a naturalist outlook (i.e. nothing supernatural). Most committed atheists I’ve met would fall under this view.

So what do people think?

[P.S. "Come back The Atheist all is forgiven - if you do, I swear I won’t mention trekkies again. It’s just so quiet without you".:( ]

An atheist is someone who is without God. I don't think we need to broaden the definition to include all supernatural entities.

Most atheists are 'naturalists' anyway so it's not a huge deal.

Yossie

Stephen wrote:

btw, what's the story with yossie and the atheist?

No story, I was just lamenting the quietness of the forum these days and hoping he would breath some life back into it. But alas, like all of us he must work for a living, although I am surprised he's not well paid as a Mod;)

The "trekkies" comment is a reference to a time when The Atheist chastised me for comparing christians to them.:D

lostexpectation

yes but aren't there religions based on spirits not gods?

I wonder where does one belief in the supernatural correspond with religion, life after death, mediums etc?

Yossie

Thanks for all the replies.

lostexpectation wrote:

do you mean can someone claiming to be an atheist believe in ghosts or esp?

I agree with The Atheist, language and labels are much too organic and fluid to allow tight definitions. So I certainly wouldn’t wish to deny anybody or any group the label “atheist” if they wanted it (so long as they had no belief in god).

However, when I meet someone for the first time* and they identify themselves as an “atheist”, is if fair for me to then work on the basis that they probably have a naturalistic outlook. Essentially, what is the appropriate starting point when someone identifies himself or herself as an atheist?

Starting Point 1: assume that it means they have a naturalist outlook

Or

Starting Point 2: only take it that they don’t believe in god and that they are just as liking to believe in the supernatural as not

I’d argue SP 1 is the more appropriate and more useful position. I would also claim that atheism and supernaturalism, in the eyes of most atheists (Scofflaw excluded), are generally regarded as somewhat oxymoronic/incompatible.**

samb: I'm an athiest and a naturalist. No need to change either's meaning
Stephen: i'd be of the naturalist persuasion too
Morbert: Most atheists are 'naturalists' anyway so it's not a huge deal.
The Atheist: the idea of an atheist having a naturalistic outlook is usually correct.

Btw, what has studying plants and wildlife got to do with atheism?
You can see from Wiktionary the problem of calling oneself a “naturalist” as opposed to someone who believes in naturalism. This is by far the most common usage of the word.

Naturalist: From Wiktionary

Noun
a person committed to studying nature: mineral, vegetable and animal. Later, "naturalist" was split into geologist, botanist and zoologist.

The Atheist wrote:

I would suggest it's what you would classify them to be yourself, is what is important.

I’d say the self-identity of the “atheist” group is probably more important that just ones own opinion.

Also, if people prefer Point 2, must we then have a label for all the other things we don’t believe in but others do, e.g. ghosts, ESP, reincarnation, etc. Should I really be saying “Hello I’m Yossie and I’m an atheist, aghostist, aESPist, areincarnationist, etc.”? I’d sooner just hope that atheism is read as “probably not believing in the supernatural”. As I said, I think most atheism read it as so, just as Morbert and The Atheist kinda suggest.

The Atheist wrote:

I also think it interesting there's been so much debate about what constitutes atheism, when agnosticism is so much greyer.

Agnostics are greyer if you mean in the spitting-image John Major boring kind of way
____________________________
*I usually ask if someone is atheist straight after the introductions - much to the embarrassment of my partner.

**If I knew how to create a poll I would. Damn my lack of IT knowledge.

Dades

Yossie, I read your two options above like this...

If I am going to make assumptions about an atheist, should I:

1. Assume they don't believe in any form of supernatural occurances, or
2. Assume they are open to supernatural occurances.

Whereas IMO you can't really assume either, in the same way you can't assume everyone in Ireland is Catholic, though allegedly over 90% are.

You might well be right in your assumption - but are you right to assume it?

Re ESP - that's an idea I'm very open to, though I'm not sure I'd classify it as supernatural. More likely as something we just don't (yet) understand, rather than something that is not "natural".

ps You must get strange looks at those trekkie conventions asking them all are they atheists...

Yossie

The Atheist wrote:

Whereas IMO you can't really assume either, in the same way you can't assume everyone in Ireland is Catholic, though allegedly over 90% are.

Are they really the same....?

Irish people are catholic (probably a fair assumption)
Catholics are Irish people (probably not a fair assumption)

Atheists have a naturalistic outlook (probably a fair assumption)
People with a naturalistic outlook are atheist (also probably a fair assumption)

The assumption works both ways in my case, i.e. their is something of an equivalence between atheism and naturalism. (Perhaps saying they are synonymous is better.) That's not the case in your example.

The Atheist wrote:

You might well be right in your assumption - but are you right to assume it?

That's exactly the question I'm putting to you fellow atheists.:) A poll is definitly a good idea.

Can I come back to you and Scofflaw on the ESP thing? (Home time)

Dades

I'll gonna leave the question of assumption to someone who speaks with more authority than me...

Are we right to assume? (Short MP3 link)

Yossie

Bring out the gimp!

Yossie

Scofflaw wrote:

I would accept a whole lot of weird stuff - prophecy for starters (no, not Nostradamus).

As long as a subject has not been investigated scientifically (and found to be false or true), there's no more reason to disbelieve than believe.

I wouldn't agree. And I think this is the heart of the matter between the naturalism/just-a-label split in atheism. It has not been "investigated scientifically" yet, but it has been suggested that there is a molten caramel core to Pluto; I would suggest the cases for and against are not equally believable.

Science is not a collection of proved or disproved facts or even just our best approximation of objective reality. It also provides something of a compass; the direction of that compass is "naturalism".

Scofflaw wrote:

Before anyone says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", let me draw your attention to a little problem with the phrase - what constitutes 'extraordinary', and in whose judgement?

This is the catch phase of us skeptics. But as you might guess from what I said above, I don't agree that what constitutes "extraordinary" is doomed to be a relative subjective "choice". Something can be considered objectively "extraordinary" if it is not consistent with present scientific knowledge and runs against the naturalism that science suggests. Extraordinary evidence would then be the evidence that would see such a phenomenon join the ranks of scientific knowledge.

This point is also the main problem for theistic "skeptics" or people who are skeptics about everything except for alien abduction, or prophecy, or ESP, or the benefits of vitamin supplements, etc. In these cases the so-called sceptics have beliefs that are at odds with present science and/or run against the naturalism of science.

Atheism anchored to naturalism is a stronger more rationally justified belief than it is when it is just a label. I for one am a different type of atheist than someone who has rejected god because he ignored their prayers about sparing the life of their beloved cat.

Scofflaw

Allow me to both agree and disagree. Your example of a molten caramel core to Pluto is, of course, an excellent example of claims that have not been investigated directly by science, but are nevertheless extraordinary given what science has investigated.

The molten caramel core claim is however, susceptible to existing science (much as Russell's teapot is), and is a scientifically valid hypothesis. It has a very low probability only insofar as we have no evidence for naturally occurring caramel (certainly not in planetary quantities), and no heating mechanism that would allow Pluto to sustain a molten core of anything (so that any claim for a molten core to Pluto is in itself an extraordinary claim).

Your proposed claim, therefore, is within the realm of the scientific, and is, within that realm, extraordinary. However, if you can propose plausible mechanisms, it cannot be dismissed entirely. It becomes one of a large number of claims about Pluto's core, although clearly a low-probability one. It will involve similar final proof, which is a drilled core of Plutonian material.

What bearing does this have on the supernatural? Well, science deals with the natural, and the material. It is impossible for science to deal explicitly with a creator God, for example, because a creator God is by definition supra natura. It is impossible for science to deal with the soul, because a soul is by definition immaterial.

These are not tricky propositions, or tricks, they result from the defined sphere of investigation of science, and the defined spheres of existence of some claimed entities. Having said that, as science advances, things considered immaterial are found to be material (such as light). The soul has not been found to be a material entity susceptible of scientific analysis, yet. It may never be found, despite advances that should make it possible to observe a soul by any reasonable definition of soul (which would make it increasingly unlikely) - but we are not yet at that stage.

If we are not at a stage where science is capable of proving the existence/non-existence of claimed supernatural or immaterial entities or happenings, then to say that these are "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" is meaningless. You could say "these are extra-scientific claims whose proof or disproof requires the use of evidence that science is not currently capable of providing". The matter becomes one of belief, not science, and there is no bar to any kind of pick-and-mix. Anyone who claims that one must have a rational theory of the supernatural is being, quite frankly, silly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

This is a separate post just for neatness! I'll deal directly with one of my favourites, prophecy, and one of my favourite prophets, to illustrate what I mean.

It's easy to assume that prophecy has (a) no valid evidence, and (b) is in contradiction of current science. Most atheists would do so, and most scientists, I think, as well. Would they be right to do so?

a) most people's experience of prophecy begins and ends with Nostradamus (or John). As far as I can tell, their popularity is directly related to their extreme obscurity - people are drawn to them in the same way as they're drawn to crosswords or soduko - as a puzzle to be solved.

Are there more explicit prophets, who are also accurate? There seem to be, although they are mostly minor and local. My personal favourite is a guy called the Brahan Seer (Kenneth Mackenzie - late 1500's/early 1600's), who made extremely specific prophecies relating almost solely to the Highlands of Scotland. His prophecies were largely written down within a century of his death (an ex-girlfriend of mine had several reprint editions, and a couple of actual editions, dating from the late 1700's to the 1970's), and some were almost laughably simple ("Policemen will become so numerous in every town that they may be met with at the corner of every street" is one I like - but I don't know if anyone else has ever been in Aberdeen on a Saturday night, where there are literally policemen on every corner in the city centre), while some were both complex and specific. His best-known prophecy is the "Doom of the Seaforths", which goes like this:

"I see into the far future, and I read the doom of the race of my oppressor. The long-descended line of Seaforth will, ere many generations have passed, end in extinction and in sorrow. I see a chief, the last of his house, both deaf and dumb. He will be the father of four fair sons, all of whom he will follow to the tomb. He will live careworn and die mourning, knowing that the honours of his line are to be extinguished for ever, and that no future chief of the Mackenzies shall bear rule at Brahan or in Kintail. After lamenting over the last and most promising of his sons, he himself shall sink into the grave, and the remnant of his possessions shall be inherited by a white-coifed (or white-hooded) lassie from the East, and she is to kill her sister. And as a sign by which it may be known that these things are coming to pass, there shall be four great lairds in the days of the last deaf and dumb Seaforth - Gairloch, Chisholm, Grant and Raasay - of whom one shall be buck-toothed, another hare-lipped, another half-witted, and the fourth a stammerer. Chiefs distinguished by these personal marks shall be allies and neighbours of the last Seaforth; and when he looks around him and sees them, he may know that his sons are doomed to death, that his broad lands shall pass away to the stranger, and that his race shall come to an end."

Note the specificity of the description of the five lairds. The prophecy (or several prophecies, given it contains several testable components) was fulfilled in 1815, and was well-known for at least a century before that.

b) Is prophecy in contradiction of current science?

Well, what current science? There is very little, if anything, known about the nature of time. Clearly information can be transmitted through time in at least one direction, but there is no proof that I am aware of that this has to be a one-way process.

Certain mechanisms for prophecy have certainly been discounted - it is not possible to computationally predict the real future, because to do so requires more computational space that the Universe contains. The mechanism remains unknown. One could claim statistical likelihood (some prophecies will work out, by pure fluke), but it's difficult to deal with specific prophets with strong track records.

Now, I'm not wedded to prophecy (in the Biblical sense of requiring it to support my beliefs) - it represents an interesting anomaly, and one worthy of study. If there are more proven prophecies than is explicable by chance (and any stochastic model should also explain 'good' prophets), prophecy requires study and explanation. Certainly, without such study, it cannot be dismissed out of hand - to do so is to fall right in with Creationist claims of 'materialist prejudice'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

If we are not at a stage where science is capable of proving the existence/non-existence of claimed supernatural or immaterial entities or happenings, then to say that these are "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" is meaningless. You could say "these are extra-scientific claims whose proof or disproof requires the use of evidence that science is not currently capable of providing".

I think by extraoridinaty evidence Yossie means evidence that would be convincing enough to plausably contradict current understanding, and therefore completely change how we view the universe. Such evidence would be, as he says, extra oridinary. Most of science is little changes building on little changes, and changes that tend not to contradict current established theories. It is rare that evidence is presented that not only moves science on significantly but also invalidates a lot of what has come before.

An example would be ghosts. If ghosts are real then it completely changes what we know in a wide range of scienitific areas, from evolution to physics. A lot of the scientific models and theories that we believe correct at the moment would be invalidated. Not only would these concepts be no longer valid but we would have to re-evaluate why these models and theories were initially validated by experiement and evidence.

All of this would be extra-oridinary, and as such unlikely. There are more plausable explinations for ghost that do fit into the current understandings of humans, biology and physics.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I think by extraoridinaty evidence Yossie means evidence that would be convincing enough to plausably contradict current understanding, and therefore completely change how we view the universe.

An example would be ghosts. If ghosts are real then it completely changes what we know in a wide range of scienitific areas, from evolution to physics. A lot of the scientific models and theories that we believe correct at the moment would be invalidated. Not only would these concepts be no longer valid but we would have to re-evaluate why these models and theories were initially validated by experiement and evidence.

All of this would be extra-oridinary, and as such unlikely. There are more plausable explinations for ghost that do fit into the current understandings of humans, biology and physics.

Again, I have to disagree (hopefully I'm not simply being pig-headed about this point).

There is nothing in modern science that precludes ghosts. Ghosts are not a scientifically-observed phenomenon, and there is no plausible scientific explanation of them that uses current scientific knowledge...but that is not the same thing at all.

I am not denying that there are many plausible mechanisms to explain how human beings only appear to see or feel ghosts...but that is not the same thing as disproof.

I'm not sure where the idea arises that ghosts would somehow invalidate some current (physical) scientific theories, since as far as I am aware, no current scientific theory deals with ghosts.

However, to clarify my point of view, I'll quote Francis Crick:

A belief, at the time it was formulated, may not only have appealed to the imagination but also fit well with all that was then known. It can nevertheless be made to appear ridiculous because of facts uncovered later by science. What could be more foolish than to base one's entire view of life on ideas that, however plausible at that time, now appear to be quite erroneous? And what would be more important than to find our true place in the universe by removing one by one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs? Yet it is clear that some mysteries have still to be explained scientifically. While these remain unexplained, they can serve as an easy refuge for religious superstition. It seemed to me of the first importance to identify these unexplained areas of knowledge and to work toward their scientific understanding whether such explanations would turn out to confirm existing beliefs or to refute them.

We can, and should, turn our attention to these mysteries, because, like any other mystery, they reveal the Universe in revealing themselves. Nothing should be an unfit subject for science, and nothing should be believed disproved by science that science has never investigated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

There is nothing in modern science that precludes ghosts.

Well it depends on what you mean by "precludes". There is nothing in science that says ghosts are totally impossible, but there are a lot of theories, well established theories, that would seem to contradict that ghosts are a serious possibility.

For example, pretty much everything we know about evolution and animal biology and the physics of the animal brain would be turned on its head if ghosts, as we understand the word, would be turned out to be real. As such, it is unlikely since these theories seem to be working quite well.

For ghosts to be real it would also mean that there is an entire new set of particles, phsyical and chemical systems at work which we are not aware off but are common enough to have developed the process of ghosts naturally (unless you throw out all of evolution while you are at it). There is no know physical or chemical method that could produce anything close to a ghost on any level let alone a fully fledged intelligent "spirit" entity. So again, unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.

So as it was said, if ghost turned out to be real it would be extra-ordinary, and require extra-oridinary proof since it would contradict so much of established science as to almost completely turn biology and physics on its head. Unlikely.

What is far more likely, and which fits neatly into current scientific understanding is the idea that ghosts are a product of human imagination and miss-understandings of other natural phenomona.

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not sure where the idea arises that ghosts would somehow invalidate some current (physical) scientific theories, since as far as I am aware, no current scientific theory deals with ghosts.

If "ghosts" as we understand them are real it would effect everything from the our understanding of atoms, photons and electrons, the production of energy (light), to the theories of the transfer of energy, to the theory of evolution and human development. It would have wide wide range of impacts.

Basically, as you said, no current scientific theory deals with the processes involved in what we think is happening with a ghost. That being the brain activity of an animal existing independently from the physical body of the animal at an intelligent conscious level and capable of interacting physically with the universe, even if that interaction only involves the production of light (photons).

No system or model can even come close to providing a mechinism for this take place, and a lot of the models and systems say this does not take place. So it would require a complete re-think on a lot of scientific subjects. Which would be extraordinary

Scofflaw

I would certainly accept that the "brain activity of an animal existing independently from the physical body of the animal at an intelligent conscious level and capable of interacting physically with the universe, even if that interaction only involves the production of light" would require reconsideration of a large number of theories.

On the other hand, an "immaterial entity of supernatural origin", or even the obviously naturalistic "pattern of environmental cues resulting from earlier events, and tending to evoke the events" do not seem to me to do so.

As far as I am aware, while there is no accepted scientific definition of ghost (because they are not studied scientifically), there is certainly no general impression that they are intelligent.

Probably I have been unclear (again). I do not require Peter Jackson style green glowing people. The clearest threads, to me, running through the ghost stories that seem most believable, again to me, is that most of what takes place is an impression - which suggests my naturalistic "pattern of environmental cues" with the mind filling in the details - that is, that 'ghosts' have no 'real' existence in the material sense, and do not necessarily interact with the physical Universe except through the medium of the human mind. This is, however, not quite the same as describing them as 'all in the mind'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

well ghost may be being studied scientifically? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054900045

I was wondering if I should make a poll, asking the paranormal board

do you believe in afterlife ghosts?
do you believe in afterlife and ghosts?

or some such, lie do you see yourself as an atheist and also believe in ghosts?

to see what relation religion (or superstition?) has to do with believe in ghosts?

but I can't quite figure the right question to ask there, maybe its been done before?

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

On the other hand, an "immaterial entity of supernatural origin", or even the obviously naturalistic "pattern of environmental cues resulting from earlier events, and tending to evoke the events" do not seem to me to do so.

Well neither of those definitions really mean anything. An "immaterial entity" could mean anything. I'm not even sure what you mean by "immaterial"

One of my problems with supportive theories on things like ghosts is that they always tend to be quite abstract, and as such don't require much logical justification.

It is only when you get down to the details, what is the ghost made of, how does it produce light or interact with surroundings, how does the brain activity of a animal translate into the ghost, how does a ghost evolve etc etc, that the logic behind these theories start to break down and make less and less logical sense.

Scofflaw wrote:

As far as I am aware, while there is no accepted scientific definition of ghost (because they are not studied scientifically), there is certainly no general impression that they are intelligent.

I've never heard of a ghost or ghost story where the spirit did not have some form of intelligence, even if that intellgience was simply to know not to appear in the day time or when the lights are on.

Scofflaw wrote:

that is, that 'ghosts' have no 'real' existence in the material sense, and do not necessarily interact with the physical Universe except through the medium of the human mind. This is, however, not quite the same as describing them as 'all in the mind'.

Again, quite abstract. If you delve into the details (ie how would the spirit phsycially alter brain chemistry or activity in the human, what physical existance would the spirit have to be to alter the preception of a human, how would the spirit even be aware of the human in the first place, what evolutionary purpose would this serve, how would this process evolve and at what stage would it appear in evolution etc) you start running into the exact same problems as before.

So one can make the definition of a ghost quite abstract, but it is still necessary to move into the details, and when ever you do that the theories run into the same problems.

Scofflaw

Well, the whole point of saying "an immaterial entity" is that we don't know what that means (scientifically).

As to "how does the brain activity of a animal translate into the ghost, how does a ghost evolve" - again, you obviously have quite a definite picture of what a ghost is, and how it works, or rather can't. You're certainly able to dismiss as scientifically impossible the kind of ghost you're talking about - and I agree that you should.

I've never heard of a ghost or ghost story where the spirit did not have some form of intelligence, even if that intellgience was simply to know not to appear in the day time or when the lights are on.

Eh, well, the one I heard was in daytime. Plenty of other people daytime too. "Ghost stories" in the literary sense may contain intelligent ghosts - I was thinking of "ghost reports", and like I say, any impression of intelligence would be a rarity.

how would the spirit phsycially alter brain chemistry or activity in the human, what physical existance would the spirit have to be to alter the preception of a human, how would the spirit even be aware of the human in the first place, what evolutionary purpose would this serve, how would this process evolve and at what stage would it appear in evolution

I think you're actually talking about 'spirits' here, not ghosts. I wouldn't feel the need to worry about any of this except the question of "what physical existence" - which may vary.


regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, the whole point of saying "an immaterial entity" is that we don't know what that means (scientifically).

Well then what are we talking about. What does "ghost" mean to you?

Without any real definition we are just applying abstract definitions that have no meaning to phenomona.

For example, someone sees a light in a photo that they don't remember seeing when they took the photo. Is that a "ghost"? To me that definition is meaningless. It isn't a ghost, or anything for that matter beyond a speck of light. We can't assertan anything about the nature of the light. It might have been caused at the place, it might have been caused during the development of the film.

Likewise "an immaterial entity" is just an imaginary concept applied to something. The term is actually meaningless. It is a description that doesn't describe anything.

Morbert

[edit]

Morbert

Yossie wrote:

I wouldn't agree. And I think this is the heart of the matter between the naturalism/just-a-label split in atheism. It has not been "investigated scientifically" yet, but it has been suggested that there is a molten caramel core to Pluto; I would suggest the cases for and against are not equally believable.

Science is not a collection of proved or disproved facts or even just our best approximation of objective reality. It also provides something of a compass; the direction of that compass is "naturalism".


This is the catch phase of us skeptics. But as you might guess from what I said above, I don't agree that what constitutes "extraordinary" is doomed to be a relative subjective "choice". Something can be considered objectively "extraordinary" if it is not consistent with present scientific knowledge and runs against the naturalism that science suggests. Extraordinary evidence would then be the evidence that would see such a phenomenon join the ranks of scientific knowledge.

This point is also the main problem for theistic "skeptics" or people who are skeptics about everything except for alien abduction, or prophecy, or ESP, or the benefits of vitamin supplements, etc. In these cases the so-called sceptics have beliefs that are at odds with present science and/or run against the naturalism of science.

Atheism anchored to naturalism is a stronger more rationally justified belief than it is when it is just a label. I for one am a different type of atheist than someone who has rejected god because he ignored their prayers about sparing the life of their beloved cat.

The bottom line is an atheist is under no obligation to be a naturalist, therefore to equate atheism with naturalism is incorrect.

And science doesn't point towards naturalism or atheism. Why do you think it does?

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'rationally justified'. Are you referring to atheism, or the concept of equating atheism with naturalism?

Dades

I don't think any fine-tuning of the definition of a ghost is going to matter one way or another in the question of belief in their existence.

Although I would agree that some degree of intelligence is something of a pre-requisite. Otherwise there would be nothing to distinguish an "event" from a natural occurance.

A ghost to me implies something supernatural with the ability to communicate by interaction with something in the human realm.

But ghosts are really like "aliens" in that only those who believe they make contact with them are in a position to describe what they experience. And equally are probably elements of someone's imagination.

Scofflaw

I'm still slightly puzzled by this sort of thing:

Although I would agree that some degree of intelligence is something of a pre-requisite. Otherwise there would be nothing to distinguish an "event" from a natural occurance.

A ghost to me implies something supernatural with the ability to communicate by interaction with something in the human realm.

I don't know of any reports of actual communication with ghosts, or of any reports that show intelligent behaviour on their part. Unless you mean "communication" in the sense that information transfer takes place (ie in the sense that a ghost, by appearing, represents a transfer of information) - which certainly does not require intelligence on the part of the ghost.

Consider the following:

If a "ghost" is a set of environmental cues that the human mind tends to interpret as a figure or presence (and given our track record, that's pretty likely), then they are certainly immaterial (have no material existence, in that they are not separable from the mind that perceives them).

If that set of environmental cues relates to events that took place in that local environment, then what we have is the "ghost" of an event (whether or not the ghost resembles or evokes the event is irrelevant). If the environmental cues relate specifically to a person (that the environment is shaped or influenced by that person), we have the "ghost" of a person (whether or not the ghost resembles or evokes the person is irrelevant).

This gives a "ghost", which is repeatably observable as an occurrence, to the "sensitive", but which will take different forms (and may be no more than a 'creepy feeling'). Many people would disagree with it entirely.

In effect, I am saying that there may well be a naturalistic explanation of ghosts, which does not in any way involve anything supernatural, but that we don't yet have that explanation.

To claim that we can rule out ghosts because they don't have a scientific explanation, when we don't even have a scientific description of them, is putting the cart before the horse.

As an atheist, it is not even slightly necessary to dismiss the supernatural. All I need say is that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists, and that evidence against it in general has not been offered. Specific cases have been found to be frauds or mistakes, but the same is true of fossils. We do not have any tools to study the 'supernatural', but that is also irrelevant. Before microscopy, the existence of bacteria and other microbes was visible only by their effects. Did that mean they were 'ruled out by science'? And did they stay that way?

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

If a "ghost" is a set of environmental cues that the human mind tends to interpret as a figure or presence (and given our track record, that's pretty likely), then they are certainly immaterial (have no material existence, in that they are not separable from the mind that perceives them).

Then they are not only immaterial, they are an optical illusion, they don't exist, they are not real. It is a trick of the mind. "Ghost" becomes a just a term we use to incorrectly describe a visual or physical sensation that we are not aware of the actual origin off.

I mean what is the difference between your definition of "ghost" and something like the magic eye cards that trick the brain into seeing a 3D shape that doesn't exist.

Seeing the shape of Jesus in a cream cracker isn't a ghost, unless something put the shape of Jesus into the cream cracker in the first place. And what ever that something was is the ghost, not the shape of jesus itself.

Something that "exist" only in the human imagination doesn't exist

Scofflaw wrote:

This gives a "ghost", which is repeatably observable as an occurrence, to the "sensitive", but which will take different forms (and may be no more than a 'creepy feeling').

If it is an repeatable observable occurrence then it doesn't exist only in the mind of the observer. This seems to contradict what you are saying in the first part.

I'm sorry but I'm really not following your point. On the one hand you seem to be saying that a "ghost" can be something that manipulates the world around it in order to leave visual or physical "clues" to observers that would not be present if the ghost did not exist. If that is the case, the question is what is that something that is manipulating the environment. And why do you call it a "ghost" instead of any number of other phenonma.

On the other hand you also seem to be saying that a ghost is just a manipulation of the human brain, or the brain of those "sensitive" to manipulation. Then the question would be, what is causing the manipulation, and why is this any different from something like the Magic Eye cards that manipulate the human brain in very natural fashion. Why are you calling it a "ghost" in the first place when it could be anything

The term "ghost" implies a specific entity or phenomona, related to the spirit of a dead person. If there is no reason to believe that is what is being observed then why call it a "ghost"

Scofflaw wrote:

We do not have any tools to study the 'supernatural', but that is also irrelevant.

But the term supernatural doesn't really mean anything with in the context of science. Everything, ghosts included if they are real, are part of the natural world.

We study the one universe, if something is real it is part of the natural world, even if it is a ghost or some other term commonly found used when talking about supernatural events.

Also we do have "tools" to study the supernatural, otherwise we wouldn't be aware of it in the first place. Seeing or hearing a "ghost" means that at some point the ghost must have some form of interaction with-in the natural world, even if that interaction is simply to manipulate the human brain.

Scofflaw

Something that "exist" only in the human imagination doesn't exist

If it is an repeatable observable occurrence then it doesn't exist only in the mind of the observer. This seems to contradict what you are saying in the first part.

OK - you're really not getting this, so I must be putting it pretty badly.

Assume that a particular place (called 'haunted') has some pattern of environmental cues (not clues), such as fluctuating magnetic fields, noise levels, shapes and shadows. This pattern of cues act on some human minds in such a way as to cause them to "feel a presence". In some cases, they will "fill in" that feeling by seeing something. The "something" they see may be suggested by some of the features of the environment.

The "haunting" is therefore based on a repeatable set of features of the environment, so that multiple observers can agree that the place feels "haunted".

On the other hand, what appears to be there may be largely up to the particular observer (or it may not, if the pattern of cues strongly suggests a particular "manifestation").

It should be clear at this point that we are dealing with something that is both imaginary and real, or consists of a real situation or pattern that causes us to imagine something. Repeatable, but immaterial.

Why are you calling it a "ghost" in the first place when it could be anything

Now strictly speaking, all of that is irrelevant to my argument. However, the fact that we cannot agree what a ghost is, is relevant.

If we cannot agree what a ghost is, or how it might be produced, we certainly cannot dismiss them in any scientific way - we don't know what we're dismissing. Certainly we can dismiss what you think of as being ghosts - by which I intend no offence!


cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

EDIT: Just read Scoffs post.

A "ghost" to me is more than an explained sound or sighting. Those are just unexplained sounds or signtings.

Like "GOD" I use the word "GHOST" in the meaning that most everyone would. Saying God is Everything, just muddies the water in any theological debate. So to my mind does suggesting that a series of naturally occurring events that cause a human mind to create an illusion, can be called a ghost...

Scofflaw

A "ghost" to me is more than an explained sound or sighting. Those are just unexplained sounds or signtings.

Like "GOD" I use the word "GHOST" in the meaning that most everyone would. Saying God is Everything, just muddies the water in any theological debate. So to my mind does suggesting that a series of naturally occurring events that cause a human mind to create an illusion, can be called a ghost...

I'm not claiming they are ghosts. I'm saying that what I've put forward is an entirely naturalistic, and, I think, plausible explanation for what are generally described as ghosts. The explanation is illustrative of the fact that the same apparent phenomenon is explicable in a variety of ways, none of which have been empirically tested.

In the absence of such an explanation, which is able to account for the majority of "ghost sightings", and has been empirically tested, I cannot see where people get the idea that science has 'disproved' ghosts. Science has largely dismissed ghosts as unfitting to serious study, but that doesn't prove anything about ghosts, only about scientists.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

If we cannot agree what a ghost is, or how it might be produced, we certainly cannot dismiss them in any scientific way - we don't know what we're dismissing.

You are correct that we cannot dismiss the phenomona itself, but we can dismiss that the phenomona is being caused by a "ghost"

I think the problem here is that you are using the term "ghost" to describe the phenomona, where as I am using the term "ghost" to explain the phenomona

So your meaning of "ghost" is more like the term "u.f.o" which simply means an unidentified flying object, which is any object that is flying and unidentified.

Where as I'm using the term "ghost" the way someone would use "ufo" to mean an alien. In other words when I talk about a "ghost" I mean the spirit of a dead person interacting with the universe, which causes certain phenomona to happen. That is what I mean by ghost. I use the term as a explination rather than simply a discription.

So you are correct, science has not proved or disproved that these "ghosts" (as you mean it) actually happen. But what science can say pretty well is that the cause of these phenomona is not a ghost as I mean it (ie a dead spirit interacting with the physical world)

That is the same as saying that science cannot prove or disprove a lot of UFO sightings didn't happen, but it can be pretty sure that a lot of them were not caused by extra-terresterial life forms (albeit to a much lesser degree than saying ghosts aren't real)

Scofflaw

Wicknight, all we've got is probabilities. If science had disproven the afterlife, or God, or any of the above, all scientists would have to be atheists in order to accept science. Science hasn't, and they aren't. They are marked "not proven", "not investigated", "not reputable", or "no plausible scientific theory", and they are on the shelf.

Science is not a belief, but a process. Until that process has been applied to a phenomenon, it cannot be said to have disproved it. You may have a theory for the origin of ghosts that clashes with accepted science (where you are "using the term "ghost" to explain the phenomona"), but all that proves is that your theory doesn't work.

While I am perfectly happy with dismissing "the spirit of a dead person interacting with the universe" on the basis that I don't believe in an afterlife, that's because I'm an atheist, not because I'm a scientist. Plenty of scientists do believe in an afterlife - if you ask them how they square that with their scientific knowledge, a lot of them will say that one thing science has taught them is how little we know about how the world really works.

I think that some atheists are using the "certainty" of science to substitute for the "certainty" of religion. It won't wash - that's not how science works. All it offers are temporary, and conditional, probable solutions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

It won't wash - that's not how science works. All it offers are temporary, and conditional, probable solutions.

But Scofflaw you are starting from the wrong point. You are assuming there is some validity to the concept of a ghost in the first place, just because some people believe in it or claim to have experienced it.

You are saying science cannot disprove an after-life or a ghost. But it doesn't work like that. Science works on the basis that something doesn't actually happen unless you have some form of evidence or logical reason to believe it does. Science does not work on the basis that everything happens until you show, through evidence or logic, that it doesn't

Science can look at what happens to an animal life form when it is created. It can look at what happens to an animal life form when it is alive. And it can look at what happens when an animal life form dies. At no point does it find a detectable process or method to allow for the creation of a ghost or spirit entity. Couple that with the logic of something like evolution and it is hard to find a evolutionary reason or process that creates a spirit.

Therefore it is unlikely such a process exists, and more importantly there is no real reason to believe such a process exists, no scientific logical reason at least.

People still believe in them, but that belief is not grounded in rational discovery, it is either an act of imagination or an act of faith. Nothing wrong with imagination or faith, but it doesn't lend any validity to a concept.

Just because the human can believe in something doesn't mean it is a valid concept until science proves it doesn't happen.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But Scofflaw you are starting from the wrong point. You are assuming there is some validity to the concept of a ghost in the first place, just because some people believe in it or claim to have experienced it.

You are saying science cannot disprove an after-life or a ghost. But it doesn't work like that. Science works on the basis that something doesn't actually happen unless you have some form of evidence or logical reason to believe it does. Science does not work on the basis that everything happens until you show, through evidence or logic, that it doesn't

Science can look at what happens to an animal life form when it is created. It can look at what happens to an animal life form when it is alive. And it can look at what happens when an animal life form dies. At no point does it find a detectable process or method to allow for the creation of a ghost or spirit entity. Couple that with the logic of something like evolution and it is hard to find a evolutionary reason or process that creates a spirit.

Therefore it is unlikely such a process exists, and more importantly there is no real reason to believe such a process exists, no scientific logical reason at least.

People still believe in them, but that belief is not grounded in rational discovery, it is either an act of imagination or an act of faith. Nothing wrong with imagination or faith, but it doesn't lend any validity to a concept.

Just because the human can believe in something doesn't mean it is a valid concept until science proves it doesn't happen.

No, science deals with what is observed, or with what is postulated. Reports of ghosts are an observation. The existence of ghosts is a postulate. No rigorous explanation has been advanced of either - instead, the area is considered a silly one, which does not attract funding. Where research is carried out, it is semi-amateur, and certainly not rigorous.

"Science works on the basis that something doesn't actually happen unless you have some form of evidence or logical reason to believe it does."

The evidence being the reports. Which is more than we have for, say, black holes, or brown dwarf stars, or dark matter, or a million other things which are undoubtedly part of science.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Which is more than we have for, say, black holes, or brown dwarf stars, or dark matter, or a million other things which are undoubtedly part of science.

I know this is totally tangential and only satisfying the pedant in me, but the evidence for Black Holes is pretty solid, even more so for Brown Dwarfs.
Black Holes have been confirmed since the late 80s and are being used to test General Relativity since 2004.

robindch

> Where research is carried out, it is semi-amateur, and certainly not rigorous.

I disagree. Certainly, there a bagful of no-doubt well-meaning, if ineffectual, folks out there taking pics of passing planes or cars or their cameras' internal reflections, dust on the lens or a fellow-researchers' frosty exhaust, and getting their just rewards. But there were, and perhaps still are, a few people who made a genuine effort to find some guiding principle behind it all, some tiny, tiny unexplained effect, while still using the intelligences with which nature endowed us. Susan Blackmore was one and she chucked it in six years ago and her gloomy reflections on thirty years of prodding the void can be found at:

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html, or in more detail at:
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm

But will her lifetime's failure to detect so much as a paranormal squeak deter anybody else from hoping that just one more search might bring the rational world down to its inflexible ankles?

Naahh, not a bit of it.

Scofflaw

Susan Blackmore, is of course, both professional and rigorous - in fact, when I made my categorical statement I should probably have mentioned her by name! However, the size of the research effort, and the kind of funding behind it, still effectively classifies it as semi-amateur (although I'll back down on rigorous).

On the other hand:

Susan Blackmore wrote:

Yet if we are going to study psychic claims at all, we must always consider the possibility that they are true. Unlikely as it is, ESP and PK might exist. There could be new forces as yet undiscovered. We should accept the best explanation we can find - not the one that we like the most.

But:

Susan Blackmore wrote:

But what if they don’t exist? Then each of us is a biological creature, designed by natural selection for the survival of our genes and memes; here for no reason at all other than the dictates of chance and necessity, and unable to contact or influence anyone else except through the normal senses and physical processes. Our consciousness, and the perceived world around us, emerge from the complex interactions between brains and their environment, and when those brains decay then our awareness stops.

Living in a world like this is truly scary. There is nothing to hang onto.

Which is what I believe myself. Oddly enough, it makes me happy!

I feel compelled to state for the record that my preferred explanation of 'ghosts' is the naturalistic one. On the other hand, I suspect that I have a different view of "reality" from most atheists. While I believe that there is a real, solid, naturalistic, material, and scientifically knowable world, I don't think we quite live in it. I think we live in our interpretation of it, which is not the same thing.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Reports of ghosts are an observation.

Reports of strange phenomona are an observation. There is no evidence they are ghosts, unless you use to the term ghost to simply describe any unexplained phenomona, just like when someone sees an UFO there is no little evidence it is an alien.

Scofflaw wrote:

The existence of ghosts is a postulate.

But that was my inital point. The existence of ghosts is not a postulate under any know scientific theory or method. And it contradicts a large number of established scientific theories.

Again that is assuming ghost means some kind of supernatural spirity entity, not just an unexplained phenomona.

Scofflaw wrote:

No rigorous explanation has been advanced of either - instead, the area is considered a silly one, which does not attract funding. Where research is carried out, it is semi-amateur, and certainly not rigorous.

That would be because their is very little logical reason to throw millions at studying something like a hunted house when there is so little real evidence that anything is actually happening.

Scofflaw wrote:

The evidence being the reports. Which is more than we have for, say, black holes, or brown dwarf stars, or dark matter, or a million other things which are undoubtedly part of science.

Not really. Black holes etc have proper theories behind them, that follow know scientific models.

I've never seen a report on a ghost that was actually evidence for a ghost, only evidence that something might have been seen or felt.

Someone saying they saw a strange shape in a room or wood or celler or something, and felt a strange chill down their spine is not presenting any actual evidence for anything, bar a strange shape and a cold chill.

We assume that something supernatural happened to them based on a set of matching circumstances that has grown up around the idea of ghosts. But there is no more reason to believe it was a ghost more than a cust of wind, and science would be reluctant to spend millions proving it was not a ghost only a cust of wind when the later is far more likely.

People who say we need to accept the possibility of ghost or the paranormal before we can properly study if they are real are presenting the arrgument the wrong way round.

You need to forget about the paranormal explinations for the evidence, forget about ghosts, spirits aliens etc, and start at the beginning and look at what is actually happening. Someone gets a cold chill in a old house. Why? Don't assume it was anything like a ghost, and work from "I don't know, lets look at what happened"

In science you don't assume something until you have evidence for it.

Dades

When you hear hooves, don't think of zebras.

Scoff, I don't think you believe in ghosts in the accepted sense of the word, but that you've expanded the definition just to fit your open-mindedness to belief in certain things supernatural.

Supernatural is not something that cannot be proven by science, as some notions just cannot be disproven. Supernatural for me is something that science can not even offer a reasonable explanation for it's occurance.

Scofflaw

wicknight wrote:

Reports of strange phenomona are an observation. There is no evidence they are ghosts, unless you use to the term ghost to simply describe any unexplained phenomona, just like when someone sees an UFO there is no little evidence it is an alien.

I think I have made it fairly clear that I am using "ghost" to describe a particular type of unexplained phenomenon. You, on the other hand, wish to use it exclusively to describe a specific postulate.

If we use your definition of "ghost", then the statement "explanation for ghosts" is superfluous, since a ghost has been defined in terms of its explanation.

I see no reason to accept that, particularly since you yourself state that your postulated ghosts can't exist. To counter the claim that you are "using ghost in the sense anyone would", I suggest that you try asking people what their explanation of ghosts is. If you're right, they should say "that's a silly question, because there's only one meaning of ghosts, which is spirits of the deceased". Actually, you'll find that people have all kinds of explanations for ghosts, which means that the term describes a phenomenon (as I use it) and not a postulate (as you're using it).

We remain with an class of observations that has a historically valid name, which is ghosts, and a number of plausible explanations ranging from the natural to the supernatural.


regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, you'll find that people have all kinds of explanations for ghosts, which means that the term describes a phenomenon (as I use it) and not a postulate (as you're using it).

Not to be that argumentative, but I don't think so.

"Ghost" is a common explination for something.

People don't have explanination for ghosts, "ghosts" is the explination for something. And that something can be pretty much anything, from a strange light to a gust of wind to a strange sound to a weird felling etc etc

Some might have different explinations for the same phenonoma (the same "something") that some people might attribute to ghosts.

To most people the most common definition of a "ghost" is the spirit of a dead person or animal interacting with the world. That is the explination, not the description. The description would be "a strange light" or "a funny feeling" or "my toes are going yellow"

www.dictionary.com

ghost Pronunciation Key (gst)
n.
1. The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats.
2. The center of spiritual life; the soul.
3. A demon or spirit.

www.dict.org

Ghost \Ghost\ (g[=o]st), n. [OE. gast, gost, soul, spirit, AS.
g[=a]st breath, spirit, soul; akin to OS. g[=e]st spirit,
soul, D. geest, G. geist, and prob. to E. gaze, ghastly.]
[1913 Webster]
1. The spirit; the soul of man. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]

Then gives her grieved ghost thus to lament.
--Spenser.
[1913 Webster]

2. The disembodied soul; the soul or spirit of a deceased
person; a spirit appearing after death; an apparition; a
specter.

To be honest it makes little sense to me to apply the term "ghost" in such a general fashion as you are doing.

Really I think we shouldn't use the term "ghost" simply as a description of something because we have no common definition of what that "something" is and in what context.

Or put another way, I have no idea what you are actually talking about when you say "ghost".

You could mean anything, from a flicker of light in a "haunted" house, to an orb on a photograph, to a strange feeling on your neck when you walk into a room, to a weird dream you had last night etc etc.

Using a universal term "ghost" to describe all these phenomona is confusing and implies a general connection between these events that might not exist in any meaningful way, except in the most general paranormal "thats weird" fashion. There is no connection between a strange light or shadow in a old house and a the weird sounds coming from my attic unless they are being caused by ghosts. If the cause is not the same then they are not the same and as such a common description would be nonsensical.

At least when people say UFO they have to at least be talking about an object that is unidentified and actually flying. But you wouldn't call a non-flying unidentified object a UFO unless you were talking about the object in context of aliens.

Playboy

Son Goku wrote:

I know this is totally tangential and only satisfying the pedant in me, but the evidence for Black Holes is pretty solid, even more so for Brown Dwarfs.
Black Holes have been confirmed since the late 80s and are being used to test General Relativity since 2004.

But there is no observational evidence - only observation of effects of something we think to be a black hole. Afaik this doesnt equal proof. There is room for a rival competing theory. Black holes are only one way of explaining the data. With any reference to an unobserved phenomena there is a multitude of possible explanations but scientists use Occams Razor to settle on one - the simplest one. I'm not aware of any competing theories for black holes but I think we should refrain from saying the are definite or confirmed.

Son Goku

Playboy wrote:

But there is no observational evidence - only observation of effects of something we think to be a black hole. Afaik this doesnt equal proof. There is room for a rival competing theory. Black holes are only one way of explaining the data. With any reference to an unobserved phenomena there is a multitude of possible explanations but scientists use Occams Razor to settle on one - the simplest one. I'm not aware of any competing theories for black holes but I think we should refrain from saying the are definite or confirmed.

I really don't want to drag this of topic, but there is observational evidence.
Black Holes aren't solely defined by their gravity, but also by orbital periods and their spectra of emission.
For instance the object X-1 cygni is a black hole to within a 99.995% confidence interval. They're nearly as confirmed as pulsars.
What you are saying was true back around 1992, most of the results before up until that era been published in a book called "Black Holes and Time Warps". However since then studies of these systems has advanced a lot. We're now starting to predict where black holes should be based on the galactic rotations.

I'd be happy to take this to the physics forum if you're not satisfied.

Playboy

I'm not a physicist but are you saying that black holes have been empirically verified? If not they are still an unobservable entity. Unobservable entities = theory. Theory doesnt = proof. We have a theory of gravity - we dont have proof that gravity exists. We infer that an unobservable entity called gravity exists through observed effects. Anyways sorry for going off topic.

Maybe better to reply in pm . thx

pH

Theory doesnt = proof. We have a theory of gravity - we dont have proof that gravity exists.

That is nonsense -that there is a downward force between us and the planet (and indeed an observable force between any 2 objects) is a fact. Even if our 'theory' of gravity (which attempts to explain this force) is completely wrong, gravity still exists, we don't all float away!

Anyway there is plenty of observational evidence to support black holes, I don't think you'd find an astronomer or physicist alive today who doubts their existance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole

Playboy

pH wrote:

That is nonsense -that there is a downward force between us and the planet (and indeed an observable force between any 2 objects) is a fact. Even if our 'theory' of gravity (which attempts to explain this force) is completely wrong, gravity still exists, we don't all float away!

You are missing the point. There could be any number of explanations for what we term gravity - the theory could be underdetermined - that is for any scientific theory there could be another explanation that fits the data equally well. When we cant physically observe a phenomenen then we are always going to be making assumptions about what it is. We observe effects that we think are caused by an invisible force which we term gravity.

pH wrote:

Anyway there is plenty of observational evidence to support black holes, I don't think you'd find an astronomer or physicist alive today who doubts their existance.

Again we observe effects and we infer the existence of black holes from these effects. Unless we physically observe a black hole we cannot say for sure it exists. Just because data matches our theory doesnt mean that our theory is correct. The history of Science is littered with examples of theories which we thought correct and then we were proven wrong. Maxwellian electromagnetism for example.