Unprovable Science?

[DaveWood]

I was having a discussion on another forum about why proof for the existance of ghosts is difficult.

As often happens the example of Dark Matter was brought up. My contention is that whilst DM, the big bang, evolution and dinosaurs can't necessarily be directly observed, the effects can be observed and robust theories constructed in lines with existing science.
And, of course, that this has not happened with ghosts.

The question arose of how we can develop robust theories about such things that we don't know exist. And I was wondering what thoughts on here were?

[MRT]

You CAN observe evolution (think of MRSA). You can also observe dinosaurs in museums. The contentious bit in the latter case (to a small minority) is dating such bones. Dating is mostly based on comparing rates of radioactive isotape decay - this too can be observed by anyone who is interested. As for the big bang and dark matter - there are a few scientists who disagree with the former and a larger number who disagree with the latter. The thing about science is that it is evidence-based. There is some evidence for the big bang but hardly any for dark matter - hence the differing degrees of skepticism.

As for ghosts - it depends what you mean by a ghost! Do people report seeing human figures they believe not to be physically present? Unquestionably, yes! Do most of these reports have mundane explanations - also unquestionably, yes. What are the causes of the remaining reports? Usually, there is insufficient information available to say. Scientists accept that, when there is insufficient information, you simply cannot come to any conclusion. Absence of evidence does not entitle you to speculate wildly.

[DaveWood]

You CAN observe evolution (think of MRSA). You can also observe dinosaurs in museums. The contentious bit in the latter case (to a small minority) is dating such bones. Dating is mostly based on comparing rates of radioactive isotape decay - this too can be observed by anyone who is interested. As for the big bang and dark matter - there are a few scientists who disagree with the former and a larger number who disagree with the latter. The thing about science is that it is evidence-based. There is some evidence for the big bang but hardly any for dark matter - hence the differing degrees of skepticism.

As for ghosts - it depends what you mean by a ghost! Do people report seeing human figures they believe not to be physically present? Unquestionably, yes! Do most of these reports have mundane explanations - also unquestionably, yes. What are the causes of the remaining reports? Usually, there is insufficient information available to say. Scientists accept that, when there is insufficient information, you simply cannot come to any conclusion. Absence of evidence does not entitle you to speculate wildly.

Say... don't I know you from somewhere?

[Matt]

I was having a discussion on another forum about why proof for the existance of ghosts is difficult.

As often happens the example of Dark Matter was brought up. My contention is that whilst DM, the big bang, evolution and dinosaurs can't necessarily be directly observed, the effects can be observed and robust theories constructed in lines with existing science.
And, of course, that this has not happened with ghosts.

The question arose of how we can develop robust theories about such things that we don't know exist. And I was wondering what thoughts on here were?

The test of whether a claim is scientific is not that's it is provable, it is that it is falsifiable.

Even so called direct observations are actually your subjective interpretation of faliable perceptions. We infer from them what we can based upon a balance of evidence to provide us with a view of events that are provisional until something more accurate comes along.

[MRT]

Hi Dave - yes, 'tis me. You need to separate things like evolution (widely accepted, plenty of evidence, easy to see) from dark matter (DM). DM is an, as yet, theoretical construct to fit some particular observations. In science, you start with observations, construct a theory, make predictions (based on the theory) and test them. With evolution, all these stages were passed long ago. With DM we are only at the theory stage. It could be that other theories will emerge that will mean that DM is not needed.

[Dr B]

The question arose of how we can develop robust theories about such things that we don't know exist. And I was wondering what thoughts on here were?

Why would you want to do that? Do you have the time, inclination and reason to develop a robust theory for the tooth-fairy?

I would suggest it is neither logically possible nor scientifically justifiable to develop theories for things we don't know exist.

I think philosophical discussions about 'possibilities' are fine as long as they remain within the confines of a philosophical discussion. Unfortunately that rarely happens.

[Cuddles]

I would suggest it is neither logically possible nor scientifically justifiable to develop theories for things we don't know exist.

I think I know what you probably mean, but the way this is actually phrased doesn't make much sense. There are many things that we don't know exist but still develop theories about. Dark matter is a perfect example of this. We certainly don't know it exists, but it is a good theory with evidence to support it. What you probably meant to say was that there is no justification for developing theories for things we have no reason to suppose exist.

[Dr B]

That is indeed what I meant to say.........though my reading of my own comments does that :-\ - though obviosuly not clear enough.

If evidence exists for DM - then I dont think that constitutes a viable example of 'not knowing anything about somthing' - at least in the literal sense - as some evidence is supportive - unlike the tooth fairy

If people recruit the DM analogy to make a case for woo (for example) then that would be a mistake - as you have pointed out - there is some evidence and hence some reason to explore further.

A lack of comprehensive knowing is not a reason for this type of argumentation (in the OP) ......as this typifies many areas of science and knowledge.

[DaveWood]

Why would you want to do that? Do you have the time, inclination and reason to develop a robust theory for the tooth-fairy?

I would suggest it is neither logically possible nor scientifically justifiable to develop theories for things we don't know exist.

I think philosophical discussions about 'possibilities' are fine as long as they remain within the confines of a philosophical discussion. Unfortunately that rarely happens.

To place this in context.. this was a discussion between myself and someone who felt that science doesn't have 'all the answers'.

The rephrased question would be: how does the evidence differ for one thing we don't know exists (ghosts) and another (the big bang).

I've outlined my ideas (in the latter case, scientific models, theories and study of the after effects - and nothing in the former case) but wondered what the ideas of others were.

[median]

There are many things that we don't know exist but still develop theories about. Dark matter is a perfect example of this.

Which came first? Evidence or theory?

I suppose that in the case of dark matter, evidence comes in the form of mathematical support?
Theories of this nature a rarely plucked from thin air and usually fit into a bodies of established fact.

[Dr B]

To place this in context.. this was a discussion between myself and someone who felt that science doesn't have 'all the answers'.

The rephrased question would be: how does the evidence differ for one thing we don't know exists (ghosts) and another (the big bang).

I've outlined my ideas (in the latter case, scientific models, theories and study of the after effects - and nothing in the former case) but wondered what the ideas of others were.

Sure - but the subtext of my earlier points is the comparison of these ideas is illegitimate in this context. It borders on the notion of the fallacy of the argument by irrelevant analogy does it not?

Edit - the 'science does not have all the answers' fallacy is dealt with in documents on the main page here and on the ASSAP page (critical thinking stuff) - direct your friend to them.

[DaveWood]

Sure - but the subtext of my earlier points is the comparison of these ideas is illegitimate in this context. It borders on the notion of the fallacy of the argument by irrelevant analogy does it not?

It does! But why?

[Dr B]

Errrrrr...because it's a fallacy? Think about it. Go read up on that fallacy and you should be able to see why the argument your friend was trying to make is on shaky ground.

[DaveWood]

Errrrrr...because it's a fallacy? Think about it. Go read up on that fallacy and you should be able to see why the argument your friend was trying to make is on shaky ground.

.

[median]

To place this in context.. this was a discussion between myself and someone who felt that science doesn't have 'all the answers'.

The rephrased question would be: how does the evidence differ for one thing we don't know exists (ghosts) and another (the big bang).

Hello Dave.

The classic defence of those wishing to support some vague unsupported idea about the paranormal. The 'science doesn't have all the answers' retort doesn't automatically imply that other avenues do. :-\

As it was stated earlier there is evidence to support certain theories about the beginning of the universe. Other evidence may be discovered that supports some views more than others.

Strangely enough there does seem to be evidence for ghosts but purely as perceptual distortions, illusions etc. However, it is discarded as a viable answer by some because it doesn't fit in with their idea of a ghost being a manifestation from beyond the grave.
So it may be simply a case of recategorising the issue.

One thing for me is that the use of the phrase 'science doesn't have all the answers' seems to imply that 'science will never know all the answers' so why try?

The Dark Ages beckon :-\