Do you believe in the supernatural/otherworldly/etc?

[Dezerte]

Sounds like you know something that most physicists lack the arrogance to presume to know.

?

Sounds like you're ascribing things to me I never said.

[Shadowferal]

Fair enough.

[Adamas102]

What I find amazing about pro-science types is that dark matter is accepted as real but there is no hard evidence it exists. Dark matter is technically as believable as angels and demons - we just like the sound of it is why the scientific community accepts it.

Do angels and demons exert real, verifiable effects on the world around them that adhere to our understanding of physics? If there was no evidence for dark matter then sure, you could compare it to fantasy. The day angels and demons affect our world through gravitational effects and microwave radiation they can take a place alongside dark matter.

[PC2]

Do angels and demons exert real, verifiable effects on the world around them that adhere to our understanding of physics? If there was no evidence for dark matter then sure, you could compare it to fantasy. The day angels and demons affect our world through gravitational effects and microwave radiation they can take a place alongside dark matter.

Yes but the word evidence has the connotation that there is 'concrete' factual data that indicates the existence of dark matter. In reality there is none and we only have 'logic' that implies a theory of dark matter is needed to explain our observation of particles.

[dextersmith]

People may have captured video evidence but it's always deemed fake.

- - - Updated - - -

One curiosity is, when ghosts are caught on video, why do spirits always have the same ethnicity as that country? When was the last time a ouiji board or evp spoke with a Chinese ghost?

- - - Updated - - -

I have experienced enough unexplainable things to not believe. I have seen many things too that although strange could be explained. But to have a large mirror fly out of an empty bathroom, turn a corner and land in the middle of the living room with 6 people...no...that could not be explained....and I have never ran out of a house so fast in my life. That house was really creepy. Aliens? Also have seen too many things not to believe. Thing with me though is ufo's don't scare me....I'm always the one that wants a better look.

Would you tell us about the mirror experience please?

[vindicatorx]

I don’t believe in ghosts or the supernatural because in the age of everything being captured and recorded, the verdict should be out already. And it is. No ghosts.

Mod Warning: Keep discussion to ghosts and harmless topics, not religion.

No, I don't believe in any phenomena with no evidence to support the claim that it exists.

[Thekri]

Yes but the word evidence has the connotation that there is 'concrete' factual data that indicates the existence of dark matter. In reality there is none and we only have 'logic' that implies a theory of dark matter is needed to explain our observation of particles.

Dark matter is a hypothesis, not a concrete material that can be studied. It is a hypothesis because it has tangible effects on observed behaviors of matter and energy, and dark matter is the name we ascribe to whatever is creating those effects. So "Something" is causing gravitational effects that cannot be explained by the observed matter in the universe. What that "Something" consists of is unclear, but we call whatever it is "Dark Matter" because we haven't observed it.

Belief in dark matter itself isn't the same as believing in Angels and Demons, because Dark Matter must be something, because we can observe its effects (Unless that something turns out to be a really dramatic math mistake). Because we see effects that cannot be explained by known causes, the dark matter hypothesis is scientifically necessary. If scientists unflinchingly believed in certain properties of dark matter, you might have a point. But they don't. They have a lot of theories about what its properties might be, and they are looking for evidence that could shed some light on it, but they don't really have anything to go on beyond extrapolation from its effects.

Angels and Demons on the other hand have no observable effects that cannot be explained with existing phenomena, and therefore are scientifically unnecessary. Science doesn't say they definitely don't exist, it simply says it is not necessary for them to exist, because the universe could work exactly the same without them (As far as we know). However without dark matter, we can't explain how the universe actually works, so we need that theory.

[PC2]

Dark matter is a hypothesis, not a concrete material that can be studied. It is a hypothesis because it has tangible effects on observed behaviors of matter and energy, and dark matter is the name we ascribe to whatever is creating those effects. So "Something" is causing gravitational effects that cannot be explained by the observed matter in the universe. What that "Something" consists of is unclear, but we call whatever it is "Dark Matter" because we haven't observed it.

Belief in dark matter itself isn't the same as believing in Angels and Demons, because Dark Matter must be something, because we can observe its effects (Unless that something turns out to be a really dramatic math mistake). Because we see effects that cannot be explained by known causes, the dark matter hypothesis is scientifically necessary. If scientists unflinchingly believed in certain properties of dark matter, you might have a point. But they don't. They have a lot of theories about what its properties might be, and they are looking for evidence that could shed some light on it, but they don't really have anything to go on beyond extrapolation from its effects.

Angels and Demons on the other hand have no observable effects that cannot be explained with existing phenomena, and therefore are scientifically unnecessary. Science doesn't say they definitely don't exist, it simply says it is not necessary for them to exist, because the universe could work exactly the same without them (As far as we know). However without dark matter, we can't explain how the universe actually works, so we need that theory.

Right yeah I agree with this. What I don't get is why an empiricist would believe that dark matter is scientific when we can't directly observe it, in my view that person is just a rationalist who is in denial about how we gain knowledge indirectly.

[Thekri]

Right yeah I agree with this. What I don't get is why an empiricist would believe that dark matter is scientific when we can't directly observe it, in my view that person is just a rationalist who is in denial about how we gain knowledge indirectly.

That is fair. Honestly I don't think Physics is a great line of work for an empiricist in the first place, because a great many of those concepts are theoretical, and we get pretty much all our knowledge about Astrophysics from indirect sources.

[G3 Ghost]

I want to believe. Unfortunately, I havent seen anything to completely convince me.

There have been some videos that come close, but I'm always driven to think, "Oh, they did it this way, that's clever" as opposed to "Its a g g g ghost!".

[Powerogue]

Do angels and demons exert real, verifiable effects on the world around them that adhere to our understanding of physics? If there was no evidence for dark matter then sure, you could compare it to fantasy. The day angels and demons affect our world through gravitational effects and microwave radiation they can take a place alongside dark matter.

You'd think if a supernatural being is "omnipresent" and described as glowing we'd pick up some radiation from it by now. It'd at least be a start.

It's weird. People positing supernatural want it both ways: asserting that these things manifest in physical reality in ways people have detected, but also that they're somehow conveniently above science and any attempts to demonstrate their existence clearly, unlike literally everything else.

[Fincayra]

Right yeah I agree with this. What I don't get is why an empiricist would believe that dark matter is scientific when we can't directly observe it, in my view that person is just a rationalist who is in denial about how we gain knowledge indirectly.

It's an early theory in science, just like gravity used to be. Someday our knowledge of it may improve, or we simply don't have the mental capacity to understand it, or it simply cannot be measured. I hope the first of those options is the right one, because learning new things keeps humans pushing forward.

[Daedius]

Who knows? Maybe ghosts are people from an alternate dimension of space or time, being windowed unawares.

[PC2]

It's an early theory in science, just like gravity used to be. Someday our knowledge of it may improve, or we simply don't have the mental capacity to understand it, or it simply cannot be measured. I hope the first of those options is the right one, because learning new things keeps humans pushing forward.

Of course, our knowledge of everything will improve. For dark matter we simply don't know if it will be based on a particle that can be directly observed, I guess it's 50:50 until we get more information.

[Adamas102]

Right yeah I agree with this. What I don't get is why an empiricist would believe that dark matter is scientific when we can't directly observe it, in my view that person is just a rationalist who is in denial about how we gain knowledge indirectly.

I think part of this argument hinges on you inferring a stance that isn’t being taken.

The initial references to “dark matter” in this thread were made by a poster equating it to the supernatural. That’s just a gross misunderstanding of the subject. I’m well aware that dark matter isn’t a directly observable thing (for lack of a better word). Thekri explained it well enough. The important part for this discussion is that it’s a theory derived from observable behaviors of cosmic bodies.

You also have to take into account the kind of posters we’re responding to in this thread. Are you really going to expect someone to understand an in-depth explanation of dark matter if they come to the table believing it to be no different than angels and demons?

[PC2]

I think part of this argument hinges on you inferring a stance that isn’t being taken.

The initial references to “dark matter” in this thread were made by a poster equating it to the supernatural. That’s just a gross misunderstanding of the subject. I’m well aware that dark matter isn’t a directly observable thing (for lack of a better word). Thekri explained it well enough. The important part for this discussion is that it’s a theory derived from observable behaviors of cosmic bodies.

You also have to take into account the kind of posters we’re responding to in this thread. Are you really going to expect someone to understand an in-depth explanation of dark matter if they come to the table believing it to be no different than angels and demons?

Obviously dark matter is natural and not supernatural, I don't think anything is supernatural. But there are widespread empirical epistomologies like 'logical positivism' which in my view can't claim that dark matter is natural and scientific. My intent is just to point out what I view as hypocrisy.

[MrDynamite1]

I don't believe in all this stuff