Originally Posted by k97yx
SCIENCE CANT PROVE EVERYTHING RIGHT SO
Agaaaaaaaaaah. I want to start explaining a whole bunch of stuff in this thread because of certain stupid posts, but then I'll be writing hueg (yes, hueg) posts about philosophy. Then, the people that I directed my post towards will not understand me, make a stupid post again, then I'll be mad because I wasted my time. Good thing other peoples (Corbenk, OTC, Miburo) have explained a good portion of it already.
But anyway, to keep it short: if you see or sense ghosts, you're only seeing or feeling something that you've never felt before, so you conclude (illogically) that it must be ghosts. Usually, if you think you saw a ghost, you did NOT see it clearly. You are never 100% sure that what you saw was in fact a ghost. Therefore, claiming what you saw was a ghost is really illogical.
Science cannot explain some things about the world because they are not clear to observation. And that's only when things cannot be explained. As long as you can observe clearly, you can make an accurate scientific statement about something. Science cannot answer "hey, what happened at the beginning of the universe?" because scientists cannot travel back in time and go "oh, hey, look, these two thingies collided." They can only make indirect observations about the past by looking directly at things in the future (or indirectly test something), and calculate what might've happened (but to not 100%, about 90-99% really) using maths and physics.
I hate when people claim "lolol science has been disproven somtimes so if you belive in science then ur close minded and are reely boring." First of all, when science is disproven, it's usually because of statistics. For example, a doctor-sciency person claims that another person has a disease and will most likely die. If the other person survives, did they prove the doctor wrong? Not completely, because the doctor only predicted that they most likely
will die, not that they would in fact die.
In situations where experiments disprove earlier scientists, this isn't a true "proving science wrong" situation. New experiments where new technology is available may alter earlier propositions by scientists because the scientists before did not have as much technological accuracy as they do now, and therefore their theories will only be altered slightly, according to the amount of technological advancement there has been. I mean, early on, Pi was 3.141. Whoever thought of Pi (cannot remember history atm) couldn't calculate it, because they didn't develop calculus. They weren't necessarily wrong ("you're wrong, Pi isn't 3.141, it's 3.14159!"), they were just not as accurate.
Second, as for the close mindedness, that's a really... close minded statement. By closed or open mindedness, you're talking about broadening your ways of thinking, right? Automatically, I have already considered ghosts existing, and have thought to question their existance, and have concluded that they most likely
do not exist. You, however, are still at the first step in this line of thinking.
Also, just because someone thinks logically and studies science doesn't mean they don't enjoy other things. I personally enjoy sports, art, and music. Just because I know the sun is a massive flaming fission reaction, gravity field-y super high kelvin object in deep and black space does not mean I can't enjoy looking at a nice, serene sunset portrayed in a painting. Just because I know that music is just a bunch of vibrations carried in the air, beating on my eardrums, and chemically reacting with my brain, doesn't mean I can't enjoy music.
I can write many many more paragraphs about this, but I'm too lazy. I said I would keep it short in the beginning, but I actually didn't. Blarzingblahrghh, long post is looong.