(December 2, 2018 at 6:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 6:07 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: The starting point is always "null" or "no relationship", and then we try to determine the probability of relationship by controlling things that would skew those results, that way we are only testing the specific relationship in the research between two or more subjects.  If we find nothing, we conclude the null was correct, but we also give a numerical value on the probability that "null" was the right result. 

Just a minor point, no, we do not conclude that the null is correct, only that the null is not necessarily incorrect.  Those are not the same thing, though they are often confused.

You're right. Technically we would say "accept the null", then we provide a value to our findings.  By "accepting" were just saying that we haven't established a correlation between the subjects.

Please excuse me with this. I try to type this kind of thing out correctly, but sometimes I get distracted or have a temporary lapse in what I should be saying.

(December 2, 2018 at 6:07 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 10:29 am)polymath257 Wrote: But, as always, you can start out with observed behavior and *hypothesize* the laws they operate under, test those laws, etc.

There is simply no reason the scientific method could not be applied to ghosts, goblins, or gods, in theory.

In practice, of course, it fails to study them because of the utter non-existence of them all.

I agree, you could, but you can guarantee "control."  If something is not bound by natural laws, we can't measure it with assumptions of natural  laws. When anything is measured scientifically, it is a measure of relationship.  The starting point is always "null" or "no relationship", and then we try to determine the probability of relationship by controlling things that would skew those results, that way we are only testing the specific relationship in the research between two or more subjects.  If we find nothing, we conclude the null was correct, but we also give a numerical value on the probability that "null" was the right result.  If we see a relationship, we reject the null, and determine the extent of that relationship within those parameters.  That's the beauty of the scientific method.  Once we finish a study, we now the basis for more study by bringing what we know and resetting parameters to advance knowledge of those subjects.  This is also why peer-review is important.  You may (or may not) have done garbage research by not controlling the parameters and someone else can call you on it.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because we all make mistakes and learn.  Next time you can go back and do it with the necessary corrections.

Now if you say a vampire exists that can magically turn into a bat, and you believe you saw him in a cave in a mountain, how the heck are you going to set up parameters to test such a thing?  You could try, but I can just imagine there would be at least a few dozen difficulties, and even more so if such a creature actually existed (safety issues, making sure it doesn't walk through a wall, etc...)  Even finding in could potentially be a pain, and cooperation even more so.

Again, I really don't see anything more difficult than dealing with any other sort of dangerous creature that we don't understand. For those creatures in the wild, we seldom are capable of doing struct controls. All we can do, especially at first, is describe, catalog behaviors, and make a few hypotheses. Through more observation, some of the hypotheses may be shown wrong.

We do NOT have to measure under an assumption of natural laws for the creature itself. But, for example, if we can photograph it, that implies some sort of interaction with light. If we can hear it, that implies some sort of interaction with pressure waves in the air. Even if we don't understand the nature of those interactions, that is, at least, an 'in' to understanding what the creature is and how it functions. If we can record a transformation into a bat, we might be able to do a frame by frame analysis to see whether mass is conserved and, if not, what happens to is.

All said, this would lead to some *amazing* insights into physics.

The point is that natural laws are *descriptive*, not *prescriptive*. We find out natural laws by looking at phenomena and finding descriptions of what we observe, looking for patterns all the time. A natural law is a type of general description of patterns that we see. To say there is no 'natural law' operative simply means there are no patterns that we can discern and/or no descriptions that are useful for understanding.

(December 2, 2018 at 9:19 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 6:07 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I agree, you could, but you can guarantee "control."  If something is not bound by natural laws, we can't measure it with assumptions of natural  laws. When anything is measured scientifically, it is a measure of relationship.  The starting point is always "null" or "no relationship", and then we try to determine the probability of relationship by controlling things that would skew those results, that way we are only testing the specific relationship in the research between two or more subjects.  If we find nothing, we conclude the null was correct, but we also give a numerical value on the probability that "null" was the right result.  If we see a relationship, we reject the null, and determine the extent of that relationship within those parameters.  That's the beauty of the scientific method.  Once we finish a study, we now the basis for more study by bringing what we know and resetting parameters to advance knowledge of those subjects.  This is also why peer-review is important.  You may (or may not) have done garbage research by not controlling the parameters and someone else can call you on it.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because we all make mistakes and learn.  Next time you can go back and do it with the necessary corrections.

Now if you say a vampire exists that can magically turn into a bat, and you believe you saw him in a cave in a mountain, how the heck are you going to set up parameters to test such a thing?  You could try, but I can just imagine there would be at least a few dozen difficulties, and even more so if such a creature actually existed (safety issues, making sure it doesn't walk through a wall, etc...)  Even finding in could potentially be a pain, and cooperation even more so.

Again, I really don't see anything more difficult than dealing with any other sort of dangerous creature that we don't understand. For those creatures in the wild, we seldom are capable of doing struct controls. All we can do, especially at first, is describe, catalog behaviors, and make a few hypotheses. Through more observation, some of the hypotheses may be shown wrong.

We do NOT have to measure under an assumption of natural laws for the creature itself. But, for example, if we can photograph it, that implies some sort of interaction with light. If we can hear it, that implies some sort of interaction with pressure waves in the air. Even if we don't understand the nature of those interactions, that is, at least, an 'in' to understanding what the creature is and how it functions. If we can record a transformation into a bat, we might be able to do a frame by frame analysis to see whether mass is conserved and, if not, what happens to is.

All said, this would lead to some *amazing* insights into physics.

The point is that natural laws are *descriptive*, not *prescriptive*. We find out natural laws by looking at phenomena and finding descriptions of what we observe, looking for patterns all the time. A natural law is a type of general description of patterns that we see. To say there is no 'natural law' operative simply means there are no patterns that we can discern and/or no descriptions that are useful for understanding.

Although I don't agree, I respect your rationale. Photographing a vampire doesn't demonstrate a vampire until you can prove it's a vampire.  If not, it could be your friend in a mask playing a practical joke on you.  On the day of your "scientific presentation" he shows up in his vampire outfit.  You would have to have a "hands on" approach.  If you didn't get the blood sucked out of you, then maybe you could continue.

Or if you think it's in a cave, what if it was in bat form.  How are you going to know which bat to examine?  Go fondle all of them until one tries to kill you?

How do you know it didn't leave the cave altogether, even if by walking through a wall?  Maybe it's in a coffin in a hidden chamber and has decided to take a nap for 1000 years.  Are you going to wait for it? Aren't vampires also supposed to be immune from reflection, so the camera would be a waste of time anyway.

If it's supernatural, then we can't assume that any of it has to be subject to natural laws.

(December 2, 2018 at 11:52 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 9:19 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Again, I really don't see anything more difficult than dealing with any other sort of dangerous creature that we don't understand. For those creatures in the wild, we seldom are capable of doing struct controls. All we can do, especially at first, is describe, catalog behaviors, and make a few hypotheses. Through more observation, some of the hypotheses may be shown wrong.

We do NOT have to measure under an assumption of natural laws for the creature itself. But, for example, if we can photograph it, that implies some sort of interaction with light. If we can hear it, that implies some sort of interaction with pressure waves in the air. Even if we don't understand the nature of those interactions, that is, at least, an 'in' to understanding what the creature is and how it functions. If we can record a transformation into a bat, we might be able to do a frame by frame analysis to see whether mass is conserved and, if not, what happens to is.

All said, this would lead to some *amazing* insights into physics.

The point is that natural laws are *descriptive*, not *prescriptive*. We find out natural laws by looking at phenomena and finding descriptions of what we observe, looking for patterns all the time. A natural law is a type of general description of patterns that we see. To say there is no 'natural law' operative simply means there are no patterns that we can discern and/or no descriptions that are useful for understanding.

Although I don't agree, I respect your rationale. Photographing a vampire doesn't demonstrate a vampire until you can prove it's a vampire.  If not, it could be your friend in a mask playing a practical joke on you.  On the day of your "scientific presentation" he shows up in his vampire outfit.  You would have to have a "hands on" approach.  If you didn't get the blood sucked out of you, then maybe you could continue.

Or if you think it's in a cave, what if it was in bat form.  How are you going to know which bat to examine?  Go fondle all of them until one tries to kill you?

How do you know it didn't leave the cave altogether, even if by walking through a wall?  Maybe it's in a coffin in a hidden chamber and has decided to take a nap for 1000 years.  Are you going to wait for it? Aren't vampires also supposed to be immune from reflection, so the camera would be a waste of time anyway.

If it's supernatural, then we can't assume that any of it has to be subject to natural laws.

Your objections could apply equally as well to gravity. We don't know what gravity is, but we do know it's effects and the order displayed. If your objections suggest that we don't know what we're talking about with respect to gravity, I have to suspect there is something wonky with your ideas on this.

(December 3, 2018 at 12:46 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 11:52 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Although I don't agree, I respect your rationale. Photographing a vampire doesn't demonstrate a vampire until you can prove it's a vampire.  If not, it could be your friend in a mask playing a practical joke on you.  On the day of your "scientific presentation" he shows up in his vampire outfit.  You would have to have a "hands on" approach.  If you didn't get the blood sucked out of you, then maybe you could continue.

Or if you think it's in a cave, what if it was in bat form.  How are you going to know which bat to examine?  Go fondle all of them until one tries to kill you?

How do you know it didn't leave the cave altogether, even if by walking through a wall?  Maybe it's in a coffin in a hidden chamber and has decided to take a nap for 1000 years.  Are you going to wait for it? Aren't vampires also supposed to be immune from reflection, so the camera would be a waste of time anyway.

If it's supernatural, then we can't assume that any of it has to be subject to natural laws.

Your objections could apply equally as well to gravity.  We don't know what gravity is, but we do know it's effects and the order displayed.  If your objections suggest that we don't know what we're talking about with respect to gravity, I have to suspect there is something wonky with your ideas on this.

Most of the time I agree with you, so just chalk this off me attempting to agree to disagree.   You can't equally apply it to "gravity" because we know what gravity is and its impact in the natural world.  I don't believe there are too many people out there who would seriously try to challenge Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  Vampires on the other hand, may not be bound even by gravity, and based on some of the B movies I've seen, they're not assumed to be either.

(December 2, 2018 at 11:52 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 2, 2018 at 9:19 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Again, I really don't see anything more difficult than dealing with any other sort of dangerous creature that we don't understand. For those creatures in the wild, we seldom are capable of doing struct controls. All we can do, especially at first, is describe, catalog behaviors, and make a few hypotheses. Through more observation, some of the hypotheses may be shown wrong.

We do NOT have to measure under an assumption of natural laws for the creature itself. But, for example, if we can photograph it, that implies some sort of interaction with light. If we can hear it, that implies some sort of interaction with pressure waves in the air. Even if we don't understand the nature of those interactions, that is, at least, an 'in' to understanding what the creature is and how it functions. If we can record a transformation into a bat, we might be able to do a frame by frame analysis to see whether mass is conserved and, if not, what happens to is.

All said, this would lead to some *amazing* insights into physics.

The point is that natural laws are *descriptive*, not *prescriptive*. We find out natural laws by looking at phenomena and finding descriptions of what we observe, looking for patterns all the time. A natural law is a type of general description of patterns that we see. To say there is no 'natural law' operative simply means there are no patterns that we can discern and/or no descriptions that are useful for understanding.

Although I don't agree, I respect your rationale. Photographing a vampire doesn't demonstrate a vampire until you can prove it's a vampire.  If not, it could be your friend in a mask playing a practical joke on you.  On the day of your "scientific presentation" he shows up in his vampire outfit.  You would have to have a "hands on" approach.  If you didn't get the blood sucked out of you, then maybe you could continue.

Or if you think it's in a cave, what if it was in bat form.  How are you going to know which bat to examine?  Go fondle all of them until one tries to kill you?

How do you know it didn't leave the cave altogether, even if by walking through a wall?  Maybe it's in a coffin in a hidden chamber and has decided to take a nap for 1000 years.  Are you going to wait for it? Aren't vampires also supposed to be immune from reflection, so the camera would be a waste of time anyway.

Again, nothing inherently more difficult than trying to figure out the mating behavior of sea turor where their young go after they hatch. Some investigations require more patience and care than others. That doesn't mean the investigation is impossible.

Quote:If it's supernatural, then we can't assume that any of it has to be subject to natural laws.

Again, all that natural laws are is observed patterns. If the 'supernatural' can be detected and shows consistent patterns (even the patterns that can be seen in living things), then it can be investigated scientifically.

The *only* way to have a supernatural is to make it *completely* undetectable or show absolutely no patterns of behavior. But in that case, what is the difference with mere non-existence?

---

(December 3, 2018 at 1:08 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 3, 2018 at 12:46 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Your objections could apply equally as well to gravity.  We don't know what gravity is, but we do know it's effects and the order displayed.  If your objections suggest that we don't know what we're talking about with respect to gravity, I have to suspect there is something wonky with your ideas on this.

Most of the time I agree with you, so just chalk this off me attempting to agree to disagree.   You can't equally apply it to "gravity" because we know what gravity is and its impact in the natural world.  I don't believe there are too many people out there who would seriously try to challenge Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  Vampires on the other hand, may not be bound even by gravity, and based on some of the B movies I've seen, they're not assumed to be either.

Well, first of all, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is known to be wrong in detail. It has been replaced (for more precise situations) with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Newton's ideas are a very good *approximation*, but they aren't the final word.

Second, the way we know about gravity and its effects is because we can make observations. In the case of gravity, we make observations of planets and falling things. It is the patterns of behavior that we find that lead us to our theories about gravity.

Again, whether vampires are or are not 'bound' by gravity is something to be determined via observation. Vampires may be hard to detect and verify, but so are neutrinos and dark matter. But science works perfectly well for the latter. Why not for the former?

For an example of something unobservable that we regularly study through scientific observation, consider the human mind. We have first person access to it, but that first person access is often not reliable and in general the mind is a black box. It's a perfect parallel because some people claim that the mind is in fact supernatural (a soul), and yet we're able to study it, make correlations, and detect patterns in its behavior. So something being more or less unobservable and even supernatural is not at all an absolute bar to scientific investigation. This contrasts sharply with something like dark matter which interacts with normal matter and energy so weakly that observation and scientific study is very difficult. So the bar that is relevant is whether it has effects upon ordinary matter and energy, not whether it's supernatural, even if supernatural is a valid thing, which it may not be.

You can attempt to study vampires, but it's not scientific study. I'm not knocking you for believing it's possible, but it's not a very credible endeavor.


From U of C (Berkely)

Science asks questions about the natural world

Science studies the natural world. This includes the components of the physical universe around us like atoms, plants, ecosystems, people, societies and galaxies, as well as the natural forces at work on those things. In contrast, science cannot study supernatural forces and explanations. For example, the idea that a supernatural afterlife exists is not a part of science since this afterlife operates outside the rules that govern the natural world.

(December 3, 2018 at 1:08 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: You can't equally apply it to "gravity" because we know what gravity is and its impact in the natural world. 

We actually do not know what gravity is, although we pretty much do know how it impacts the natural world.

We do not yet know the root cause for gravity. Some people suspect a particle called "graviton", but we actually dont know.

(December 3, 2018 at 10:53 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(December 3, 2018 at 1:08 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: You can't equally apply it to "gravity" because we know what gravity is and its impact in the natural world. 

We actually do not know what gravity is, although we pretty much do know how it impacts the natural world.

We do not yet know the root cause for gravity. Some people suspect a particle called "graviton", but we actually dont know.

Gravity can be defined and applied within the natural world.  Its attributes are testable, repeatable, and verifiable with the same result in subsequent testing.

We know gravity is "force", and knowing the root cause is irrelevant to apply it to the natural world.  It's just a subject for future study. Scientific study in regards to anything is meant to be expansive, not exclusive.

If you want to believe otherwise, then great, but I like to stick to the basics. Respectfully it's unlikely anybody is going to convince me that a vampire (that turn into bats), wolfman, or specter can be included in scientific study as subjects.