Science is inherently atheistic

[The Grand Nudger]

That may be true, but a failure to convince you may be due to your own idiosyncracy...rather than any failure of their observations and arguments.

[Angrboda]

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.

Science makes no assumptions such as you are suggesting it does. That would be metaphysics, not science.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

That may be true, but a failure to convince you may be due to your own idiosyncracy...rather than any failure of their observations and arguments.

Or it may be your failure to realize that goblins and ghouls are really people in Halloween costumes.

[Angrboda]

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.

Did you even pause to consider how your current complaint fits in with my argument? You're confirming what I argued, dumbfoundedly thinking you're not.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

Did you even pause to consider how your current complaint fits in with my argument?  You're confirming what I argued, dumbfoundedly thinking you're not.

First, I like you and think you're intelligent.  I've read other comments you've made and I think you're right about a lot of things, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.  So don't feel like I'm discounting you altogether.

What I said isn't a complaint. It's just adherence to a set of standards. If I begin to deviate from those standards just because someone insists I should  due to them believing they have a better way, then they must show me why their alternate standard is better and/or optimal.  In this case, I'm going to stick to the standards of scientific study which don't include making claims about magical vampires that walk through walls and turn into bats.  On the other hand, gravity is an excepted phenomenon in the natural world.  We may not know everything about it, but we don't have to.  That just means there's room for further study.

[Angrboda]

Did you even pause to consider how your current complaint fits in with my argument?  You're confirming what I argued, dumbfoundedly thinking you're not.

First, I like you and think you're intelligent.  I've read other comments you've made and I think you're right about a lot of things, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.  So don't feel like I'm discounting you altogether.

What I said isn't a complaint. It's just adherence to a set of standards. If I begin to deviate from those standards just because someone insists I should  due to them believing they have a better way, then they must show me why their alternate standard is better and/or optimal.  In this case, I'm going to stick to the standards of scientific study which don't include making claims about magical vampires that walk through walls and turn into bats.  On the other hand, gravity is an excepted phenomenon in the natural world.  We may not know everything about it, but we don't have to.  That just means there's room for further study.

Except that you're not actually proposing adherence to scientific standards as evidenced by your prior post. When the cause is supernatural, the ultimate cause is somehow critical to scientific inquiry. But when the subject is gravity, suddenly the ultimate metaphysical cause is irrelevant. I'm pointing out your inconsistency, which your latest claim of adherence to and support of the scientific method does nothing to resolve.

[polymath257]

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.

If they actually existed, there would be no major problem with studying them through the scientific method. But, of course, they do not, so there is not a science of these things.

Is gravity a 'force', or a curvature of spacetime? What does it even mean to be a 'force'? isn't it simply a description of how certain things interact? In other words, observed patterns of behavior?

And again, many of the issues you point to are common with studying *any* sort of living thing. There frequently is not a lot of consistency in how a living thing behaves, so we do not expect the same results with subsequent testing. That doesn't mean that science is impossible with living things.

---

Did you even pause to consider how your current complaint fits in with my argument?  You're confirming what I argued, dumbfoundedly thinking you're not.

First, I like you and think you're intelligent.  I've read other comments you've made and I think you're right about a lot of things, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.  So don't feel like I'm discounting you altogether.

What I said isn't a complaint. It's just adherence to a set of standards. If I begin to deviate from those standards just because someone insists I should  due to them believing they have a better way, then they must show me why their alternate standard is better and/or optimal.  In this case, I'm going to stick to the standards of scientific study which don't include making claims about magical vampires that walk through walls and turn into bats.  On the other hand, gravity is an excepted phenomenon in the natural world.  We may not know everything about it, but we don't have to.  That just means there's room for further study.

But, for example, we can study neutrinos with the scientific method. And neutrinos *do* go through walls (and even the whole Earth) with little issue. They also change types in flight.

The issue is whether the phenomenon in question can be detected and if there is any consistent behavior that we can find. If there is, then the scientific method can be used to investigate it.

Now, if vampires did exist and turn into bats, that would be an *incredibly* interesting thing from a scientific point of view. It would mean, among other things, that conservation of mass is strongly violated. Such would, in and of itself, demand much more study and consideration of the details of when it is possible. And actual verification of a vampire turning into a bat would be a *huge* thing on the scientific side of things.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

First, I like you and think you're intelligent.  I've read other comments you've made and I think you're right about a lot of things, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.  So don't feel like I'm discounting you altogether.

What I said isn't a complaint. It's just adherence to a set of standards. If I begin to deviate from those standards just because someone insists I should  due to them believing they have a better way, then they must show me why their alternate standard is better and/or optimal.  In this case, I'm going to stick to the standards of scientific study which don't include making claims about magical vampires that walk through walls and turn into bats.  On the other hand, gravity is an excepted phenomenon in the natural world.  We may not know everything about it, but we don't have to.  That just means there's room for further study.

Except that you're not actually proposing adherence to scientific standards as evidenced by your prior post.  When the cause is supernatural, the ultimate cause is somehow critical to scientific inquiry.  But when the subject is gravity, suddenly the ultimate metaphysical cause is irrelevant.  I'm pointing out your inconsistency, which your latest claim of adherence to and support of the scientific method does nothing to resolve.

False. Was looking for something simple so you can understand this, so took the explanation(s) from Study.com, which I'm hoping we can agree that they're sharing for the sake of teaching and learning without regard for adding bias.  Page I'm using is linked there.

"Natural laws arise from the process known as the scientific method. The scientific method is the systematic study of the natural world through experimentation and observation. This method provides scientists with a rigorous framework to objectively study the natural world. Using the scientific method, natural laws can be verified through experiments conducted by independent observers."

(Already said this, but apparently it wasn't good enough.  It can be tested, repeated, and applied within the natural world and for scientific study.)

And of course here is an example on the same page using Newtons Law of Universal.

"When natural laws are mentioned, one of the more common scientific disciplines that comes to mind is physics. Laws in physics include concepts such as Newton's law of universal gravitation. This law describes the attractive gravitational force (F) that exists between two masses (M sub 1 and M sub 2). Here is the law of universal gravitation expressed as a mathematical equation: "

[The Grand Nudger]

Critically endangered species are notoriously hard to locate and get on camera in the wild.  We have a general idea of how to do it..and we set up our blinds where we suspect they may be...but more often than not the photographers go home empty handed.  We don;t notice this because of the beuatiful documentaries they put together and we watch in discrete and convenient chunks of time full of hd and glossies that...if that's all you had to go by, would make a person think that the world is just chock full of the little bastards and you couldn;t even walk through the woods without tripping over em.  

In reality it took them years to get the footage and they made two hours out of 50 seconds worth of camera time in processing and presentation.

If vampires were among those critically endangered species (and they must be, if they exist...they're not exactly like mice and seagulls) then we'd expect more of the same. The earlier "maybe cameras cant see them" buit..unimpressive..if our eyes can see them then cameras can too..frankly, it's our eyes that need the cameras..not the other way round.

[Amarok]

This whole thing is disturbingly close to the invisible dragon idea