a conversation between two posters from that thread:
mike:
"Who says a ghost has to be exactly as that physicist described it. Who says it has to "control" our bodies? Perhaps a ghost is merely a reflection of ourselves in one of the infinite "alternate universes" that physicists claim exist? Maybe our souls are made out of dark energy or dark matter, which many scientists also claim exists (but are unable to detect). Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they know everything. Dr. Cox is just being an arrogant fool."
alexander:
"Or he is using empirical evidence to simply state that ghosts are fiction and science is fact. But dont let the fact he is a world leading particle physicist get in the way of your crackpot babbling."
mike:
"Alexander Romei look Billy Bob, I'm going to type slowy because I don't imagine your reading comprehension is very high. For starters, for a person to say "Science is fact" is as ignorant a statement as has ever been made. Science is the search for truth. Many alleged scientific so-called "facts" have been disproved. Science is only called "fact" when it becomes politicized.
"Secondly, did he define what a ghost actually is? No he did not. Until someone actually defines what a ghost is, science can't even begin to disprove its existence. I don't believe in ghosts, but I'm also not a fan logical fallacies. This guy's statement was making a prior assumptions about the nature of ghosts which he failed to devulge. If he's going to make an argument, there needs to be baseline of agreement. He failed to provide that baseline.
"Then there's the general notion that the current consensous in "Science" is that the 90 percent of the Universe is made up of stuff (dark matter and dark energy) that we can't directly detect or interact with, but somehow has a strong influence on regular matter. So we have a physicist who works every day with theories that basically state most of the universe is made up of some type of stuff that interacts with regular matter but we can't detect it issuing a statement saying it's impossible for such a thing as a ghost to exist because it interacts with matter and therefore we would have to be able to detect it. He is basically contradicting the theories of dark matter and dark energy because they do exactly what he's saying a ghost couldn't do. Are you following? I don't care if he's a world renown physicist, the flaws in his logic are readily apparent to anyone who wants to consider them."
= new reply since forum marked as read
