No problem at all. I need something to do at work.
But if you're not observing it scientifically (using the scientific method and trying to falsify your theory - not necessarily using scientific equipment) then your conclusions aren't going to be accepted under a rational basis.
That's debatable. I'm very open-minded about things, but I do want to see evidence backing a theory before I'll change my mind. This tends to be the skeptical view. For some reason this draws the insult close-minded from those who have made up their minds, and decide to ignore evidence to the contrary. I admit the possibility of a lot of things - what I don't admit is their likelihood in the absence of any evidence.
Yep. Because we would never have needed to explain the phenomena, since we wouldn't be aware of it. With most fantastical stories though it's a slightly different matter, since people claim physical effects which cannot be objectively measured and verified.
I will admit that I do find it difficult to conceive of a phenomena which would be perceptible to the human senses, and would not be measurable through the use of other equipment. UFOs are supposedly visible to the human eye, which means they reflect light withint he visible spectrum. Ghosts are the same. These things could be measured and verified, we have the equipment to do so.
See my thought process is slightly different. The first test is 'is there any objective evidence which can be looked at regarding this?'. Generally things fail at that first test, as people are unwilling to provide any. The second test, assuming that there is evidence, is 'do current theories and knowledge provide for the phenomena?' If they do, and the evidence does not violate these theories, then there's no need to resort to an unexplained phenomena when an understood one will do.
Of course I do enjoy speculating on how weird phenomena would work under a different explanation of the universe. That's what fiction is for.
But accepting that something is/might be possible without evidence is actually more narrow-minded. When that's done the person holding the theory tends to extend it, and ignore or deny evidence that there's a rational explanation already in place.
It's that beyond scientific measurement or understanding I have trouble with. We are capable of analyzing the movement of a single wave/particle to the degree that we can determine it appears to be interacting with virtual wave/particles which only exist as a potentiality, yet somehow we're incapable of measuring a phenomena with gross physical effects such as ghosts, UFOs or faith healing other than through personal experience? That just doesn't seem plausible to me.
We recently took pictures of a collision between two distant galaxies. I really don't think that there is much that cannot be explained by scientific analysis, and resorting to that as an explanation appears to be more a case of giving up rather than making a serious attempt to understand the world.
Which I personally think is fantastic.
I'll examine and consider any evidence I can find, but beliefs are not necessarily based on evidence. Without evidence I won't hold to or accept a belief.
Such as believing in ghosts with no objective evidence, in the face of evidence of alternative explanations?
I don't say that's anything but a ghost - but I do tend to say 'that has most likely got an understood explanation, I wonder what it is' before saying 'it must be something unexplained'. I think we're actually agreeing here.
Part of my bitterness against supernatural explanations is that I truly, truly wish we were living in a universe where they were true. I want someone to prove to me that they are, but it's yet to happen.
See, now I'm going to have to write you into my will. You'll get a pint each week for a year after my death, just so that you know I'm still around. Watching.