Evan Kneezer's Theory

As an Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science student at the University of Toronto, I believe I am educated and well informed enough to address the dilemma you have about the Ghostblasters estimate.

Ghostblasters has neither sufficient information nor confirmation to support the theory of ectoplasmic dynamics, created by Ghostblasters owner, Evan Kneezer. Firstly, he makes very strong claims with little evidence to reinforce these claims. As well, his theory violates the laws of scientific change, which I was taught is an essential part to the acceptance of a theory. Lastly, this theory is not in accord with the current explication of the demarcation criteria that determines whether a theory is scientific or unscientific.

During

Kneezer’s theory of ectoplasmic dynamics violates all four laws of scientific change. In order to distinguish the difference between a science and non-science theory, the theory must comply with the laws of scientific change. As per the third law of scientific change, also known as the law of method employment, a method can only be employed if it is in accord with other methods and accepted theories of the time. The method that Mr. Kneezer attempts to employ is quite arbitrary. It does not follow our contemporary method, known as the Hypothetico-Deductive Method, which states that a new theory with unobservable entities can only be accepted if it has some confirmed novel predictions to support it. Ghostblasters simply tries to create a theory by claiming they are superior in the field of Geistology, without any confirmations, thus placing the theory in violation of the third law. Moreover, the second law deals with acceptance, stating that a theory can only be accepted if it is in accord with the method employed at the time. Since ectoplasm is an unobservable entity without any novel confirmed novel predictions, and the method used in attempt to accept this theory does not follow the afore mentioned Hypothetico-Deductive method, this theory cannot be accepted in accord with the second law. As we cannot accept Mr. Kneezer’s theory as scientific, it is consequently in violation of the first law of inertia, where an element of the mosaic remains in its state in the mosaic

The demarcation criteria are the set of requirements that determine whether or not a theory is considered scientific. Just as the theory can only be accepted using the current employed methods, the theory must also comply with the current explication of the demarcation criteria, which is that the theory must explain the generally known facts of its domain and be fundamentally falsifiable. This latter is explained using the concept of confirmation and disconfirmation reasoning, which in both cases, bases its predictions on theories. With that, in confirmation reasoning, when the prediction is proven to be correct, the theory is thus correct. Disconfirmation reasoning is when the prediction turns out to be wrong, then that is evidence against that theory. Therefore, since the theory of ectoplasmic dynamics does not attempt to confirm any predictions nor has it “survived” multiple refuted attempts, it is not in accord with the demarcation criteria, and as a result, cannot be rendered a scientific