Sleepyguy, I never mind a good discussion and do not easily take offence. You are of course right, science will never be able to prove that every single orb is a light artefact. But it does offer pretty convincing evidence explaining orbs in general, and can reproduce them under controlled conditions. There is on the other hand, no evidence at all that any orbs are paranormal; this is an assumption, a theory, but nothing more. The question is, why would you want to hold the belief that there are two kinds of orbs, a perfectly natural variety and a paranormal type for which there is no evidence, if you could just as well assume that all orbs are in fact of the first variety? Or, to use Ockam's razor, why would you prefer the latter complex hypothesis to the former simple one, even though the latter doesn't explain anything extra?
Anything is possible in theory. It's possible that twelve green pixies live at the back of my garden, who go invisible anytime anybody looks. But why would I assume such a thing?
(Finally, OT in reply to your OT question: A point often made but rarely understood: the scientific method is not a belief. It is simply the only way we have of examining closely the likelihood of any statement on reality being true. Or do you know of another? It works for atoms as well as for orbs and smurfs (the evidence for the existence of smurfs is exactly as strong as that supporting paranormal orbs, so it is not very consistent to believe in the former but not in the latter). The scientific method has furthered human knowledge way beyond anything ever achieved by any religion or belief. It has doubled the life expectancy of an average westerner in less than 100 years time. It allows you and me to have this discussion from opposing sides of the globe. I stand by it because I am convinced that if everybody would stick to an evidence based worldview and rational thinking, and would be able to truly distinguish those from personal beliefs, the world would be rid of lots of unfounded bias and irrational fear and would generally be a much better place. We could then eradicate popular but evidently (empirically) wrong notions such as, 'Europe will be engulfed by Muslims', 'Allowing gay marriage will stop straight people marrying and result in less births', 'Death penalty works', or 'There is no connection between gun laws and gun-related crime').
PS. This thread is called 'Explanation for orbs'? Why does everyone want to close it as soon as explanations are offered that are impopular?
Edited by stevenedel, 13 November 2007 - 12:25 PM.