Ok, I thought you meant we know all there is to know. Never mind. A lot of people who bring up science, seem to think we humans know all there is to know and if our science can't explain something, then it is not real. These people are wrong. Yeah, if primitive monkey science can't explain something, then it's not real. LOL sure...

Sometimes things cant be explained. Scientists keep trying to use science to explain the unexplainable :P.
Live in a house i *suspected* was haunted til i was 17. .........used to keep lights on when supposed to be asleep....kept hearing noises like doors opening closing and draws when everyone else was asleep. Certain areas of the house were really scary during the daytime even - at night pitch black. Dad saw ghost of a departed neighbour once (a good friend). Apparently people had died in the house as well sometime in the past. Surprised the house i currently live in (built in 1890's) isnt haunted LOL.

Very smart of you to sleep with the lights on when you were living there. Trust me.

I always thought it was overactive imagine of a little kid, but others confirmed whole place was spooky. I dislike sleeping in the dark, but there's dark which is fine to sleep in then there's dark which makes u worry and stuff....

While it's good to initially be willing to consider new ideas, there comes a time when proponents of an idea have failed so many times to provide any meaningful evidence for their claims that further consideration of the idea just isn't worth the time. Despite the various people claiming to believe in ghosts (and claiming to have seen evidence of them), no one has managed to produce evidence of their existence under controlled, repeatable conditions. After so many claims coming up short when put to the test it eventually comes time to move on.

The scientific method is the best tool we have for determining how the observable universe behaves. If ghosts exist they are either a part of the observable universe, in which case science is the best tool for learning about them, or they are not part of the observable universe (at least not with the technology we currently have available for observing the universe), in which case speculating about them is about as useful as speculating about Russell's teapot.

You don't seem to have a particularly good grasp of what science is. It is not "truth" that science is concerned with, but what is observable (and developing predictive theories about the observable universe). Our scientific understanding of what is observable may or may not correspond to the "truth" of what is, but that's for philosophers to speculate about.

Could you please explain a yawn to me or do they not exist either because last time I checked science could not explain them either.

Okay then. What is the ACTUAL methodology you're going to use, what is this analogous 'wrench'?

We use the scientific method because it has proven, time and time again, to be the single best tool we have for understanding the world around us, what is your alternative?

Once again you assume that a particular tool is valid, while I do not.

Recipes are valid in the kitchen but have little or nothing to do outside of their domain.

While I agree with most, I do not subscribe to your faith or dogmatism in the process. I find it useful in much, but not all of what is the human experience. I am not getting sloppy here, I just do not want to subscribe to yet another religion.

Prove, tinker away, but do not project that you are the one and all holy grail. You may be, in time, but do not don your coronation gowns prematurely.

I know, and I don't. Hell, I don't really know anything, but I keep hoping someone else might.

Seriously? If you want evidence that they exist walk up to the nearest person and ask them to demonstrate a yawn for you. If you want information on why people yawn then hit up Wikipedia for a brief overview, or peruse the large body of scientific literature on the subject matter. Now please stop wasting my time.

Then please, first explain why you think that the scientific method is not a suitable tool for the investigation of ghosts. Then please explain what you think would be a better method, why it would be more suited than the scientific method, and what kind of track record your method currently has when it comes to generating predictive theories (or if you aren't trying to generate predictive theories, just what your method is trying to accomplish).

If it was a man-on-the-street type question of what science is I really couldn't care less what people say. However, when someone specifically starts trying to take a dig at the scientific process starting from a false premise then sorry, but I'm going to hold them accountable for their ignorance.

I always thought science = truth until I looked up "science" in the dictionary recently. Why? Because almost every debate about religion I've encountered since I was a child, had atheists saying that if science can't prove it, then it's not real(doesn't exist, fiction). So it's an easy mistake to make to think science = truth. And I'm sure DarrkPhoenix is one of the few people who know the real definition of "science" and use the word "science" properly according to the English dictionary.

I don't disagree that it is a valid method for the study of anything; it just might not be suitable for some subjects.

I only disagree when a particular group states that something is, or isn't, on the basis of their findings. Within their study, or control, that might be, but that is it.

ie: Tool might not work in some areas. Will never prove God, for example, one way or the other. Belief in, or not, is entirely subjective regardless of the rationalizations or proofs provided.

Edit to add

So again, what method do you think should be employed for providing evidence that ghosts exist, and why do you think it's better than the scientific method? I'm not even asking you to provide any such evidence, just an outline of the method you think would be best suited to obtaining such evidence. Or would you like to just make the claim that all you're interested in doing is idly speculating, evidence (or lack thereof) be damned?

Ghost exist, but encounters and experiences are real rare. Here is a long winded story I belatedly told after Halloween on the subject http://www.gog.com/forum/general/do_you_believe_in_ghosts/page7.

Science is the best tool we have for verifying facts.