Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Wrong. Supernatural notions have been great at explaining many things. In fact, they do so even better than scientific notions, assuming we measure the success of an explanation as a function of how many things it does not leave unexplained. Where supernatural notions fail is not in their ability to explain, but in their ability to explain empirically. This is to be expected, though, since by their definition supernatural notions are not concerned with empirical things.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Can you explain what supernatural means? And perhaps give an example of something supernatural?Maybe natural methodologies can explain it and the word "super" can be removed. So just one example will work.- Oni

So you're saying that we have to accept claims made by humans that a phenomenon is actually supernatural and that no method exists to explain it? We simply have to accept this claim at face value? Is that what you're saying?How do you know anything is beyond the realm of nature? Are you accepting these claims without proper investigation?Why do science at all then? Just claim everything is beyond the realm of science and that's it, we've placed it outside of any known methods of invistigations. Pack your books, class is over kids.- Oni

Wrong. Superstition notions are only great at explaining away many things.Where superstition fails is not in the ability to explain away, but the ability to explain productively. There are neither new data nor new avenues of inquiry in superstition explanations and their predictions. Wrong. The superstition notions are concerned primarily with empirical things, i.e., our empirical world. They claim a causal relationship with it. However misty superstitionalists make their causal powers, we can test everything about them on the effect side of the equation in this empirical world.You are reciting your denials like a politician. Turn off the teleprompter and defend your assertions like a man. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : clarity

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

No, that's not what I'm saying. Supernatural claims are of no concern to science, not natural ones. "[T]hat no method exists to explain it" clearly falls subject to the investigative techniques of the scientific method as it quite obviously makes claims about the natural order of things (saying 'no method' is a claim that all methods are false, and so includes natural ones, thus making science a perfect friend... at least in dealing with the natural ones).By the way, that little part I just dealt with wasn't in my original message nor part of my original claim; you added it. It is customary to avoid misrepresenting the viewpoints of others, but I'll assume this was an accident. Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Outside of nature; beyond nature. It's just as the root parts of the word would imply: super+natural. I think Thor was already given. With some minor tweaks, I'd accept that as a suitable example of something supernatural, even if the actions of Thor are not supernatural, but instead (supposedly) interrupt the natural orders of our world.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Hi, Straggler.That was about the worst job I’ve done explaining myself in a long time. It doesn’t even make sense the way I said it. My apologies. My position is not that the mere existence of a supernatural alternative makes confidence invalid, but that comparisons with a supernatural alternative make confidence invalid.In your gravity example, you’re not presenting a natural and a supernatural alternative: you are just presenting two alternatives, the natural/supernatural quality of which are not known. I know of at least two natural situations in which your pen-drop scenario will not result in falling: (1) a tornado; (2) an electromagnet. If the pen were to fly out the window, I would be inclined to first analyze the probabilities of these (or similar) naturalistic alternatives before resorting to supernature, and I think you would too.I can dismiss these two naturalistic alternatives based on the following reasoning and evidence:

1. You weren’t intentionally including tornadoes or electromagnets, so any interference by these things would have to be coincidental.
2. The chances of a tornado coincidentally interfering are pretty low, even in Tornado Alley.
3. Tornadoes are predictable, so the trial would likely be cancelled long before a tornado interfered.
4. The chances of a magnet coincidentally interfering are also pretty low.
5. Not all pens respond to magnetism, anyway.

All of these things give me the means to quantify probabilities of different naturalistic alternatives, and allow me to say that I have confidence in one of them.However, I cannot say that this confidence is robust to the supernatural alternative you describe above (again, my apologies for implying that I could in my last post). But, that’s okay, because I’m not comparing my expected result with the supernatural alternative when I calculate my confidence, anyway.In the case of the human imagination theory, only two alternatives have been presented for use in comparisons so far: (1) genuine supernature; (2) alien imagination. Since I am pretty sure that you don’t actually have the means to legitimately perform either of these comparisons, and that, even if you did, you haven’t actually performed either one, I am equally sure that your confidence is not statistically valid.-----My second observation on the matter is that gravity isn’t really a naturalistic explanation: it’s just a pattern. Remember that only nature has to obey patterns: supernature may or may not obey patterns. Until there is a naturalistic explanation for the pattern, this gravity example is pretty disingenuous.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

My point here is not about gravity or it's explanation. This is about prediction and confidence. And the consequences of your position on our ability to confidently predict in the face of supernatural possibilities. A falling pen is just an easily tested prediction. The pen hasn't done anything yet. I am asking you to predict it's behaviour. I am standing in an office in London so you can forget tornados and electromagnets. I ask that you actually consider the scenario below and directly answer the question put to you on the basis of that scenario.POSITED SCENARIO
The universe was supernaturally created fully formed, including our memories, two nano-seconds ago. It was created in such a way that things will behave very differently from the universe we falsely think we experienced. Natural laws as we know them do not apply.I am standing here holding my pen. I am going to let go of it. Question: Can I confidently dismiss the above scenario (unfalsified as it is) prior to dropping my pen? Can I confidently expect my pen (and indeed everything else) to function exactly as known natural laws would dictate because this scenario can be dismissed as deeply improbable. Straggler’s Answer: Of course I can confidently dismiss the above scenario. Of course I can be utterly confident that my pen will simply fall to the floor under gravity. Because unlike those who preach the gospel of agnosticism I am not fixated on what it is that any given proposition says and how this itself affects what we can conclude about it. I do not concern myself with how cleverly unfalsifiable supernatural claims can be designed to be. Instead I simply ask on what basis the proposition is being put forwards in the first place. The supernatural scenario above is, just as is the case with ALL supernatural claims, completely baseless. It is a proposition made with no supporting evidence or even reason for consideration. We have no reason to even think that a scenario such as the above is even possible. Which means, based on the wealth of evidence that humans are willing and able to invent such concepts, the entire notion is all but certainly nothing more than the product of human imagination.So - Yes we can be completely confident that dropped pens will simply fall to the floor as expected. Bluejay's Answer: If you cannot confidently dismiss the supernatural scenario stated above without contradicting everything you have said about confidence being derived from statistically comparing naturalistic alternatives then you really have no position at all.Because unless you can confidently dismiss the supernatural scenario presented above your position as currently stated doesn't even allow confidence in the predicted behaviour of a dropped pen. OK. But that necessitates that you confidently dismiss the supernatural possibility detailed above. And that contradicts everything you have said about confidence, comparison and our ability to say anything about supernatural possibilities.Are you starting to see the problem with your position yet?

Then either we are already dead, or we soon will be.If the world will behave in a very different way from the kind of world we are adapted to, then we won't last long. There's no point in worrying about pens.

I see that I am having difficulty convincing folk that supernatural notions are outside the concern of science, so let me try a different angle. It appears my statements have been viewed as an attack on the power of science, as if saying that there are some affairs in which science has no part to play is somehow weakening to the methods so cherished by empiricists and materialists. However, I'd like to show these people why they're wrong to think like this--dead wrong.When I say that science is in no position to deal with the supernatural, I am only emphasizing a key aspect of its empirical strength: it rules out, from the get-go—indeed, from its very form and character—what any science-minded empiricist would consider bullshit. Case in point:

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 323:
POSITED SCENARIO
The universe was supernaturally created fully formed, including our memories, two nano-seconds ago. It was created in such a way that things will behave very differently from the universe we falsely think we experienced. Natural laws as we know them do not apply.

---

Untestable supernatural claims of this type exemplify well the point I am making. In as much as science can never prove them wrong it can also never prove them right. Such claims are not merely supernatural, but they are unscientific. As such, no one doing honest and good science gives a flying rat's ass about such things; they just don't care, because the concepts simply aren't scientific, they aren't subject to the scientific method nor to empirical testing—they are scientifically useless. As Straggler later goes on to say:

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 323:
I do not concern myself with how cleverly unfalsifiable supernatural claims can be designed to be.
...
But that necessitates that [one] confidently dismiss the supernatural possibility detailed above.

---

On the flip side, if I'm wrong, and these methods are subject to review by the scientific method, then it means one little thing must be accepted as true: the scientific method has no screening system. Of course, this is false; the scientific method has a wonderful screening system: look at our claims and determine if they are falsifiable; if they aren't, then to hell with them.Is there anyone out there yet who still thinks we need to admit supernatural claims to review by the scientific method, thus confessing their statuses as full-blown hypotheses, finding them wanting, and considering them failed? I believe to do so seriously undermines the credibility of the scientific method. I s'pose others think elsewise on the matter, but then I'd like to see their proof. Why are you pretending supernatural crap is scientific?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Most claims can be evaluated against empirical evidence.In the case of a some claims involving the supernatural, there is no empirical evidence against which to evaluate those claims. An invisible, undetectable spirit in the sky is one such claim.But in the case of many claims involving the supernatural, for example a young earth, a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago, lightning caused by a deity, and disease caused by evil spirits, science can examine those claims and come up with alternate explanations for the phenomena.Are you suggesting that claims of this nature should not be evaluated by science? If science avoided any question or area or claim made by one religion or another, it would be out of business.How about this: science examines the natural world, and if some of it's findings contradict the beliefs of one religion or another, that's just too bad?What else would you have science do? Just quit?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

These aren't supernatural claims.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Sure they are.But if you believe otherwise, please back up your assertion.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi, Straggler. No, you can’t. But, this has no bearing on confidence.No, you can’t. But, this has no bearing on confidence.No, you can’t. But, this has no bearing on confidence. That’s for the next two times you ask me, as well, because past experience has shown me that my answering it has no effect on whether or not you’re going to ask it again, so I decided to stockpile them now.I have answered this question five times now (including the three above). I would like it to go into the record this time.-----Straggler, I really need to stop participating in this debate: it’s fruitless, pointless and, most of all, not fun. There’s a personality profile that spells a recipe for major disaster whenever they get into discussions with Straggler: obsessive-compulsive, meticulous, overly analytical, pedantic and not an atheist. See Rob, Iano and RAZD for examples.And, unfortunately, I fit the profile too. But, I don’t intend to let my participation in one stupid, pedantic topic define the rest of my participation at EvC, as Rob, Iano and RAZD have. I’m done with it: you’ll never hear (see, actually) another word about the supernatural from me.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

They all make claims about the natural world:

quote:

---

Coyote in Message 72:
a young earth

---

If I claim the Earth is 6,000 years old, that is as falsifiable (and natural) as the claim that it is 4.5 billion years old. Why is it supernatural? Because it happens to be wrong?

quote:

---

Coyote in Message 72:
a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago

---

If I claim a global flood, that is as falsifiable (and natural) as the claim that there was significant global volcanic activity c. 4.5 billion years ago. Why is it supernatural? Because it happens to be wrong?

quote:

---

Coyote in Message 72:
lightning caused by a deity

---

Unless this claim also allows claims about other causes to be true, it too is merely a disguised claim about the natural world because it implies "no other things (natural ones included) cause lightning". If I claim Zeus causes lightning and electricity in the sky does not, that is as falsifiable (and natural) as saying electricity in the sky causes lightning and Zeus does not. Why is it supernatural? Because it happens to be wrong?

quote:

---

Coyote in Message 72:
disease caused by evil spirits

---

Unless this claim also allows claims about other causes to be true, it too is merely a disguised claim about the natural world because it implies "no other things (natural ones included) cause disease". If I claim Loki causes disease and germs do not, that is as falsifiable (and natural) as saying germs cause disease and Loki does not. Why is it supernatural? Because it happens to be wrong?

quote:

---

Coyote in Message 72:
science can examine those claims and come up with alternate explanations for the phenomena.

---

Of course... because they're not supernatural.You might want to specify just how you're defining supernatural. Perhaps we've merely a disagreement in terminology, but I've never understood claims on the age of the Earth, Earth's geological history, or the causes of lightning and disease to be claims at all supernatural. Since you claim they are, though, I assume you've the evidence to back you; but I'd still like to see it nonetheless.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : Uploaded content. My apologies for that down-time; I appreciate your waiting and kindness.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar