Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

The inclusion in the claim of a causal agent which is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and which is itself claimed to materially inexplicable.

We'll need a definition of supernatural that allows (or disallows) verification inherently to be able to say that for sure.In the Mubu example - it might be possible to experiment more precisely with sacrificing to different beings. If the effect only happened when something was sacrificed to Mubu, then that would be fairly decent supportive verifying evidence - for example.Any other questions? Do you still stand by your claim that the supernatural is "inherently untestable"?

Thank you, Straggler. I appreciate your response, but with all respect, my question was directed at Coyote. As you've already been kind enough to provide a stable and solid definition for 'supernatural', I am already well aware of where you stand on the matter. Coyote, on the other hand, appears to be using a different definition, and so understanding that definition will assist me in a discussion with Coyote.Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Perhaps you'd be willing to provide such a definition? Why must only one deity be real-enough to effect higher yields? If there was an increase in yield after sacrifices to any 'supernatural' entity, why would this not support them all? If there is an increase in yield after sacrificing to Mubu and after sacrificing to Yubeem, but not when sacrifices are made to others, is this 'fairly decent supportive verifying evidence' for Mubu and Yubeem? What if it is three deities? Four? How many deities must be 'confirmed' before we have 'too many' to serve as 'supportive verifying evidence'?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

You didn't?

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 466:
If the supernatural concept under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable, how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?

---

How do you perceive something that is 'immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable' which 'originated as a human concept' from nowhere 'other than the internal workings of the human mind'? Unless you're talking about the perception of the effects, which, as you've admitted are either themselves 'immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable' (thus, imperceptible) or impossible (i.e., they are empirically detectable, but cannot exist, as, per your own admission, 'something with no relation or connection to the material and natural world', something 'immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable', cannot 'effect actions in that world', the empirically detectable world).This is a minor point, of course. So, 'failure' in your eyes is the state of being superseded by an alternate, better-evidenced explanation? Would you say any explanations that inherently lack evidence are 'failures' by this definition?JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

You are missing out on a few important concepts.#1) Plausible mechanism.
If you want to imply that goat sacrifice causes better harvest, you need to at least postulate a mechanism. In this case, it's "magic" - which unfortunately for you is the same thing as saying "make believe".No one claims that gravity is caused by magic or that magnets are caused by magic. "Magic" is the answer people give when they are too lazy to bother doing the work.#2) Plausible causal agent.
If you want to imply that goat sacrifice causes better harvest through "magic" from Mubu, you need to explain why murdering a goat would have this sort of outcome. Why does the non-corporeal, all powerful, eternal Mubu require the murder of a lowly goat in order to make plants grow?#3) Control group
You don't test the plausibility of a "magical" event by performing a slightly different "magical" event and seeing if you get similar results.You test the plausibility of a magical event by NOT performing it and seeing if you get the same results.You need two fields next to each other and growing the same crops. Sacrifice a goat for one field and leave the other one alone. THEN evaluate the effect.#4) Quantifying the results.
"Increase in yield" is not a specific definition upon which to assume the presence of and interaction with a "magical" being.If the difference in yield from one field to the next is 5% or less, that can be adequately explained by noise in computation, differences in soil, drainage, shade, wind direction, harvesting technique, harvesting time, etc etc etc.In order to demonstrate magical agency the difference in yield between the two fields needs to be UNQUESTIONABLY substantial.For example: If you murder a goat in this field, it yields 500% MORE crops than in the field right next door.#5) Demonstrable change in production
Not just an increased yield. If we are talking about an all powerful deity using magical powers, we want to see that mechanism demonstrated in ways which can not be explained through normal growth processes.If you plant field A and B on the same day, then sacrifice a goat in field A, field A should be ready to harvest 15 minutes later. The plants should magically burst from the ground and ripen at a rate unseen and unexplainable through any means apart from magic.Having plants grow at the same pace as the control field is insufficient to demonstrate supernatural agency.

Not particularly: it isn't relevant to my point and to do it well would take a lot of effort and would probably have to be honed by lots of minds to be worth discussion. I never said that must be the case. Why would you infer it? It would support them all or a general entity. Yes. How many steps does it take before something is beyond walking distance? The more there are, the stronger the hypothesis of some more general explanation (for instance, a single supernatural entity that has several names).You are still diverting from the original point I raised which was about falsification, not verification. Are you going to get to the point soon so that you can go back to addressing Message 465, as you assured me you would a dozen questions or so ago?If you want a definition, you'll only find me repeating that I think it is an incoherent concept invented to explain why study of the natural world kept not discovering ghosts and demons and angels and fairies and gods and ghouls and goblins and domovoi and leszi, djinn...It's incoherent opportunism is another hallmark of its failure as a theory-class.

No I didn't.If you wanna discuss the problems that supernaturalists face regarding contradictory claims that the supernatural is both imperceptible and yet somehow evidenced I am happy to oblige. But please don't make out this is some sort of weakness in my position because this particular supernatural claim happens to be widespread amongst supernaturalists. You cannot. That is kinda my point. If you think you have any point at all can you specify what exactly your point is and an example of this point in practical terms? As per imperceptible entities - If ones explanations are derived from no evidence whatsoever then how can they be anything other than derived from human imagination?

You have yet to show that what you are testing with your experiment is 'supernatural'. So the only thing keeping me from proving Mubu, or some other 'general entity' is the lack of correlation between sacrifices to any said entity and an increase in yield? Soon, yes. I am still trying to understand the workings of your test for supernatural hypotheses. Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

By the definition under use, it is. The definition being 'a set of entities included in which are immaterial agents with intentionality that can influence material things'. Not at all. The principle of fallibilism is preventing you from proving Mubu The simple answer is: If a natural event causes another natural event by means of a being classed as supernatural above we can perform a test:If the first natural event is shown to have no causal influence over the second natural event then we have demonstrated that the supernatural claim must be false. This is because the supernatural agent cannot be causing an effect which doesn't actually occur.That's all. How one might provide supporting evidence for such a supernatural entity is not important to the point. It is possible, in all the same ways one provides supporting evidence for any claim - it is only made difficult by the vague nature of the claims so often put forward.

What is the definition of 'supernatural'? If 'supernatural' is, by definition, 'immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable' things which 'originated as a human concept' from nowhere 'other than the internal workings of the human mind'; and if things which are 'immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable' which 'originated as a human concept' from nowhere 'other than the internal workings of the human mind' cannot be perceived, does that not make 'immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable' things which 'originated as a human concept' from nowhere 'other than the internal workings of the human mind' imperceptible? And if 'immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable' things which 'originated as a human concept' from nowhere 'other than the internal workings of the human mind' define 'supernatural' is not the 'supernatural' by definition, then, imperceptible? That didn't answer the question. Would you say any explanations that inherently lack evidence are 'failures' by this definition?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

The reason you're confused is that Straggler is telling you that he does not consider supernatural beings to be imperceptible by definition.You quote him in another post saying: Note the "If the supernatural concept under consideration" bit.You seem to be taking this as meaning that "immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable" is part of his definition of all things supernatural, rather than the description of just one specific supernatural concept he's discussing.

Jon if you have a position beyond being a pedantic arse in this thread I am failing to see it. But I shall continue to correct your misapprehensions and answer your questions regardless.Coz that's the congenial kinda guy I am. You keep asking me what I mean by supernatural and then completely ignoring what I say. Here it is again. A concept is supernatural if it is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and is itself thus deemed to be materially inexplicable.Now if you want to specifically talk about supernatural concepts which are claimed to be entirely imperceptible as well we can. There are plenty of such concepts around. And (bizzarrely given that you seem intent on arguing with me on this issue) we seem to largely agree that such concepts are necessarily products of the human mind.But if you had read my previous posts in this thread then you would also know that I have specifically cited examples of supernatural concepts which are not considered to be entirely imperceptible. I'd say any explanation posited on the basis of no evidence at all (i.e. a baseless proposition that effectively amounts to biased guessing) will almost certainly be wrong. Being almost certainly wrong doesn't exactly qualify as a success does it?But I am not sure what you mean "by this definition". By what definition?

Of course it is. If you feel the claim to be inherently 'unevidencible', then judging it on a scale that only weighs evidence is improper. You cannot judge something based on its conformity to a system to which that something never claimed to conform. Your results will always be skewed. Do you judge the weight of an apply by assessing its 'redness'? If you do such a thing and your results are off, is it the apple's fault? The apple farmer's fault? How is it possible? 'It's difficult to do' is not an acceptable answer. This is special pleading. In all other applications of science, opposite results lead to opposite conclusions. In the case of Mubu, either the conclusion you are drawing is not wholly supported by the results of the test, or an opposite set of results (showing positive crop response) should yield the opposite conclusion (that sacrifices to Mubu makes crops bigger).Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

But I'm talking about performing a falsification test on a falsifiable supernatural theory so none of that applies.In case you want to continue down this path I use a falsification test to try to falsify a falsifiable theory. If it is falsified it is not anybody's 'fault' - it just means the theory is false. Give me a complete account of the supernatural and I'll try to figure that out for you.For instance does supernatural materia become visible on the 16th October 2010 (GMT)? If so - I think I can conceive a possible way to provide supporting evidence for the supernatural.Does it exert a natural force under any conditions? Then you've misunderstood the experiment.Here are the possible results and conclusion:pre-sacrificed crops do better - Sacrificing to Mubu increases crop yield.a-sacrificed crops do better - Not sacrificing to Mubu increases crop yield.The crops do equally well - Sacrificing to Mubu has no more effect on crop yield than not sacrificing to Mubu.If the latter result is obtained this then falsifies the theory 'Sacrificing to Mubu will increase crop yields as Mubu will protect your crops from disease spirits' (and the theory 'Not sacrificing to Mubu will increase crop yields')IF you want to balance things out to avoid 'special pleading' you can do it yourself. If the results are the first one then the theory 'Sacrificing to Mubu won't..." is falsified and so on. Now each result has its opposite conclusion accounted for.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.