Studying the supernatural

This topic has been at the fringe, and sometimes the focus, of a number of debates here. Apologies to those who are weary of it, as acknowledgement of this fact I have attempted to tie things in with the EvC theme this forum is intended for. If preferred, I'll add this to an open thread.

Can science even investigate the supernatural?

There are of course two broad possible answers to the question posed by this debate. There are others, I'll leave those as an exercise for the student.

1. Intrinsically, no
   ​
   Science studies the natural and so by definition can not investigate the supernatural. This seems like a reasonable position enough to take, Stephen J. Gould formulated famously as Non-Overlapping MAgisteria.

   quote:

   ---

   But I also know that souls represent a subject outside the magisterium of science. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact my domain.

   ---

   ​
   This is certainly a valid way of defining things. Science studies a set domain and if something existed out of this domain then science cannot study it.
   ​
   Of course, it may be true that such a domain exists, but that is only so because it has been defined that evidence and reason cannot be employed in ruling it out...and that's the only way we know how to reliably rule things out.
   ​
   The problem with this - if it weren't apparent - is that, if it were true that the scientific method cannot be applied, then how can anyone know anything about the supernatural? One can invoke alternative ways of knowing than the scientific method such as through appeals to personal experience, of course, and this has been done considerably in other threads.
   ​
   For instance, I know I own a cat. This isn't because science has studied the cat and confirmed its existence. And the argument goes that I know I own a cat because I experience the cat personally. Even if I lived alone and had no visitors I could still say I know I own a cat.
   ​
   So surely then, if I can know I have a cat - with no evidence but my own personal experiences of the cat, we can know a god with no evidence but our own personal experiences of the god.
   ​
   So goes the argument, to boil it down.
   ​
2. Yes, of course
   ​
   Here I find myself allying with creationists. What joyous times!
   ​
   The thing is, science investigates what can detected. It doesn't care whether the thing being detected is metaphysically natural or metaphysically supernatural. Science is a methodology for investigations.
   ​
   Our ancestors may survive in some supernatural realm detectable only to spirit mediums. If that is so, then by definition science can say nothing except that people lie, or can be delusional and that such theories are evidentially supported.
   ​
   On the other hand, ghosts may exist. And these are detectable. Whether it be by sight, sound, or maybe vibrating at frequencies above visible light. Whatever, if they can be detected science can confirm their existence.
   ​
   Most people would be happy to call a ghost supernatural, but if the Intrinsically, no people insist then it must be that ghosts are actually natural phenomena in this setup.
   ​
   And this is where creationists and I agree. After all, most of them believe that science will ultimately vindicate everything they've said. To them, science is still the study of God's creation and through it, we can prove God's imminent existence. Where we disagree is the current status of that situation: They think we're getting there, some even think we're there now.
   ​
   Since the large part of the creationist position is premised on the notion that a set of supernatural events occurred that can be evidenced in a scientific context, we should not adhere to the strict non-overlapping understanding of the supernatural in the context of EvC.

In conclusionIf debate is to be meaningful we have to grant that it is possible to infer some information about the supernatural based on its natural effects. There are some supernatural propositions which have very subtle or no natural effects. These maybe impossible, or impractically difficult for science to study, indeed they are as impossible as those that construct them intend for them to be.But not all constructs that are deemed 'supernatural' are necessarily closed to science to study. For all we know, the supernatural realm may follow certain regularities or laws that can be inferred from the natural. In which case, science will expand its borders without worrying about the philosophical objections people might throw up.And herein lies my final argument: If the 'Intrinsically, no' people are right - there is no way they can know they are right. Their only source of information about this realm is via a detection system that we know is prone to false positives (the human mind), with little to no capacity for corroboration. Furthermore, if they are right, they have no way of knowing if gods, ghosts, djinn or domovoi are in fact supernatural beings.Science studies experienced phenomena (whether direct or indirect experience). If the supernatural can be experienced, science can study it. Even if it means paradigm shifting upheavals. If the supernatural cannot be experienced, science can still study entities that are commonly called supernatural - but the Intrinsically, no people will just insist they are natural.

Thread copied here from the Studying the supernatural thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well, a couple of points. First, you say that science hasn't confirmed the existence of the cat. Yes it has. You have made observations consistent with the hypothesis that you have a cat. It doesn't matter that while you did this you were not wearing a white coat and employed as a Professor of Cat Recognition.Second, if there was ever any doubt as to whether you actually have a cat or whether you merely have persistent illusions of a cat, you could and would ask someone else; you wouldn't have to rely on your personal experiences.

How can we confirm the existence of that which defies study.
Science deals with objective truths. If something is inmaterial how can it be examined? If something is not composed of matter how can it be studied? Yes psycology and social sciences can study ideas and such, but I am speaking about ghost and spirits.
There has not been one single shred of physical evidence to suggest such things exist that has not been debunked as clap trap. Dr. Randi even has a standing one million dollar offer for anyone who can produce such evidence.

Also, if a supernatural being was able to affect the natural world, then we could study these effects.
Granted, we would not be able to draw many conclusions, but we could study these 'occurrences'.
e.g.
If the FSM turned chickens into intelligent mammals over-night then we could definitely study these changes.

quote:

---

Can science even investigate the supernatural?

---

If you consider "studying the effects of a supernatural being" to be the same as "studying a supernatural being" then I would answer: yes.Being able to differentiate between "natural effects" and "supernatural effects" would be difficult, though.
I expect we would require something as sudden and as impossible as the chicken example above.

If something is immaterial how can it be experienced at all? Have you heard of the mind body problem? If something cannot be experienced how can any concept of it be derived from anywhere but the internal workings of a creative brain? Are these ghosts and spirits detectable? If so how? Can they be seen? Touched? Heard? Science deals with detectable reality. Our investigations into detectable reality show us that humans will invoke "unknowable" beings and then start claiming to know various things about them.

Yes, of course science can investigate the supernatural.The thing is that when science investigate and explains the supernatural, it calls the result "natural." So the effect is to diminish what is considered supernatural, and to increase what is considered natural.Much that was once in the province of supernatural religion is now natural. If the religions were smart, they would embrace the natural and declare that their God is nature itself. However, they instead continue to insist on a supernatural God, and their God is being diminished as science moves areas from the mysterious supernatural to the understood natural.

I was presenting my opponents position in the strongest terms I could. I think I covered this point when I put my own position forward viz., "The thing is, science investigates what can detected...Science is a methodology for investigations. "I was more thorough in my first draft, but my first draft was three times longer than the final product. I have to leave something to debate, right? Precisely the point I was hoping to be able to make. Furthermore, there is independent evidence that cat's exist and that people own them.

Can you give an example?Because I really don't buy this whole "supernatural is just what hasn't been explained by science yet" malarky that you seem to be implying.For example - You could say that thunder and lightning was once supernatural and now isn't. I suppose. But that really doesn't do service to the explanation put forward on either side.For example - Thor as the conceptual cause of this phenomenon remains as conceptually supernatural as ever. And nothing science discovers will change that. Science doesn't make Thor natural. Science makes the supernatural explanation that is Thor redundant.Likewise it isn't the case that build up of electric static electric charge in clouds was once "supernatural" and is now "natural". This explanation is and always has been natural. It's just those who believed in Thor (or whoever) were (understandably) ignorant of such things.So my answer to "can we investigate the supernatural and how" is this - We investigate nature and where we find highly evidenced naturalistic alternatives to supernatural explanations we consider the supernatural explanation refuted to all practical intents and purposes.If however the supernatural explanation is borne out (i.e. we examine the Sun and it really is a Golden Armored being unbounded by the laws of physics riding a flaming chariot across the sky) then we acknowledge that there is actually a basis for such concepts.As yet no such evidence for any such entity has ever been forthcoming.

Yes..and have you heard of dreaming? You experience your dreams do you not? OKthen. I agree. Yes, it seems there are those among us that are privy to experiencing the supernatural. Just watch the show Ghost Hunters. roflmao Blink....did you just say "know" Blink...really...you did, didnt you you said the K word.

How are they detecting the supernatural? I experience all sorts of things that are the result of the internal workings of my physical brain with little relevance to external reality. But these don't really have anything to do with the mind body problem as applied to humans claiming to have detected immaterial supernatural entities.

Aah...but you don't 'know' he used the 'K' word.
You only know he "Knows" that you know that he knows, don't 'cha know.

Staggler, I really do not know that I believe they are in fact detecting the supernatural. And neither do you for that matter.However.....there are those who say big foot exist somewhere in the woods of North America. Is Big Foot supernatural?There are those who say Aliens are making anal probes on human specimens. Are Aliens supernatural?And of course those who say ghost exist, are ghost supernatural?We defined a zillion times on this board what we all say is supernatural. We all agree that a the supernatural is that which exist outside of the laws of this natural universe. Which imo means it does not exist. If ghost exist they are natural imo. We just as of yet do not have a way of explaining them that coincides with what we know up to this point. Or its bull shit. Take your pick.

Well, I could part the Red Sea for you. Quite so --- but that's exactly because there are supernatural things that could be examined and studied if they were real. If I could read your mind or levitate or foretell the future or whatever, I could prove it and get the million dollars.The whole point of him offering the prize is not that in principle the supernatural is undemonstrable, so he can always get out of paying, but rather that in practice the supernatural is undemonstrable, 'cos of not being real, so that he will in fact never have to pay.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No we don't. See the OP for a counterexample to this universal. If you are in the 'intrinsically, no' crowd - the answer must necessarily be 'I don't know and I can never know'If you are in the 'yes, of course' crowd, then yes ghosts are supernatural but they are potentially studyable. I believed I called that shot in the OP, too